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.

Around the world the way to deal with the aftermath of past violence and police states has yet to come to a definitive closure or method to resolve crimes of the past. Often the ruling class in one era of a society remains in the next era, whether it be a peaceful one or a continuation of state rule. Whether it be in Rwanda and Kosovo in the last few years or currently in places like Iran and North Korea, the dialogue on the past and search for resolution starts with those who have been affected personally, and often leads to at best a national dialogue on the issues of former rulers and regimes. Much of this opening of society started in the 1980s after the fall of police states in Chile and Argentina and has formed the framework for dealing with such atrocities worldwide. Documented cases of those missing have only been produced quite recently, as writers, journalists, lawyers, and activists make public crimes of the past.

On PBS next Monday Director Juan Mandelbaum brings his personal experience growing up in Argentina during the military junta to American networks. Information about the airing of the documentary is listed below:

OUR DISAPPEARED/NUESTROS DESAPARECIDOS is the heart-breaking chronicle of director Juan Mandelbaum’s personal search for the souls of friends and loved ones, idealistic young students and activists, who were caught in the brutal vise of the right-wing military and “disappeared” in his native Argentina during the 1976-1983 military dictatorship. OUR DISAPPEARED/NUESTROS DESAPARECIDOS will air nationally on the Emmy Award-winning PBS series Independent Lens, hosted by Terrence Howard, on Monday, September 21, 2009 at 10PM (check local listings.)

While this blog often addresses issues between nations and between power brokers on many of these nations, it is crucial to view political views from the perspective of those individuals who have suffered personal trials within the context of a larger political events or crisis. I encourage everyone to try to watch the documentary if living in the US or having access to a PBS station. If information for those you living outside to US is made available in accessing the film, I will post further information about dates or viewing times on this blog.

Please tune in!

Canadians are often surprised when Canada makes news on the international stage. Many were shocked to see that one of the world’s most influential publications, The Economist took to criticizing Canada’s jewel and Olympic city, Vancouver, comparing drug violence in Canada’s west coast hub to violence which has scarred Colombia for more than three generations. While the article mentions little about Colombia compared to Canada, the reality of drug violence in Vancouver in recent months and the increase in the drug war in Mexico and the US has pulled international attention towards Vancouver in a negative light, something many Canadians are not used to, or even portray in local media and election campaigns.

The face of drug violence in Colombia is well beyond anything affecting Vancouver and Canada. At its high point, drug cartels in Colombia controlled large parts of the country and employed entire towns and villages, some even using the raw materials of cocaine as its only viable currency. The culture and effect of narcotics in Colombia permeates local dialogue and history to such an extent that it has robbed Colombia of its traditions and stories and hid the nation’s true culture and heritage behind a veil of violence and conflict. Even after last year’s military campaign against the FARC, who kidnapped one presidential candidate in Ingrid Betancourt and tried to assassinate Colombia’s current President Alvaro Uribe, Colombia is still mired in drug violence which has marked the lives of every citizen of Colombia and turned one of the most promising economies and richest cultures in Latin America into a literal war zone in many parts of the country.

The Canadian dialogue is quite different than that of Colombia. Politics in Canada and Canadian’s self image in the world often keeps Canada in the position of being a relatively closed country economically and socially. Despite having a high degree of immigration and a stable economy with a great deal of equality, accepting a proactive role in the world has not been easy to accept for many Canadians. The results of having Canada become open to the benefits and costs of a booming economy and increased internationalism for its own merits and not those of empire or a good neighbor policy has made Canada a lot more interesting, a lot more influential if its citizens desires it, and is forcing Canadian cities to address issues that were always seen as the problems of the US or other TV narrative worthy nations. Canada’s governments often spend their time shifting blame between municipal, provincial and federal governments and leave the dialogue on Canada frozen in the 1970s, even appointing a leader of one of the major political parties who has not had any tacit connection to the country for over 25 years. This is not surprising, as The Economist suggests that the re-election of British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell came without much attention given to the persistent violence in Vancouver, even though during one of his media interviews he was rushed off because an armed robber crossed close by to the Primer after robbing a jewelry store in the area.

