Jorge Castaneda is a policymaker and professor of great interest who writes about Mexico and Latin America as a whole. During my time working in Washington DC, it seemed like he put off many policymakers inside the Beltway during his time as Mexico’s Foreign Minister as part of the Fox Administration from 2000 to 2003. Many claim he left that position in 2003 due to his open and honest approach, some would say overly honest approach, towards policymaking between the US and Latin America. Currently he teaches at NYU, and over the years has produced some very strong centrist articles and books on topics covering Mexico, Latin American foreign policy and US foreign policy towards Latin America. Last week he wrote a fascinating article in The New Republic that will likely characterize policy towards the region over the next decade. The Article at TNR.com called Adios, Monroe Doctrine: When the Yanquis go home is Mr. Castaneda’s contribution to the series of New Years 2010 articles predicting the future of the region over the next twelve months and longer. He discusses the lack of involvement the US has had in the region over the last few years, and is one of the few experts on foreign policy in the region who has praised the reduction of US involvement, while pointing out that the US needs to still realize its natural role within Latin America.

Castaneda is one of the few writers on Latin American relations who writes in the same un-tempered fashion in Spanish for the Latin American audience as he does in English for a mostly US based audience. While policymaking involves wording criticism diplomatically as well as achieving goals which are often based on compromise as well as interest, his activities as an academic at NYC allows for open critical thought as well as a balanced and realistic approach towards US-Latin American relations. This is surely a result of his time as a diplomat affecting his time as an academic, and is appreciated on a practical level. His recent article is a reflection of this, as he asks the question whether the lack of US involvement is due to an inability to control conflicts in the region, or does the US simply not care about Latin America as a whole? He points out two major issues in the region over the last decade, that of the degree and failure of US involvement in ousting Chavez, and the will to construct an immigration wall on the US-Mexico border. Generally those two “major” policy events have had little impact on US relations as a whole. Chavez’s experience in possibly becoming a victim of an assassination attempt has become the core thesis of every speech he has given since 2002, and will soon be put on the big screen by director Oliver Stone, and the poor economic conditions in the US has reduced the number of migrants crossing the border for the time being. US allies in the region have had their own successes, namely Brazil economically, and Colombia in ensuring its own internal security, or at least giving a lot of reassurance to Colombia’s citizens that the government is regaining control for the first time in a generation. The leftists in the region have had some influence as well, but have not changed the environment for the US to such a degree that massive involvement by the US in the region would make a difference for Obama or the US in general. Most left wing criticisms still do focus on the US, but a lack of action by the US might force left wing leaders to claim personal responsibility for any internal issues as opposed to using the US as a scapegoat, whether they had involvement or not. The history of the US in Latin America does give a lot of ammunition to leftists in the region, but with Venezuela still selling oil to the US and Ecuador still basing its currency on US dollars, rhetoric does not seem to have much influence these days on actual policy, albeit as long as everyone knows where to draw the line between actions and words.

Castaneda writes that two events might return the US to its former position as hegemon of Latin America. While many elections in smaller countries have been influenced by left wing leaders in Latin America, a country like Peru, with a lot of US investment, might create a cause for a stricter response from the US if this larger and wealthier nation were to become the next Venezuela. Recent nationalisations without just compensation of industries in Venezuela by the office of the President is likely the expected line in the sand for US involvement in Venezuela, but would not be seen as acceptable towards US companies in Peru. Another action that would likely elicit a strong response from the US is the increase in physical activities between Iran and Venezuela. While Brazil has opened some ties with Iran economically, political ties linking weapons or nuclear exchanges has been discouraged in Brazil. These ties however have been encouraged by Chavez in Venezuela, and while Castaneda claims that those ties are simply rhetoric in nature at the moment, he also states that a physical exchange would bring a strong response from the US, especially considering the amount of Russian arms that have been flowing into Venezuela recently and if those arms are found to be sent to Iran, or nuclear material is found to be send to Venezuela.

While we often write about similar issues on the Latin America Blog, it is interesting to compare and contrast similar debates with other experts. While there is a lot of agreement on the issues, I wished to note that there was no discussion of trade between places like China, and how that might affect US relations with Latin America, as it would affect relations between the US and Iran, or the US and Africa. I encourage comments on these topics and hope that everyone will take a moment to read Jorge Castaneda’s article. It is quite fascinating.

