This upcoming week and month will bring attention from the FPA towards Latin America. In addition, Fareed Zakaria interviewed Alvaro Uribe, President of Colombia last week and the interview was aired this past Sunday. Brazil and Rio de Janeiro has also won their bid to host the first Olympics for Brazil and South America as a whole, but issues abound as developing countries will always be seen in the light of the negative and positive aspects of the last Olympics in China, a fellow BRICs nation where order and progress might not include all Carioca in this celebrated event.

A book signing by Ambassador Heraldo Muñoz will take place on October 8th in New York City. Heraldo is the Permanent Representative of Chile to the United Nations and Chairman of the United Nations Peace-Building Commission. He will discuss his new book, “The Dictator’s Shadow: Life Under Augusto Pinochet” at the lecture and book signing. Those of you in New York who would like to attend can find the link to the event here on the FPA website.

Later in the month, a lecture series supported by the FPA will be presenting His Excellency Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan, Ambassador of Mexico to the United States. He will be speaking on: “Mexico’s Foreign Policy and the Current State of Mexican-American Relations.” For more information on the October 21st event, please see the link here.

Fareed Zakaria has interviews numerous leaders in the Middle East and Latin America last week. His interviews with Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Gadhafi last week were topped off with a short interview with President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, which was aired this past Sunday. I have a great appreciation of Zakaria’s work and focus on global policy issues and thought his interviews last week did bring out important questions and concerns, which were politely asked and validly addressed and pressed upon in all three initial interviews. Uribe’s interview, while informative, did lack deeper questions and seemed to be a lot shorter than those last week. Generally Zakaria asks many questions of leaders which I have always wanted to know myself, but often can only find in Spanish language or Arab language media. The interview with Uribe was altogether good, but for a leader who is likely the most popularly elected leader in the Western Hemisphere, certain questions were absent for the most part. Zakaria is well aware of the threats on Uribe’s life, 15 and counting, and Uribe answered those questions diligently. What I believe was lacking was questions on Colombia’s position and evidence regarding foreign support for the FARC and other internal terrorist movements in Colombia. This was a disappointment due to the lack of attention in English language media on the topic and the fact that in the interview with Chavez, conflict with Colombia was addressed but not responded to in the accompanying Uribe interview. As well, claims by US and Canadian officials denying support for an FTA between Colombia and its northern neighbours did not enter into the discussion, despite the growing debate over the country’s human rights record. This would have been interesting as the US and Canada has a trade policy that avoids criticizing similar or worse human rights records with other US and Canadian trading partners, namely China and for Canada, China and Cuba to name a few. While the agreement will be passed it seems between Canada and Colombia, an election in Canada was almost created over the issue two weeks ago and another election might be started ironically on the lack of trade between Canada and China as seen in early election commercials by one of the opposition parties. No matter what position viewers might have taken on Colombia and associated issues, a discussion on those topics would have informed us better on a situation that many have opinions on but few really understand.

Now for lighter fare, Rio de Janeiro has won their bid to host the 2016 Olympics, being the first South American nation to host the event ever. Mexico did host it nearly 40 years ago, but for the continent to the South it is a deserved first. It seems that the Olympic Committee is starting to see themselves as the ones who should pick the winners of the global economy in the future, but success does not always come from the event even if the country does well post Olympics. China received much criticism of their treatment of Tibet and Uigurs in the build up to their Olympic games and many citizens in Beijing lost their rights to property and their homes in the process of building grand structures for the games and making China look issueless in the process. The Committee should have expected this and many protestors sought to hold them to account for it.

Regarding Brazil, like with China and other developing nations, the Committee should consider questions of poverty and the benefit to the whole. If they choose to pick winners for policy reasons that often slide into issues of security and economics, then the result of that progress should be taken into account. Brazil has done its best since the 1980s to reform every aspect of its society, reduce poverty and balance the economy, even successfully in the latest economic storm. Crime and poverty however will be a major issue in Rio even in 2016, and while these issues cannot be resolved in such a short time, a focus on reduction and avoiding the repeat of China 2008 where the disadvantaged in China were ignored by China and the Olympic Committee is unacceptable in 2016 as it was in 2008. I do have faith that Brazil will do its best to provide for all events, and have learned from China 2008 on what not to do and who not to avoid. Boa Sorte Cidade of the Cariocas!

