Latin America

Edgar Millan Gomez was one of the latest victim and symbol of how the anti-drug forces of the Mexican Government can be attacked whenever and wherever drug traffickers wish to bring the fight. Gomez was one of the top officials in Mexico’s anti-drug war. He was considered one of the top security officials in Mexico and was one of the top people in charge of Mexico’s security forces. On Thursday he was gunned down, along with two of his bodyguards in a professional killing in front of his home. On Friday the tradegy continued as Esteban Robles, the head of Mexico’s anti-kidnapping agency was gunned down as well. Their importance was paramount as shown by the presence of Mexican President Felipe Calderon who attended to the issues and to their funerals soon after the killings.

The number of deaths in the Mexican “War on Drugs” has reached record proportions. In 2007 nearly 2,500 have been killed in conflicts connected with narcotrafficking, and in the first five months of 2008 that number has already reached 1,100. As a medium between narcotics coming in from Colombia through Mexico and into the United States, Mexico is considered as an untapped source of wealth for anyone who controls the illicit trade routes. This ever-lingering issue has shadowed all concerns of the Mexican Presidency as it affects immigration, security, trade and corruption in Mexico. Even when one of those key issues becomes a focal point of the political concerns of Mexico and its neighbours, behind the scenes the drug trade has found a way to overcome restrictions to sell the products that no one wants to discuss. This recent war in the streets has removed the silence on the issue and is forcing Calderon to deal with it in an open manner. Unfortunately Calderon is not controlling the media and security surrounding the issue, losing one of his top cops to a hail of bullets to the will of Mexico’s drug gangs.

The fear of many in Mexico and abroad is that Mexico might become the next Colombia in Latin America. While the two countries are quite different politically and culturally, the reality is that an inability for the government to control crimes in its territory can lead a country into a state of constant emergency and repel growth and progress for years, or even generations. While Mexico has not reached this point, this latest killing was a clear message to the Government and Mexico as a whole that they can control not only smaller cities in the north of the country, but can hit anyone, anywhere, even Mexico’s best warrior. The only positive elements of this scenario is that in Colombia there has been great progress on their war against the FARC and that has produced methods and successful approaches in dealing with narcotraffickers. We will have to wait to see if Calderon has the ability to create an effective and coordinated response to a drug war that can only get worse in the long run.

NAFTA was always something that created tension between the US, Canada and Mexico in areas of debate that were never an issue before the concept of free trade became an ethos of foreign policy. NAFTA, originally built on from the Canadian-American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), was a progression of the US-Canada Auto Pact which set to reduce barriers to trade in the auto sector, expanding through CAFTA to include other consumer good and into NAFTA, to integrate Mexico into a North America wide trade agreement. The benefits and costs never were ultimately weighted to one side or the other. Canada would benefit from a secured auto market and less restrictions in selling its good to the US, now numbering around 92% of Canada’s exports abroad. Mexico would benefit from becoming a base for manufacturing goods to sell into the US and Canada and allow for employment in their own country in an attempt to curb poverty and increase much needed investment into the Mexican economy. Both would benefit from having a NAFTA Tribunal which would allow for judgments in a binding forum which would assist the two countries in registering just disputes with its massive neighbour, the United States. In turn, US companies would be able to access those markets and allow for US multinationals to set up investments and cross border trade within their own organizations as well as with other companies. US exports to Canada and Mexico since 1994 has made these two countries two of the top importers of American goods. With a population of 32 million and 100 million respectively, Canada and Mexico rival some of the largest markets in the world for US exports. It is hard to measure the true benefit of NAFTA for each country, but with the stability of the modern Mexican economy, the great effect of US companies on the Canadian and Mexican economies and the ability for the US to have two of the world’s largest economies within its economic and political influence, NAFTA was seen as a success by many policymakers in all three countries.

Recently NAFTA has been attacked by Hillary Clinton and to a lesser extent Barak Obama in their bloody and senseless campaigning towards degrading the Democratic Party. With the support for Hillary Clinton coming from many blue collar workers in Ohio, Pennsylvania and other manufacturing regions in the US; NAFTA, Mexico and immigration has become the keys to winning seats over Mr. Obama and his calls for Change. Damage has not only been inflicted on the Democrats, but on America’s neighbours. Countries like Canada and Mexico who have given a lot of support to the US, despite the poor impression of Mr. Bush in both countries, have been fairly good neighbours with the US in the last few years. Canada alone has born the brunt of much of the conflict in Afghanistan since Al Qaeda resumed its offensive two years ago, with most US forces stuck in Iraq. Mexico has opened its oil and petroleum industry towards the US, bringing closer economic ties despite the move by many American companies to China and away from Mexico. Mexico even has taken great steps to alienate Cuba, once a friend of the island nation, now in a cold peace with the Communist nation. The costs and benefits of NAFTA were summed up recently in the North America Leaders Summit in New Orleans where Mr. Bush, Stephen Harper of Canada and Felipe Calderon of Mexico met to discuss the future of North America.