Andres Oppenheimer of the Miami Herald wrote an intriguing piece recently on the splash effect of the coup, or crisis, or whatever term least offends someone of Honduras’ new leadership and recent election, and how the major powers in Latin America have tried unsuccessfully to remedy the situation. Oppenheimer argues that the US, Brazil and the OAS have all succeeded in failure in their own unique ways. Failure for the three comes as follows. For Brazil, its “hypocrisy” of recognizing Iran’s and Cuba’s undemocratic leadership, while criticizing Honduras’ recent elections. For the US, the “flip-flopping” that comes with a constant backtracking of statements on Honduras. This is most poignantly shown in the support the US gives to the new government, while asking for greater cooperation, often after the fact when it is too late to alter elections or policy decisions. The OAS, comes in with its own actions of “one-sidedness” for taking the side of Zelaya completely and ignoring the rights and established powers of the institutions of Honduras and their legal system in ousting the former President. The Oppenheimer article is one of great interest and makes very strong points against the major powers in the region, one well worth a read.

Many of the criticisms of the article, the main powers in the region, and the Honduran actors themselves are not ones that began or will end in Honduras. The key question is why we are so interested in Honduras in the first place? The result of their elections will not have any significant effect on the region, and many of the countries in Central America are more left wing or more right wing than Honduras’s will ever become. It is more likely that the reaction by the powers in the region come at a time where their future foreign policy and their position in the world has not yet been scribed, namely, this minor coup; or whatever one might call it, is the first real test of new governments in the US and new foreign policies that have yet to be refined in Brazil.

Working from the ground up, the OAS often sways with the wind that blows the strongest, namely the US can push the OAS in the direction is most desires with the response coming from states which have previously not been members, such as Cuba, or those who have limited sway in the region leading its greatest opposition. In the end, words are exchanged and little is enforced without the push from major powers in the region. The US position on Zelaya shaped much of the OAS’ reaction as most of the Americas initially responded to the crisis in Honduras in a similar fashion.

The US on Honduras is a symbol of America’s lack of effectiveness on many foreign issues, but is more of a reflection of the passive response to Latin America by the US since 2002, with the exception of Mexico in 2008 and to some degree Colombia. A reflection of this is the successful operation in freeing Ingrid Betancourt and strikes by the Colombian Army against the FARC. While success came from the Colombian Army and US assistance, the rescue was attributed in the narrative to Colombia’s relative strength, even freeing some US citizens in the process. Giving credit to Colombia’s armed forces was paramount in the discussion of the rescue and the events which took place before the operation. In the narrative, the US gave a lot of the credit to Colombia itself, downplaying US intelligence support in the war against the FARC as a whole. Since 2008, the US role in Latin America has not yet been well defined. After a lack of attention since the second year of the Bush Administration and the new economic challenges creating an environment of protectionism vs. globalism, debates on Latin America in the US has yet to come to a clear policy decision. If the US wants its neighbours to become economic partners in the Americas, it has done little to reinforce this policy among its allies in the region. If the US decides to pull back from its international role and solve its economic and policy challenges on its own, most of its allies will take issue with this stance on foreign policy worldwide. Honduras is the first major issue in the Americas for the new US Administration, and to some degree “flip-flopping” is a result of indecisiveness in general and the lack of interest in Honduras when the media focus was not highlighting the problems with Zelaya and the Honduran government. Whatever the US plans to do with Honduras, it is likely not going to affect the final outcome of the new Honduran leadership, nor become the beginning of a new US policy towards Latin America.