The challenge of the narcotics trade has come in the last few years of Canada being pulled into a position of influence on the world stage, a position that few in Canada realize or know how to deal with or address without altering the image of stability in communities nationwide. While the country is forced to adopt an advanced position of obligation in the world, it also must adopt a worldview that can help it deal with new issues before it becomes a major problem. A structural and cultural issue that injures Canada’s economic progress is a prime example. Foreign accredited professionals in Canada are welcomed into the country for many of their skills, but few are allowed to re-qualify in a reasonable manner, leaving Canada crippled from within in boosting its own economy, even limiting the number of doctors able to certify in various Provinces during a current crisis of a shortage in health care professionals. Ironically this week, Austrian immigrant to Canada Frank Stronach, owner of Canadian company Magna International, has become one of the controlling stakeholders of GM’s Opel in Europe. The purchase of the auto giant Opel in Europe is a major shift in the world economy, coming from Canada in purchasing a major European auto manufacturer which most Canadians have likely never heard of or few knowing that Mr. Stronach was an immigrant and proud Canadian. Canada has some of the most highly intelligent and restricted immigrants in the world, a result of a world view which limits policymaking beyond the nation’s borders.

In the end Canada will be dragged, hopefully not kicking and screaming into a position of influence on the world stage. Crime prevention and policies in communities must address the nature of cross border issues as much as an open and diverse policy perspective is needed to keep Canada growing from within and abroad. In the end, Canada and Colombia have one major aspect in common, in that they are in a relatively good position to produce a prosperous future globally if the desire and effort is there in local communities. The difference is however that Colombians have been waiting for generations for this opportunity; Canadians however have always had it and must choose to prosper in the future or lose the opportunity with increased closure, restrictions and elections.

Mexico in 2009 has become the recipient of at least half of the most famous biblical plagues starting in 2008. This past week brought yet another earthquake to Mexico, the second this month that received some media coverage outside the country. In addition to a full scale drug war, H1N1 flu, an economic crisis, political jockeying, immigration issues, drug related and everyday corruption and a persistent high level of poverty, Mexico and its leaders could claim to have more on their plate than Barack Obama has to deal with in the US today and for the rest of his Presidency.

Debates of where the blame for much of Mexico’s ills comes from has brought in voices from opposition within and outside of Mexico, its NAFTA partners, the WHO, IMF, World Banks and the UN itself. However in a general perspective has Mexico’s leaders performed worse than most other leaders in similar positions? Felipe Calderon’s government while blamed for igniting much of the drug conflict has tried to do more to fight narcotrafficking than any other Mexican leader in the past. Support for his anti-drug initiative has come from the US and Canada and South America, and while drug markets and demand has been claimed as the root cause of Mexico’s conflict by many in Mexico and by even Obama himself, NAFTA has become collectively aligned fighting against cartels that are well entrenched from Cancun to Vancouver. While NAFTA has always been exclusively a trade agreement, heavy cooperation in fighting drugs that come through many commercial and immigration sources also is the route of much of North America’s trade wealth boom since 1994. Markets which create demand for narcotics also demand other products from Mexico, Canada and the US which are not drug related, but may open for easier access to narcotrafficking across borders. The end result is that cooperation and addressing the drug issues are the only option in reducing the drug trade in North America by maintaining strong ties between the three NAFTA neighbors. I request that if other policy alternatives are a better option that readers voice their opinion.

H1N1, or Swine Flu as it was called before the WHO’s public relations people set out to change the definition did start in Mexico despite some claims otherwise in the country of its origins, and it is still in debate who is to blame. Blame has been knocked around quite a bit in this latest crisis, starting with slow action by Calderon and Mexico’s government to voice the issue abroad, leading to the WHO’s slow action in issuing alerts, leading to practices by Mexico’s agricultural industry and large multinationals, to claims of a poor health system in Mexico that is often a stereotype of many in developed countries abroad. The political fallout will determine the end result of the Swine Flu, but what should be noted is the effective actions taken by Calderon, Mexican public health officials, industry and citizens who completely shut down the most populated city in human history numbering almost 30 million and the other 70-80 million Mexicans who quietly kept indoors and patient over more than a week in order to end the spread of Swine Flu in Mexico and abroad. This enormous feat of public health control should be awarded to Mexico who despite having so many current problems, lack of funds, and large populations to deal with was still able to better handle H1N1 than many developed countries handled SARS. While it was not able to contain H1N1 entirely, and a small outbreak in Chile and Japan has occurred recently, it will certainly be studied for generations to come in how to deal with national and international health crisis.

Some issues that have received little attention this past month have been the persistent drug war and some earthquakes in Mexico in the last few weeks. As always, immigration issues while always a constant on the borders only were addressed when Mexican immigrants got the Swine Flu or the influence of drug cartels or were linked to Mexico’s drug war in the US. These mainstay issues will likely reemerge very soon, which often ignore successes by Mexican officials and highlight possible threats to the US which vary in urgency. With deaths in Mexico easily competing with those in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mexico will likely keep its place on the front page and tv screens of many of its NAFTA neighbours…for better or for worse.

