Latin America

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

With the retirement of Fidelito, an assessment of the positives and negatives of the Cuban Revolution has taken place in media all around the world. People hate Castro as much as others love him, mainly because while he has injured many and denied basic rights to activists living in Cuba, he has also earned the respect of others by standing up to the United States and living long enough to brag about it. While this perspective dominates most of the globe, in Latin America there is a third dimension to Cuba. Success with specific social policies places Cuba in high regard in the areas of healthcare as well as anti-poverty policies in comparison to the rest of Latin America. Latin America is considered by many as the most unequal region in the world between the wealthy and the poor, accounting on an average 35-45% or higher of the population of the region living below the poverty line. Cuba on the other hand is well known in the region for having a less severe poverty than its neighbors. Cuban doctors and institutions are the regions best in many areas of medicine and medical research. These pros and cons of Castro’s Cuba has created the divided impression of the outcomes of the Cuban Revolution, especially among Latin America’s poor and those who have had to overcome multiple economic crisis in almost every country in the region since the 1960s.

Taking from the pages of Castro’s policies, Hugo Chavez is seeking to expand his support beyond those struggling to live in Venezuela towards others in the region. While Chavez has an amicable working relationship with most of his neighbors, his reputation in recent events has taken a beating. While he did help rescue kidnapped Colombians from the FARC, he also accused Colombia of plotting his assassination. He even angered the King of Spain who is considered a hero by many in a conference in Spain and few months ago, being told to bluntly “shut up” as recorded on Spanish TV by the King. Chavez also lost much of the support of his own people, losing in a referendum to solidify his power in Venezuela in recent weeks.

This week the International Herald Tribune did a story on Venezuela’s “Mission Miracle”, where Chavez for the last four years has sought to put the oil revenues of the recent boom to good use by giving free eye surgery to many who cannot afford in throughout Latin America. In many countries in Latin America the social heath care system leaves much to be desired, with private care and insurance covering many upper classes and leaving those who cannot afford it the inability to get more expensive treatments in the social health system. The issue of access to health care is currently a major one in the US election and could spark an election in Canada, a country which shares many attributes of socialized medicine but often cannot afford to treat many for complicated surgeries in good time as is the issue in Latin America. In the region, the same problems are exacerbated ten-fold with more than half of the population in some countries unable to access newer forms of treatments for the majority of their families. For this reason Chavez’ has gone to bring those in from all over the region to receive eye treatment which is often not as evasive as other surgeries and which allows people to maintain their vision, a vital necessity in a part of the world where people often have only themselves to keep them afloat. Newer and simple eye treatments are very expensive, but it is a simple way to cure the worries of many impoverished and ill patients all over Latin America.

In reality the support for Chavez comes from one hard reality in Latin America. Poverty and populism often comes together in one form or another, and if you seek to deal with issues on poverty you will always get a lot of support, no matter how tactless you many seem in dealing with the international community. While Fidel often had a lot more finesse than Chavez, many leaders in the region give Hugo a wide breadth because they know that poverty in the region is a never-ending problem and no one really knows how to solve it. With democratization in the region comes the power of voting, and people in dire straits will do what is best for their own personal lives…even if Chavez never shuts up and loses more tact in the future, people will vote for the person who will address their personal concerns in Latin America and in the next few elections throughout the Americas.

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

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

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

 Mexico has always had a mixed relationship with its citizens abroad. Problems dealing with poverty in Mexico have not tarnished pride in their roots. Class divisions never quelled a strong sense of nationhood with its citizens on every social strata. While many Mexican’s left the country since the 1970’s, it was often for economic opportunity which was hard to come by for many in the north of Mexico and in the southern estados, and was a way to escape living in the violent areas of Mexico City where opportunity disappeared in crisis after crisis following oil shocks and multiple collapses of the economy in the late 70s to late 90s.

What those on both sides of the border have seldom addressed in those years is the connection that those who have left Mexico have to their heritage in Mexico, and towards their new lives in the United States. Many in Mexico see those who left as abandoning the country, but with poverty rates of over 30% there was never any question that leaving Mexico was a logical decision by those who made the journey. The change in perception is stark, with new generations being born and growing up in the US often as Mexican-Americans, growing up speaking only English while listening to music in Spanish and being a mix of many diverse cultures. This relatively new culture would have never existed in Mexico, but is not seen as uniquely American by those who belong in it or those outside it. Many in this new culture love being “Mexican”, but are not treated as such in Mexico and often have a tough time becoming typically American in their own places of birth. Recently politicians in both countries have taken interest in this new community as well.

After years of not being noticed politically, since the 1990’s the Latino vote has become key in the next Presidential Elections in the US. The recent Clinton Campaign has relied on much of the Latino vote in the latest Primaries, with Hispanics in America, mostly of Mexican descent, making up a large portion of Hillary’s support in many American states. Mexico has noticed it may have influence as well, if it can re-adopt many of those forgotten Mexicans living abroad. Since the Presidency of Vicente Fox there has been efforts made by his Administration and his PAN party to generate positive relations with the United States on many fronts. Before the War on Terror, the Bush administration was seen as a key player on reforming immigration and helping re-connect Mexicans in the US and Mexico to produce closer ties. While these policies were abandoned for the most part, the interest of President Calderon of Mexico to re-initiate closer ties with the US remains. With the new President likely to be one who is open on immigration, Clinton, Obama and McCain will likely have a positive partner in Felipe Calderon of Mexico.

Calderon will not only have a positive partner in any President who is elected, but is reaching out to discuss policy initiatives and re-engage Mexicans of all backgrounds with Mexico itself. While he has an opportunity to put Mexico back on the agenda in the US, he must be careful not to be seen as dictating policy to the new American President who often lose support on their policies on immigration to the US, and must give a new respect to those Mexican-Americans who feel abandoned by Mexico and will make up a large portion of America’s educated and middle class youth in the future. While Calderon can rally all Hispanics on human rights for newcomers to the US, it will be an uphill struggle to gain complete acceptance from Americans and Mexicans in America alike.