Brazil is in an interesting position. Zelaya, knowing the possible influence Brazil will have in the future in the region and worldwide, chose to take refuge in the Brazilian Embassy in Honduras, thus dragging Brazil in the middle of the discussion on Honduras. Many on the left and right of the political spectrum see Brazil as a natural mediator to the region’s political debates. Brazil is a rising power, and can speak to everyone without being named as having a clear bias for or against the Chavistas, Castro supporters, US Hawks or US allies in Latin America. This position however is challenging as Brazil’s influence also is pressuring it to side with one international power or the other. Recently Brazil has welcomed representatives from Iran, and previously from Israel as well. Brazil is comfortable maintaining open ties with Venezuela and speaking directly to the US and Obama, as well as China and Europe on the many forums on the world stage. Brazil seeks to avoid many debates past issuing statements in order to keep an open path to growth and ties with any nation who wishes to support Brazil’s growing economy. Actions by Brazil which might be seen as “hypocrisy” could also be defined as avoiding conflict with major powers globally and in Latin America to keep Brazil growing at the expense of local and regional issues that at the moment do not directly affect Brazil. While the US is often pushed to decide on a policy on foreign conflicts, Brazil is simply being pulled into a conflict that many in Brazil would surely be happy to avoid completely.

The possibility of a lack of interest in Honduras by major powers could explain many contradictory policy actions my major powers in the Americas. The OAS, US and Brazil will eventually have to choose which relations in the region are worth promoting for internal reasons, and might have to create clear policy approaches to allies and foes in the region. Honduras and actions by Zelaya have polarized many supporters on each side of the debate, but issues in that country likely will not define the future of the region, or policy responses by major powers in the region in the long run. I cannot disagree with the conclusions of Mr. Oppenheimer, but at the same time the actions by the three agents of change in Latin America do not surprise me when discussing the crisis in Honduras.

An interesting turn of events has taken place in the last while. While the world has been facing a global recession, Latin America has been somewhat blessed with a pre-2008 oil boom that has yet to completely phase out, a super economy in the making which has fared relatively well over the last year, and a reputation of instability which is slowing being forgotten. In the mix is the discovery of oil off the Brazilian coastline and the rather rapid global rebirth of a Latin America which has prospective influence outside of the Americas. While oil has played a greater role in some countries than others, it is often the strength of the single commodity that can create or ruin a country.

As in an earlier posting this month on this blog, Brazil as a Unique BRIC, the difference between Brazil’s slow growth model and the dominance of oil politics in Russia and Nigeria will likely create significant winners and losers among many petroleum economies. Russia, while achieving great economic benefits from its oil and gas reserves, often uses its oil influence and Europe’s dependence on Russian fuel to leverage itself in Central-Western Europe and clamp down on former Soviet republics regarding other political interests. Nigeria’s oil wealth is often used as a giant power leverage against local political opposition in the rest of the country. The benefits of oil and the use of it to simply grow the national economy often creates a better economic engine than an oil company that operates for political leverage. Slow growth with an influx of funding can be distributed in a logical manner to balance communities in one society, but can also tear holes in formerly balanced societies as well.

In a European Courier Op-Ed by writer Gustavo Coronel, Gustavo compares the use of Petrobras in shaping Brazil alongside PEMEX in Mexico and PDVSA in Venezuela. The interesting comparison of the three is a reflection of the three paths Latin American countries often have taken in the last sixty years, sped up with the influence of oil wealth to change, alter and destroy Latin America’s three largest Petroleum fuelled economies. He details Petrobras’ reforms and private-public sector growth and growing international cooperation as he compares the often insular and untransparent PEMEX as a symbol of Mexican independence with the PDVSA which has turned from a fairly well run company pre-1999 into a symbol of Hugo Chavez’s personal independence. While Petrobras still has political influence shaping some of its policies, PEMEX has become a drain on Mexico due to heavy economic losses and lack of modernization and PDVSA has been turned into a tool of the state to be used for any make shift project that might win political support for Mr. Chavez. While I do not agree with all of Gustavo’s conclusions, I recommend reading the Op-Ed and posting comments below.

The history of the petroleum economy and OPEC in general usually has its political ties in the darker history of the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, but can become more than simply a missed opportunity. Brazil might be able to continue its successes if it can keep politically motivated executives outside of its slow growth approach and Petrobras and keep future politicians on the same economic path as followed by Cardoso and Lula Da Silva. The next debate will not be about oil economies however, the evolution of the oil economy will develop into a debate about the rights of those past energy giants to obtain nuclear capabilities in the international energy and security dialogue.