The first volley of issues came as a response to Clinton’s campaign strategy to re-negotiate or scrap NAFTA. The North American Competitiveness Council, a group of 30 business leaders issued a statement promoting NAFTA and its increase since 1994 to creating trade amounting to over a trillion dollars. They also commented of how recent protectionist dialogue would do little to improve the relationship between the countries. Much of the losses of recent employment has come from American companies moving to China, so beating up on NAFTA and not addressing China trade when assisting blue collar workers in the US may simply hurt the relationship with the few neighbours Mr. Bush hasn’t already alienated in the last 8 years. This attack does nothing more than give a false solution to the US economy except for gaining a few votes for Mrs. Clinton and stirring sentiments against Latino immigrants in the US and trade in general.

Despite many in the US attacking Canada and Mexico for taking American jobs and wanting to integrate into the US, and many in Canada trying to tie Prime Minister Harper into the conservative right in the US to prompt and election, the Canadian Prime Minister has been strong in taking a stance on resolving NAFTA and other issues involving its neighbors. Mr. Harper has done a respectable job in addressing problems in NAFTA such as softwood lumber, defining Canada’s role in Afghanistan as a force to create a sustainable environment for aid, and his environmental policies has done a great deal to benefit Canadians and dialogue with Americans alike. Mr. Harper addressed Mrs. Clinton’s assessment of its neighbours as well, making the strong point that in this global energy crisis, Canada is one of the world’s largest exporters of petroleum and gas to the US and has a reserve some say as large as Saudi Arabia.

Harper has always been amicable to the US President, but is clearly not a George Bush of Canada. His support of Canada’s national healthcare system and standing social policies would be savored by many Democrats in the US during an election campaign. Harper clarified his relationship with Mr. Bush at the Summit: “What I appreciate most, what I’ve appreciated in our relationship over the past couple of years, is the fact that whether we agree or disagree, we’re always able to talk very frankly, very upfront,” Felipe Calderon of Mexico also promoted the benefits of NAFTA, helping to grow the Mexican economy to one of its most stable periods since the late 1960s. Both leaders, while surely realising the unpopularity of President Bush, coordinated their address at the Summit in support of NAFTA and against major changes or eliminating the agreement altogether. In the end, anti-NAFTA talks will likely progress into anti-China trade or simply disappear when Clinton loses the nomination for her party to Mr. Obama. With the recognition of America’s neighbours as true colleagues, issues of trade, aid and immigration can be addressed in a progressive manner in Obama’s or McCain’s first term of office.

Behind oil export and above tourism, remittances from Mexicans abroad to their home country makes up a large part of the cash that builds homes and futures in many Mexican communities. With the recent economic crisis in the US, America’s neighbours are starting to feel the fallout of the Mortgage Crisis that is slowly presenting problems in countries outside of the G8. With many Mexicans living in the US in hard hit areas, those funds that used to pay for medicine, food, homes and everything else for families of migrants from Mexico are now suddenly being cut off with great effect.

With a decline in remittances of 7% since last year, many in Mexico who were just keeping afloat may slip into poverty this year. Many small villages who sent their young men and women over the border and who often are mired in economic troubles are the hardest hit communities in Mexico when economic troubles loom. With remittances to Mexico increasing five and a half times since 1997 to $24 billion, these funds are not only a necessity, but is Mexico’s second largest source of foreign revenue. What also seems to focus the tension on Mexico is that areas in the US where Mexicans have migrated to are also those worst hit by the crisis. While migrants from El Salvador and Guatemala are also affected, those communities often have settled in the Washington-Maryland areas which have been less affected by the crisis according to The Washington Post.

The likely effect of the crisis outside the US may result in more illegal migration across the border. Despite the troubles in the US, communities in Mexico near poverty will not weather the lack of funds as easily as much of the United States. Economies tied in with the US will slowly feel the effects of economic troubles in their largest export market. The lack of sympathy for future trade agreements and harder policies on immigration will also likely take hold with the poor economy and continued anti-NAFTA and FTA sentiments in the US Congress. The next American President will have a lot of repair work when beginning his or her job in 2009.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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