The yearly two month Cold War between Colombia and Venezuela has come this summer amidst talks between the US and Colombia to place approximately seven US bases in Colombian territory in order to aid US anti-drugs forces. A week ago as a response, Venezuela withdrew its ambassador from Colombia and is threatening to restrict trade relations between the two countries. Claims by Chavez that Colombia is Latin America’s “Israel” has mapped the policy approach Venezuela has taken against Colombia. Some who support Chavez’s point of view echo the same concerns, but support for and against the US and Colombia taking closer security ties has not placed the entire continent against Colombia, in a larger way, actions between Colombia and its neighbors is making Venezuela look more like the region’s “Iran”, as opposed to making Colombia into Latin America’s Israel.

Venezuela, Ecuador, Uruguay and Bolivia have expressed their stance against the US bases, even though there was one US base in Ecuador until recently. Trade restrictions by Chavez against Colombia may refocus attention on the US’s criticisms against a Free Trade Agreement between the US and Colombia, but might backfire due to many US policymakers wishing to not support actions by Venezuela against Colombia. Evidence found by the Colombian military that some critical FARC bases were located in Ecuador lead to an attack last year, culminating in last year’s two month Cold War among the Andean states. Upon analyzing the rubble, more information was found as claimed by Colombia’s government showing support for the FARC coming from Venezuela itself. In reality, claims by Chavez always are measured against his belief that the US will assassinate him, or lead an invasion of Venezuela via Colombia. While this might be at best plausible and very unlikely, Venezuela, as opposed to Colombia have been purchasing some of the best weapons technology worldwide, arming its Air Force with the SU-27 series of fighter interceptors which are continually upgraded and can match any other fighter jets worldwide, especially the 1970s era F-21/Kfirs used by Colombia’s Air force. Venezuela also mobilized its military on the border between the two nations last year after Colombia attacked the FARC base inside of Ecuador in order to prevent an invasion by Colombia inside Venezuela, as claimed by Chavez. While not reported in much of mainstream media, tacit support for the FARC by Venezuela was claimed by Colombian officials as including heavy and advanced weapons from the Venezuelan Army directly, as well as funding for the FARC being signed off by Venezuela’s leaders themselves.

While the debate continues regarding Chavez’s extent of support for the FARC, in the Middle East, Iran’s support for its clients in Hizbollah have been quelled with an open election in Lebanon showing popular support against them and protests in Iran itself showing how media blackouts and oppression of the opposition can only fool some, but not many as young Iranians continue to protest amongst bullets and continually are subjected to torture in Iran’s infamous Evin Prison. The recent referendum allowing Chavez to be elected indefinitely does not hold the same opposition limits as elections in Iran as the electorate still ahs the ability to vote out Chavez if desired. This is not as easy as one would think, as opposition leaders claim that during elections there are numerous acts of opression. One current example is a recent law against media who choose to attack the ruling government, stinking of a growing fight against the opposition, many who claim that in elections they have been not only silenced, but people have disappeared for opposing the Chavez government. This will now become law, unfortunate for any journalists in Venezuela or those who choose to criticize Chavez and plan to work or visit there. While Chavez does enjoy some popular support and has taken many actions to fight against poverty in the region, his support for Iran’s government and against populist support for the opposition in Iran runs against the basic ideologies of Latin America’s populist leader and shows how Chavez’s self interest and power in the region overrides his ideology that the people’s will should control the state. His support for Iran’s government is so absurd that a recent law allowing the Iranian government to execute those Muslims who convert to other religions, including Christianity, would surely persecute those who would convert to the same faith as the majority of Venezuelans share themselves.