In the last few weeks, tensions in the Andean region grew as Chavez in one of his many speeches said that Venezuela should prepare for a hundred years of war, presumably referring to cold relations with its neighbour Colombia. The installation of seven future US military bases in Colombia brought much criticism as historically Latin America has not had the best relations with US intervention as a whole. While many of Colombia’s neighbours made a point of discussing their displeasure with the new military bases in the region, Chavez took it as another step to remove him from power in Venezuela.

The Economist magazine wrote an interesting piece last week on the building tensions between the two countries. The closing of successful trade ties, Colombians and Venezuelans being murdered at the border, Colombian’s increasing support for Mr. Uribe, and the lack of will for average Venezuelans for any war, never mind a one hundred year war, was the main focus of the article. Regarding security, the author claimed that Colombia’s well trained forces would likely be too much for Venezuela’s army, with the exception of new Sukhoi fighter bombers purchased from Russia over the last few years and new equipment in recent months. In reality, the security situation is more complex, as old powers and new powers race to establish ties in Latin America and Africa. Growth in some Latin America economies have brought much attention to the region, while security concerns have also been portrayed as being in the centre of a global security debate involving China’s economic influence, Iran’s nuclear ambitions and US hegemony in its own backyard and abroad.

While Colombia continues to maintain its ties with the US and its passive War on Drugs, Venezuela has been actively making stronger ties with foreign powers abroad in order to increase its security status and become a bigger player in the Americas. The problem with this is that while most of the actions by Chavez and his government are likely being done to gain support within Venezuela, they might lead to harsh reactions by others in the region if diplomacy is not considered to be an integral part of policy development between neighbours. Russia’s military exporting agency gladly takes order from Venezuela for top of the line fighter bombers, Anti-Aircraft systems, tanks, heavy lift helicopters and some large transport aircraft. Many aircraft publications detail the number, routes and types of aircraft being sold to Venezuela, many which can be used for civilian use or are upgraded versions of Sukhoi fighters bought years ago.  The most dangerous of the equipment bought is the S-300 anti-aircraft system, which is considered one of the most advanced in the world. While equipment purchases are large, it does not create a strong political tie between Russia and Venezuela, not more than what existed before. This may change, but it is unlikely to do so over the next few years to any great degree.

Recent active policy from China to secure markets which many Western countries tend to neglect or put trade conditions on have been the target for much of China’s limited expansion abroad. This has been economic in nature, but much of the wealth has also gone into updating China’s military capabilities by developing new aircraft and weapons locally and contracting and licensing the production of Russian weaponry to be made in China, along with buying much of the equipment outright. China has been opening trade ties with many countries in Latin America, through credit agreements and investments in the region as well. Some policy experts have claimed that the interests in the region have gone beyond economic, as talks of deep water ports and links with Cuba and Venezuela surface. While no concrete actions have taken place, the suggestions of deep water ports, which are signs of placing a blue water navy beyond local seas, could become a major issue in the future as the US and China seek to balance their power and security abroad.

Chavez this past year has taken great strides in solidifying Venezuela’s relations with Libya and Iran, visiting the Middle East and becoming a media partner of both leaders on several occasions. He even went as far as claiming Colombia was Latin America’s Israel, albeit while maintaining many of his ties with the Jewish community in Venezuela. The latest security issue on the world stage, Iran’s nuclear capability, also has a dimension in Venezuela as reports of open trade and technology transfer between the two nations grow. Claims by Chavez that a nuclear program with help from Iran would be of interest to Venezuela have also become an issue of some concern. While Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear program is a question of much debate, the suggestion that Venezuela might seek its own program with help from Iran may escalate the security situation in Latin America to become not one of a hundred year war, but one that would illicit a quick reaction from Venezuela’s adversaries, especially that of the US. Nuclear weapons near a US border from Iran would likely create massive support in the US against Venezuela, even with an Oliver Stone documentary in the works. As the Economist article suggests, while it is likely Chavez is simply posturing, there may be a point where a suggestion of war may become a reality..even if it is not intended.