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

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

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

This month marked a historic change for El Salvador and popular movements in Latin America as a whole. Central America in the late 70’s and early 1980’s was one of the warfronts of the Cold War between the US and the USSR. Countries such as Cuba and even Mexico became entrenched in the problems in El Salvador where the rebel group FMLN fought in bloody conflict with the government at the time in order to bring some measures of equality and eliminate violence against the populace by the ruling elite that traditionally ruled El Salvador through political and economic oppression. After the death of nearly 75,000 people and the almost complete destruction of El Salvador’s infrastructure, the 1992 peace agreements allowed for a reduction in armed conflict between political rivals in El Salvador, and lead to relative quiet in the region since that time.

While relative peace took hold after 1992 in El Salvador, increased levels of poverty and inequality lead to years of street violence and emigration from the country. Many young Salvadorans found themselves growing up outside of Central America in the 1990s and growing up as refugees from violence due to the conflict, and later on as refugees from poverty post 1992. While the war ended in the early 1990s, the generation which grew up during the war often could not escape the after-effect of violence and a society which at the time was at the pinnacle of absolute chaos. Many young Salvadorans post-1992 grew as expats in often low income parts of the US, Canada and Mexico. With the influence of poverty in El Salvador and their new adopted homelands, small parts of the Salvadoran community fell into gang violence and culture, often moving between sections of large US cities like Los Angeles and El Salvador, re-importing gang violence into El Salvador from abroad. While many others have taken to improving the life of Salvadorans in el Salvador and abroad, the effect of the past still holds many traumatized from the war in the 1980s.

Professor Valle writing for openDemocracy.net explains that this past month might have brought an official end to the political conflict in El Salvador. While post-1992 brought in political and electoral gains for the right wing parties of El Salvador, last week the election of a left leaning leader, Mauricio Funes of the FMLN allowed for a quiet revolution to take place in El Salvador with a 51% victory for the Presidency of the country. While not a major lead, the importance of the victory through electoral means allows for the President and the Opposition to lead with an obligation to cooperate with other groups in Salvadoran society for the first time in that nation’s modern history. Placing violence in the past, and exchanging it for political compromise may not be the end of problems in El Salvador, but it can be agreed upon that it is likely the beginning of compromise in a society that has slowly rebuilt itself after a bloody and unresolved revolution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zakaria Speaking with Canadian PM Harper

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

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

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

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

Guests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Japan has always maintained a certain level of intrigue for foreigners, especially since the end of the Second World War due to its history, culture, economic progress and people. While Japan stands out as one of the most influential nations of the 20th Century, it has often not been a destination for many immigrants but more of a source for immigrants despite its economic prowess around the globe.

One country that has benefited from Japanese immigration is Brazil. With more than 1.5 million Brazilians with Japanese heritage, it is one of Brazils largest immigrant communities and the source for many Brazilians now moving to Japan. Next to Chinese and Koreans, Brazilians have become the third largest immigrant group in Japan. While many have descendants from Japan originally which produces cultural and legal links with Japan, many Brazilians now coming to live in Japan still require services which are key to Brazilians in the country. With 320,000 Brazilians now having Japanese residency, the concern is that integration in Japanese society make be difficult without asserting social services and education towards the Brazilian community residing in Japan.

One of the greatest concerns is education. In order to produce immigrants in Japan that can grow and work in the country, education for children 5 to 14 years of age is crucial for their future. With 33,000 kids in that age range, only 10,000 are enrolled in Japanese schools, while a further 10,000 are in Brazilian schools in Japan, leaving 10,000 kids not registered in any formal education at all, according to The Japan Times Online. Since 2001, and increase from 45 to 110 Brazilian schools was the result of many kids from Brazil having a tough time with language skills in Japanese, even to the point of being bullied and requiring often non-official school to be opened to accommodate children in the Brazilian community in Japan. While there have been discussions about trying to integrate foreign students into the public school system, the lack of adequate strategies and unfamiliarity in integrating non-Japanese students into the school system is a tough barrier to breach. Ironically, with many of the Brazilians now living in Japan having Japanese heritage, as well as citizenship in Japan due to their heritage, it is likely that the feeling their grandparents had coming to Brazil for the first time as Japanese, is similar to their experience coming to Japan as Brazilians. With Japan slowly becoming multicultural to a slight degree, it is imperative that new Japanese citizens have their needs addressed, often waiting for a paradigm shift in society to meet their needs.