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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

A tradition has formed in economic thought since the 1960s in comparing two regions with similar levels of poverty and inequality. Both regions have traditionally been open to economic measures to promote growth and achieve the level of development of North America and Europe. Asia and Latin America are both regions which have suffered historical economic problems and large structural reforms, and in the 1960s were considered at the beginning of new forms of development. While many Asian countries set off to promote trade and investment and increase Foreign Direct Investment in their economies, Latin America sought to follow the trend started by Raul Prebisch, by raising tariffs and trade barriers and producing their own products internally and keeping investment inside their own individual economies. The independence of Latin America from the industrialized world would take its form in Import Substitution Industrialisation policy for the region. The exception to the rule in Asia was China. A Communist system left China locked into trade with other Communist countries and limited trade with the West. Upon the onset of problems between China and the Soviet Union in the 1970s, some moves towards greater trade with the West came after Nixon’s trip to open relations with China. Since then the progressive growth and eventual acceptance of China into the WTO has made China the world’s next Superpower, or at least the country that manufactures everything for the world’s current Superpower.

With economic progress came inequality. In Latin America economic success could always be measures by the percentage of people that benefitted or were lifted out of poverty by a boom in any of the Latin American economies. Boom and Bust cycles dominated Latin America well into the 1990s and beyond into Argentina’s financial collapse in 2001. This debate dominated the World Bank, as neo-liberal ideas were debated comparing Latin America’s failures to East Asia’s successes in the report on The East Asian Economic Miracle, giving credit to reduced barriers and increased trade as the reason for East Asia’s success. Dissent came from the head of the World Bank itself when Joseph Stiglitz published Rethinking the East Asian Miracle after the financial turmoil of many of the Asian Tigers at the time and clear collapse of Argentina later on. Equality was still an issue as 30-40% of Latin Americans remained in poverty, East Asia reorganized and China slowly started to rise as an economic giant.

Lessons learned from the World Bank’s debates and the past economic crisis in Latin America and Asia showed that fast growth often promotes cultures of decadence for those who benefit from it and marginalize other parts of a society which do not have the means to raise themselves out of poverty. Systemic poverty among rapid growth was often the result, and became entrenched in the society in the long run.

In an article this week in FT.com, China is advised by the author to take lessons from Brazil in dealing with inequality while managing an economic boom. Not until the late 1990’s did progressive governments in Brazil seek to challenge the country’s historical inequality while absorbing slow positive growth and attacking poverty in a country of over 170 million people. Brazil’s past reflected much of that of Latin America’s with short periods of growth followed by economic collapse which left the impoverished in Brazil in constant chaos. While China does have a large amount of savings as opposed to those nations in East Asia and Latin America in the 60s, poverty still must be challenged in China as not to create an underclass in society. Economic booms have always been used to justify economic policies, but in almost every case the boom eventually turns to bust as economic cycles often do. Past policies to absorb the gains of booms are not put into addressing social problems that are often historical and require time and money to resolve past the boom cycle. While China is not Brazil, these two giants could learn a lot from each other. Both economies are considered to be economic miracles in their own right, but stability and long term growth are only truly successful if it benefits all citizens to a greater degree over a long period of time. While poverty is a constant reality in all countries, the plague of poverty inherited or created can be helped by proper economic and social policy during times of prosperity. With proper economic policy, the trend of inequality with growth do not have to be the result of economic progress.

Messages of distrust between the Colombian Government and Hugo Chavez were considered no more than showboating after Hugo Chavez made headway in getting two Colombian citizens released, followed by open support for the rights of the kidnappers to be represented as a legitimate political party. Anger and frustration in Colombia which has been literally torn apart by the FARC and other rebel groups over the last 30 years put Chavez on the hit list of Colombians inside their own country and those in the Colombian Diaspora who often left their places of birth due to problems derived from the conflict in Colombia. Upon the death of Raul Reyes, one of the FARC leaders killed in a camp in Ecuador, a diplomatic scrum has begun between Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela. Ecuador is accusing Colombia of intentional violations of their territory with the recent attack. Colombia did apologize, yet made clear their claim today of support by the Ecuadorian and Venezuelan Governments for the FARC and Colombia’s right to protect its own sovereign territory from terrorist attacks. The last piece of the drama comes with Hugo Chavez. By placing a number of heavily armed troops on its border to add flames to his theory that Colombia wishes to attack its neighbor and himself personally, an Andean War has perhaps taken its first steps. Currently, Ecuador and Colombia have removed their diplomats from each other’s embassies and have no diplomatic communication beyond Chavez’s saber rattling, or more specifically the sound of marching and the screeching of tanks surrounding the borders of Colombia on either end.

Conflict in South America has always been considered much as a Cold War between neighbors who never took actions beyond minor skirmishes. In the era of South American military governments in the 60s and 70s, many disputes over territory were the catalyst for countries like Argentina, Chile, Brazil and most everyone else purchasing some of the most advanced equipment, Exocet missiles and even in the case of Brazil, an old aircraft carrier to keep their neighbors at bay in the event of a hot conflict. Ironically, the heaviest conflict was in the early 80’s between the UK and Argentina when local unrest and economic tensions lead General Galtieri of Argentina’s military government to divert attention away from local issues by attacking a disputed territory known as the Maldives Islands/Falkland Islands. Galtieri’s strategy of conquest did nothing more than to end his own career and reduce the last of his support in Argentina to nil and deal one of the final blows to the era of South America’s military dictatorships.

In a classic sense the political fate of Chavez may come with his verbal, and now physical adoption of the dispute between Colombia and Ecuador. Along with verbal accusations of Colombia’s intention to murder him and his recent mobilsation of his armed forces, Venezuela has been investing in some very advanced and high tech weapons from the Russian army since the Presidency of Chavez began. In addition to Chavez’s rearming of Venezuela, his support has also started to wane with some Venezuelan groups as seen in his loss in a referendum to increase his powers under the Venezuelan constitution. Some may see Chavez as taking the strategy of General Galtieri in assuming a conflict, but the will of the Venezuelan people to give their children and blood on behalf of the FARC and Chavez is likely not as strong as Colombia’s wish to turn itself back into one of the most promising countries in the region, free of terror, economic strife and threats from their borders. Support from the US may balance out Colombia’s military capabilities as well, as its Air Force and Army are equipped for conflict with rebels and AK-47’s and not new Venezuelan Sukhoi fighters or armored tanks.

Another territory in the world this week that seems to have similar problems as Colombia are Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Like Colombia, conflicts from outside its border are influencing the lives of its people. As well, parts of the country considered to be under the right of control of the government and people are in constant civil distress. Another similarity is that no one knows how to solve the problems, but everyone can agree that aggressive influences from outside the border will do nothing more than keep Israel, the Palestinian people and Colombians in constant conflict at the behest of a Chavez or similar malcontent in their respective regions. Colombia has always had unfortunate experiences with rebels inside its territory, but hardly anyone can doubt the impatience the Colombian Government will have with a full attack from its neighbors who are seen as supporting rebels and making the Andean region into the next Middle East.