November 10th brought much attention to Brazil as a blackout in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo shrouded Brazilians in darkness. The rest of the world on the other hand is starting to see Brazil in a new light as the BBC World Service reported the announcement of the first steps towards physically accessing massive oil reserves on Brazil’s coast. Brazil’s coastal reserves will possibly make it one of the largest oil fields to be developed globally in the last twenty years.

While signs of this oil find have been known since 2007, the positioning of Brazil as the third BRIC to become a significant economic power has become the focus of many economic success stories since the economic crisis began this time last year. The fifteen-minute blackout in Brazil’s two largest cities was nothing compared to the day long blackout of the Eastern US and Ontario Canada in 2003. While many weary Brazilian’s might see this as a sign of poor government control or a lack of proper infrastructure, the economic heart of the world has also blacked out for much longer periods of time and will remain strong despite electrical and economic issues in the past.

Brazil on the heels of the Olympic win might be able to claim a medal in the near future as the third BRIC to develop to its full economic potential. What is of more importance than being the third country of the four to grow into its own media hype, is the ability to stay in the running to become the most stable BRIC nation in the long run. Brazil is not a typical BRIC as its growth did not come about in the same fashion as Russia, India or China. Due to the resilience of its economy, diversity in its global position, and ever growing positive reputation outside of Brazil, the South American giant will likely become the next Super Economy.

Unlike the other BRIC nations, Brazil has grown to its current potential through a series of economic failures and lessons and has made diverse growth a part of its overall growth policy, in addition to a little luck. Politically, there have been many debates in the country and criticisms of policy and the new constitution since the 1990s, but the growth of the country from right of centre to left of centre governments have tried to maintain the same prudent growth strategy while addressing poverty reduction. Poverty reduction and community development combined with economic success has been a slow climb to bring Brazil into a position where its internal issues do not hinder its ability to position itself abroad.

In comparison to the other BRIC nations it must first be noted that the relation between the BRIC nations comes from some simple measures, mostly the physical and population size of the country, its relative economic weight, and political importance in its respective region. Success in these large developing economies could plausibly lead to another combination of four or more nations, which despite their size have little in common when considering growth and poverty reduction. Countries such as Mexico, Indonesia, Ukraine, Iran, Nigeria and Egypt could possibly become future BRICs, but have stronger similarities to a China or Brazil, Russia or India. In the future, the positive and negative growth trends of the original BRICs will likely become the typical measure for different developing countries that are large and emerging economically but have little in common with each other.

When referring to Brazil, it must be noted that its economic diversity and policies addressing poverty reduction outright is notably different than those growth policies in the other BRIC nations. Latin America only competes with Africa with regards to inequality between rich and poor, and this inequality is the historical and structural burden of every Latin American country and citizen. For this reason, when luck arrives in the form of a previously undiscovered oil field, the use of its revenues to grow the economy for the whole of society can be relatively balanced with equitable policy or the expectations of such revenues for Brazil as a whole. Structural problems in places like Nigeria or Iran simply turns its vast oil wealth into a source of wealth for few and is used as political leverage against its own citizens. Russia, one of the co-BRICs, also is a country with large amounts of oil and gas, but often it is used to leverage itself politically against its neighbours and maintain its own security position in the region. The lack of diversity in the Russian economy and its link to oil and gas as its main commodity might bring in a lot of economic successes in good times, but it can harm the Russian economy when oil or other commodities are hurt in poor times. Russia becomes a BRIC however as the potential of a diverse economy and a large population could make it into a large economic power as opposed to a significant country for solely security reasons and cultural influence. Brazil’s long term policies and diverse training and economy has been able to balance its resources with other economic leverages, oil simply supports the Brazilian economy, but is not the economy itself.

With regards to China and India, links to Europe and North America has played a large role in the rapid growth of both these economies. Chinese growth is completely linked with the US consumer and other Western consumers who purchase much of their lost cost items from factories in China. These factories sell directly to US and European companies who choose to move their manufacturing to China and delegate production to small manufacturing concerns in China. Quality and safety becomes an issue for many large multinationals as they can only monitor production by second hand means, and growth in China also becomes dependent on many workers with artificially low wages to grow the country. Legal measures and equality are limited for the sake of growth, and this medium term strategy may likely fail in the long term if wages do not rise or few Chinese are allowed to benefit in the long term. It is not to say that China’s growth is limited, but policy approaches to balance growth with benefits must be addressed to make China into what the pre-2008 media hype believes it to become.