The rest of South America has stated passive opposition or simply left Colombia’s sovereignty to Colombia in this policy mess. While many including Lula of Brazil feel that the addition of bases could have been handled more tactfully and openly, in the end the US bases will likely be set in some form or numbers. With regards to Venezuela, a unlikely US attack would more likely come from the numerous bases located across the waters from Caracas in Louisiana, Texas, Alabama and Florida, where a good number of US Forces are based. The support for bases in Colombia in this case does not make a great deal of sense, as unless short haul aircraft are used to track narco-trafficking, many of the air bases in Colombia would be within an hour flight from the US in any case. This is a matter for debate, and I encourage readers to place their comments, but for me the question is not whether or not the US should be able to have bases in Colombia, but more so why would they need them considering the troubles politically having them on Colombian soil?

UPDATE August 8th 2009: According to the BBC World Service Broadcast, Venezuela has now returned its Ambassador to Colombia. Accusations by Colombia today that Chavez has been supporting the FARC may have had some influence on the return of the Ambassador.

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.

The last few weeks in the Latin American world has been anything but calm. Coming off meeting of the G20 and Summit of the Americas, the region has moved towards many intended transformations in policy and relations with the US and the EU. Some of these major changes are discussed below.

Mexico: With a severely damaged economy, an epic drug war, corruption and now H1N1 Flu, Mexican President Felipe Calderon likely feels more like the recipient of biblical plagues as opposed to Mexico’s overworked president. Shutting down the largest city in the world for 5 days is no easy task, but with Mexico’s already suffering argo-business and tourism industries on the edge, an outbreak was the last thing Mexican business and the Mexican people needed at this time. The economic impact of the flu will be severe, and many will likely offer additional financial support to Calderon’s Mexico well after the hysteria of Swine Flu subsides. While the blame for the outbreak is being tossed between the WHO and Mexican officials, impressions of the unknown nature of the Mexican healthcare system is routinely being critcised by those outside of Mexico despite the extreme and sensible measures taken by Mexican officials in the process. Anti-Mexico feeling is likely not raised by a significant degree past the normal levels of criticism, but caution from areas such as Hong Kong; where SARS originated, and China, where Mexicans visiting and living in China were quarantined despite showing no signs of illness are not helping relations between the two countries. President Calderon even sent a plane to collect his citizens, in between public announcements that have brought a great deal of order to an otherwise chaotic Mexico City. For a detailed account of the Swine Flu, please read R G Wallace’s blogpost called The NAFTA Flu on his blog Farming Pathogens here.

Cuba: Cuba’s opening and dialogue with Barak Obama comes on the heels of the election campaign and numerous surveys’ showing the lack of support by many Americans for a trade embargo on Cuba. Writer Alvaro Vargas Llosa of the Washington Post Writers Group wrote an interesting piece on Cuba and Free Trade in last week’s The New Republic. Llosa, who initially supported America’s embargo on Cuba, discusses his reasoning and rationale with many detailed examples for pushing his opinion towards the other end of the spectrum. While he still maintains his support for freedoms of individuals to travel and communicate with whomever they wish, he argues how trade and the absence of financial growth may have actually contributed more to the maintenance of the Castro regime as opposed to helping grow grassroots opposition towards it. Llosa’s numerous examples of regimes who have decayed from within in comparison to Cuba is definitely something worth pondering, but without the ability to re-write history, and re-write Cuba, the only option is to move towards sensible policy in the future, whether that involves Free Trade with Cuba, an embargo or simply a slow and progressive opening of Cuba while pressing for human rights in the process. The Llosa article named Free Trade can be seen here.

Venezuela: Two impressive articles have come out recently speaking about the future of Chavez in Venezuela and its new relations with the United States. In another Washington Post Writers Group article called Regift, Please!, Llosa discusses the book given to Obama by Chavez called: Open Veins of Latin America by Eduardo Galeano. Llosa goes through the main thesis of the book and argues against the intellectual capacity of Chavez and seeks to disassemble the perspectives of the book published originally in the early 1970’s. The book argues that Latin America has always been an absolute victim of colonialisation and imperialism from Europe and the US respectively. In the context of the early 70’s, many of Galeano’s perspectives likely gained a lot of support throughout the decade and remains with many to this day. While growth in Latin America had come in some degree since that time, most of the region sought to ensure Import Substitute Industrialisation measures since the late 60’s well into the 1980’s and growth, while improving in times of economic boom, often ensured that the impoverished in the region were hit the hardest by economic collapses in the 1980s, 1990, post-2000, and even as we speak. Beyond growth and poverty, political issues between the US and various regimes in Latin America had great effects on the development of rights and freedoms in places like Chile, Central America and other specific cases where the CIA is claimed to be involved in the region. While Llosa is right to counteract the claims of Galeano in his book, the context of Latin America in the 1970s and its effect today did create many that might agree with Galeano to some degree, even if they are not supporters of Chavez. In recent works, Galeano perhaps tempered his arguments for a more modern Latin America, but ironically the funds coming in from sales of Open Veins likely made him wealthy in the process. Please place blog comments below. Llosa’s article can be read here.