India has tried to address policy concerns and poverty reduction to some degree and might become a more stable economy in the long term, due to its large labour force, basic legal development of employment concerns, and diversity of economic growth as seen in its diversity in production, services, and technological training. India also has strong ties to the UK traditionally and may become a source for UK wealth as the financial sector in the UK continues to finance and fund growth in India due to their close relationship. India’s influence economically is also strongly tied to security issues and concerns as its growth is challenged by China’s economy and Pakistan’s and Afghanistan’s internal security issues which often brings India into the debate.

Links between growth in India and China and its European and American counterparts is responsible for much of their rapid growth, and many of its challenges as well. Brazil’s economy has recently been linking to a greater degree with other BRIC nations, but has often has balanced links with the US, EU, Asia and the rest of the world. Links with the EU and US over the last 40 years often bounced between 25% to 40% of Brazil’s economy and maintained a diverse position economically. Focus on MERCOSUR and Latin America has given Brazil better leverage and has balanced its influence in the world economy. While the US has been slow to react to Brazil’s influence outside of Latin America, other nations in the Americas would do well to take advantage of Brazil’s emerging position. Countries like Canada that are diverse and share an economic position like Brazil as not being terminally damaged by the economic recession of 2008-2009 could benefit via ties with Brazil as Canada is based in the financial and resource industry. Canada could become Brazil’s key to financial opportunities worldwide if Wall Street is slow to create stronger ties with Brazil. While economic ties remain diverse, Brazil is becoming a source of political attraction for many who often have little links with Latin America. Recently competing envoys from Iran and Israel have been sent to Brazil due to its new position as a global power and have been welcomed as Brazil seeks to balance its relations between the US and Venezuela with their counterparts in the Middle East. China continues to seek partners in Latin America as the US loses its economic clout and discusses the future of “Buy America” with its nervous allies. Brazil and other Latin American economies have been creating fast paced economic ties over the last two years as the US decides whether or not to approach the Americas with an open hand.

Media impressions of Super Economies are often done via a lens of paranoia that the US, the EU or Western countries will become the underdeveloped nations of the future. The likely outcome is that the US and EU will remain as strong economies as they have links abroad and are large and influential and will remain so for a long time. BRICs nations often do not involve themselves in other regions beyond a trading relationship or the need for resources. Brazil is balanced economically and resource wise to maintain its influence in Latin America, yet not come in conflict with other BRICs or Western Economies. While the Eastern US may not become an economic blackout in the long run, trends and policy concerns should create strong ties among strong neighbours economically and create decisive and strong coalitions between current or future BRICs and Western powers if economic hubs will grow or remain at their current levels of importance. Brazil is likely not going to be limited by 15 minutes of fame or of darkness, but will grow slowly and surely over the next few years.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

It came as no surprise to those who knew about the past rights abuses by Iran’s government when many Iranians, especially young Iranians, took to the streets in the last two weeks and were met with brutal retribution affecting every sector of Iran’s vibrant society including intellectuals, the media, youth and diverse cultures. While much of Western media sought to compare the protests in Iran to those of Eastern Europe and China, Iran is unique and is forming what must be regarded as its own unique movement that will produce its own unique results. A comparison of best judgment is one that would compare opposite popular political movements to that of the one in Iran, namely those in many left leaning governments in Latin America.

This week while the protestors in Iran were slowly being arrested and assaulted, Honduras had its own coup with the Judiciary, Legislature and military forcing out the Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya. Honduras’ other policy branches sought its own change by placing its own leader in power in order to quell the Executive Branch from leading a populist move to allow the President to stand for election indefinitely. Such a constitutional change for the benefit of the President and the Executive branch was successfully accomplished by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela a few short months ago. This altering of constitutional powers that limit the Executive from seeking election past a designated term in office is a common limit to the power of the President in many nations with a similar political system. While Parliamentary Democracies often have leaders stand for election well past six years (as technically you are electing the party, and not the leader), it is seen as a violation of the democratic system in many nations and allows the tyranny of the majority to rule over all sectors of society in those countries considered a Republic. In those systems, the power of the President is paramount and is only limited by the legislature and judiciary. While Venezuela’s battle over control between the branches took hold in debate and via legal measures, Honduras’ branches of government took the direct route, upsetting many supporters of the President as well as supporters of Zelaya outside of Honduras, including Mr. Obama who often is seen as the culprit of actions against leftist leaders in Latin America.

The irony of these latest popular protests in Iran and Honduras come from the support given by those who ideologically would naturally support “the other” in these conflicts. As mentioned above, Obama, who represents a US that allows for power to be tempered against the Executive by the Judiciary and Legislative branch when the Executive tries to unbalance its influence in the Republic, has openly supported the power of President Zelaya in Honduras and is helping to return the President to his office in the capital. While the support obviously comes from the manner in which Zelaya was removed, the election of Obama and great support no doubt came from the result of accusations of abuse of the Executive branch by Bush and Cheney when in office as claimed by many constitutional experts in the US and abroad. The other twist in this narrative comes from Chavez’s support of Iran’s illegitimately elected president and ruling Religious Council. While Chavez and Ahmedinejad do get a lot of support from rural and urban poor in both their respective countries, popular support for Mosavi and opposition leaders in Iran are coming from the people themselves, who are protesting against unelected leaders via a populist uprising. Hugo Chavez, the poster child for populism in Latin America, won his own support for his government and changes to the constitution via a majority of people who legitimized his power in office, yet seeks to be a populist against populism when supporting the establishment in Iran. While debate continues to whether or not Chavez forcefully silenced his opposition during elections and referendums in Venezuela, support for Iran’s current government by Chavez may have more to do with Venezuela’s geopolitics than the will of the people in Iran. In the end, the fight for power in Iran did not start with hard opposition to Iran’s Ayatollahs, as true reformers were not allowed to run for government in Iran. Iran’s leadership crisis is one of oligarchs in Iran’s leadership pushing to gain more influence and leverage over Iran’s dominant Councils and clerics and to gain support from Iran’s youth that make up more than 70% of Iran’s population as noted by many experts. As a result of violence however, many in Iran wish to move beyond a simple election of Mosavi dominated by the Religious Councils and wish to move towards a free vote and debate in society.

Iran will likely slowly degrade from within, but maintain its same structure in the process. The true measure of change for those outside of Iran is whether or not a new government, in a similar, form will choose to involve itself in the Arab world, continue to divide and conquer diverse political groups, religions and cultures in Iran and decide to promote Iranian culture and economy outside of Iran towards the West or the East. The reposition of the US and the oil market may grow the influence of populists in Latin America and illegitimate governments in the Middle East, but eventually economics and popular movements will create a debate where the people must choose between two unstable alternatives and hope for great leaders to build their nations. At best, Lebanon without political assassinations would be a welcomed outcome for Iran. Lessons from Latin America for Iran may come from those same intellectuals that are currently sitting in Evin prison in Tehran for speaking their views. One academic from Latin America similar to those imprisoned in Iran is Guillermo O’Donnell, a Latin American intellectual who often writes on differing forms of democracy. Many of his theories surround the issues of democratic institutions and voting. Simply voting does not create a democratic society in itself, but the interaction between different ideas, from grassroots movements, journalists, professors, politicians and communities produce institutions which seek to balance power in the hands of the people, and not in that of a religious oligarchy or simply the Executive. Unfortunately in Iran, once violence takes hold of any election, voting becomes not simply the symbol of a healthy democratic society but it transforms and becomes a means of protest when all other democratic institutions become disenfranchised of their legitimate authority. Equality and rights does not come from a simple ballot, as important as the process is, but comes from institution building and seeking of rights in every unique society. This is what many often abuse in Latin America, and seems to not be understood by religious oligarchs in Iran. The original form of ancient Greek democracy has evolved, and will leave those behind who do not understand it beyond its basic elements. Unfortunately as many Latin American oligarchs have known, the end result is always the same, albeit in differing and unique forms of anarchy.