Human Rights Watch and Chavez: I did write about these issues in the past, and Jose Miguel Vivanco of HRW, who was ejected from Venezuela for a report on Chavez could not state in better than in his article: Exposing a Chavez Charade. I wish that Vivanco’s words make a strong statement on rights in Venezuela, so I have posted a link to it here, and have pasted it below for all to read. Please leave your feedback on all articles and a response to your impressions Human Rights Watch has on Chavez’s Venezuela:

Exposing A Chávez Charade
by
José Miguel Vivanco
Published in the Washington Post
May 2, 2009

Published in the Washington Post José Miguel Vivanco, director of the Americas division

(Mexico City) - President Obama came under fire last month for sharing a smile with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez at the Summit of the Americas. Critics say that Obama was wrong to be friendly with a foreign leader renowned for his anti-U.S. antics and authoritarian tendencies. It might be expected, because I am a human rights advocate who has documented Chávez’s authoritarian policies and suffered the consequences at the hands of his security forces, that I would share this criticism. But I think time may show that Obama did the right thing.

Already, Obama’s overture has made it more difficult for Chávez to use his personal feud with the U.S. government to divert attention from his country’s problems. It will also be easier for the Obama administration to pursue a serious multilateral effort to pressure the Venezuelan government to reverse its authoritarian approach.

Venezuela is a complicated country. To its credit, it has competitive elections and independent political parties, media outlets, labor unions and civil society organizations. While Venezuela is plagued by chronic human rights problems such as police killings and deplorable prison conditions, there is no systematic denial of fundamental freedoms, as in Cuba. Nor is there an armed conflict with widespread violence by illegal armed groups, as in Colombia.

Yet the Chávez government has actively undermined democratic institutions that are essential for safeguarding the rule of law. It has strengthened the state’s power to curb media freedoms while abusing its regulatory power to threaten and punish critical media outlets. It has systematically violated workers’ basic right to freedom of association and sought to undermine the work of local human rights advocates.

Perhaps most troubling, the Chávez government has effectively neutralized the judiciary as an independent branch of government. This disregard for judicial independence has only fed fears that a recent wave of corruption charges against prominent Chávez opponents — including the opposition’s most recent presidential candidate, Manuel Rosales — could be a campaign of political persecution orchestrated by the government. While the Venezuelan justice system should be prosecuting corruption, it needs an independent judiciary for such prosecutions to be fair and credible.

To deflect criticism of his authoritarian policies, Chávez has relied heavily on a tactic favored by his friend and mentor Fidel Castro: routinely accusing human rights advocates of conspiring with the United States to topple his government. When, for example, the highly respected Venezuelan nongovernmental organization PROVEA issued its annual report on human rights in December, Chávez’s interior and justice minister declared on national television that the PROVEA workers were “liars” who were “paid in dollars.”

In my own case, after Human Rights Watch released a report in Caracas last fall, a colleague and I were forcibly detained in our hotel by Chávez’s security forces and summarily expelled from the country.

How did they justify this abuse of power? By claiming, falsely, that we had violated our visa requirements and were conspiring with the U.S. State Department to undermine the government.

No one familiar with our work, or that of PROVEA, takes these absurd allegations seriously. Yet such allegations resonate with some audiences in Venezuela and elsewhere in the region, ultimately serving to undermine discussion of the country’s human rights problems.

Indeed, the reason such allegations have any resonance is that the U.S. government does have a long and sordid history of conspiring to topple democratic governments in the region. And when Chávez’s opponents sought to oust him in a coup d’etat in 2002, the Bush administration initially welcomed their effort rather than joining in the near-universal chorus of condemnations from democratic governments in the region. This blunder badly damaged the Bush administration’s credibility in the region on issues of human rights and democracy. It also made it much easier for Chávez to cast debates over his policies as merely part of a political and personal contest between President Bush and himself.

Obama took an important step toward ending this dynamic when he extended his hand to Chávez in front of the cameras. He took an even more important step when he acknowledged the “historic suspicions” of U.S. intervention in the region.

That said, a smile and handshake from Barack Obama won’t solve Venezuela’s human rights issues or U.S. problems with Venezuela. And it would be a mistake to pursue a better relationship with Chávez for its own sake, or out of fear that otherwise he will fall under the sway of countries such as Iran, or because Venezuela has oil — as Hillary Clinton suggested in a recent congressional hearing.

Lowering the drama between the United States and Venezuela is worthwhile because it creates an opportunity to focus the region’s attention on developments in Venezuela. In the coming months, the administration must seize that opportunity by expressing concern about policies of the Chávez government that have undermined the independence of Venezuela’s democratic institutions. The United States should also work with regional allies to establish an appropriate multilateral forum — at the Organization of American States or elsewhere — to engage Venezuela on this issue.

Obama’s symbolic gestures were essential to setting the stage for such meaningful engagement. If his administration follows through as it should, the next time Chávez tries to label all human rights criticism as a U.S. conspiracy, few people in the region will take him seriously.

This weekend leaders from across the Americas have made their way to Trinidad and Tobago for the fifth meeting of the Summit of the Americas to discuss the future relations between nations in North and South America, the Caribbean and between others interest groups in the region. The Summit is often the centerpiece for inter-governmental discussions and policy formations between nations in the region. The last few Summits have been dominated by the formation of multilateral and bilateral trade discussions, albeit with slowly dwindling support for the FTAA since the Quebec City Summit in 2001, the Summit of the Americas has moved away from discussions of a multilateral agreements into the shiny and new 2009 Summit which seeks to patch up open ended policy debates in the region, address security issues and produce some form of future dialogue between the US and states which formally have had rough relations with the Americans in the past. The best evidence of this new Summit approach is the move by the Obama administration to open a dialogue with Fidel and Raul Castro which has been reciprocated this week, make open discussions of how the US and Mexico can claim their part in the drug war, create and new open-hand diplomacy towards Venezuela and Bolivia and have increased trade with traditional allies in the hemisphere. Below I will discuss the possibility of some future developments between the US, its neighbours in the hemisphere and relations between other members and internal struggles within some countries in the Americas.

This week saw an attempt on the life of Bolivian President Evo Morales. I was able to see a live discussion with President Morales via webfeed on the Summit Website earlier on Saturday which was quite impressive and needed to be noted. Bolivia has gone through a great deal of policy changes with Morales. As one of the first indigenous leaders in Latin America, Morales has shifted much of his policy into poverty reduction strategies and through popular support, and adjustment in the power structure in his country. With a recent protest to withhold eating until anti-poverty measures and land reform issues were passed through into policy by the Bolivian Parliament and a very recent attempt on his life, there is no doubt of his commitment to changing Bolivia. Support for Morales will likely remain due to his popularly with many poorer indigenous communities that give him a large support base politically. A possible opening of relations with Bolivia’s allies in Venezuela and Cuba with the United States may change the situation greatly. In most cases Morales will be there until he is unable to satisfy the popular elements in society or so greatly alienates what he refers to as the oligarchs in society that he is unable to withdraw from protests. Bolivia will likely follow the natural course of populists in the region, albeit hopefully without violence becoming an end result.

A possibly historic move by President Obama during the Summit might be a sign of thawing relations, as Barak Obama made his way to shake the hand of Hugo Chavez in an act of good will. While Chavez was criticized in US media recently for claiming that Obama needed to study up on Latin America, Obama’s active move towards open-hand diplomacy was met by a friendly response. Obama was even given a book about the history of Latin America by Chavez, but in maintaining his position Chavez handed Obama a book which some call an academic work which compiles a drastic account of state-to-state oppression by the US in Latin America. Despite slight posturing, an opening of a dialogue has already resulted in Venezuela re-instating its Ambassador to Washington and might result in some added passive economic ties between Venezuela and the US that builds on already existing trade in many markets between the two nations. The larger effect of Obama’s move to open dialogue further with Chavez likely comes from his very open and quick moves to re-initiate ties with Cuba. Although Cuba was ejected from the OAS in the early 1960s, thus did not have a formal representative at the Summit, Obama made it clear that a lifting of the travel restrictions on Cuba would be a priority as well as talks with Cuba’s leading family which were accepted by Castro before the Summit commenced. A discussion of this further by FPA’s Great Decisions program can be seen on a video titled The Latin American Left. Click here to see the video link.

Before the Summit, Obama went to Mexico to show his support for and claim some responsibility for the drug war now taking place in Mexico. Many in the US and Mexico believe that in order to conquer the drug cartels in Mexico itself, a concerted effort must be coordinated between the source of the narcotics in Mexico, and the source of weapons and main market for drugs in the US, and even the market in Canada where Canada’s Olympic city has been enveloped by a mini-drug war itself. In addition, Obama’s stop in Mexico City before the Summit brought Mexico into a similar light with the issues surrounding Cuba. The United States closest Latin American neighbors for the first time in two generations are finally being properly re-engaged, which sends a message to the rest of the region and creates a new energy for the Summit that shows the US as an open-hand to discussions in the region after many years of neglecting US-Latin American Relations. In his speeches, Obama sought to claim responsibility for US actions in the region in an attempt to clean old wounds between neighbours. He also stated that despite US actions in the region, it also must not become a scapegoat for all problems in the Americas. To see an article and video by the FPA writer Marco Vicenzino on Obama and Latin America, please click here.

The US policy towards Latin America has often been linked to free trade, and while the issues of trade and protectionism might not have been in the spotlight this weekend, America’s closest allies in the Americas have not forgotten the importance of this relationship. Economic powerhouses in the Americas such as Argentina and Brazil have been battling through the latest economic crisis but seek to open further trade ties with the US and other investors. China’s role in investment in Argentina and Brazil and other Latin American markets have started to rival those coming from the US, World Bank, IMF and IADB in levels of investment, albeit with more favorable lending conditions. Canada, the United States’ largest trading partner in the region sought to assist the US in opening relations with Cuba, to which Canada has always maintained, but hoped to keep the issue of trade protectionism in the focus of the Summit leaders as both developed and developing nations in the Americas would be greatly hurt if trade was sacrificed in the process of reinvigorating the economy in the Americas. A $4 billion cash infusion was also promised by Canada to the IADB during the Summit and moves towards a CARICOM-Canada FTA. An opening between the US and Cuba was seen as a positive for Canada as well, as support for trade between all three countries is seen as a benefit from US investment.

The greatest concern for many worried about trade protectionism in the melee of new policies and ideas at the Summit is what to do about trade and countries such as Colombia, who is the United States’ strongest ally in South America, but is being battered by interest groups in the US and opposition in Canada for the extension of Free Trade between the US, Canada and Colombia due to human rights abuses against labour leaders in Colombia. Opposition to a Colombian FTA is so great that it is doubtful that a minority government in Canada will be able to ratify it, and despite the US having strong trade ties with China and an opening with Cuba who also have numerous human rights violations, a Colombian FTA has been placed in a holding pattern of policy formation in the US Congress. Perspective must be taken into serious consideration, as the US often cannot justify trading with some partners, and penalizing others such as Cuba for human rights offences. Colombia is a success story against the drug war in the Americas, and opening a stronger economy between Colombia and North America, while pressuring for increased human rights in the process is the only way the United States and re-establishes itself in its own backyard. This statement justifying an opening of relations with Cuba cannot stop at Cuba and the US trade relationship with China.

At the end of the 5th Summit of the Americas, success will only come with a strong arm extending towards an open-hand of diplomacy in the Americas. Obama’s policy towards countries with human rights abuses must be measured and moral in its development of relations that benefit the US and the Americas as a whole.

Click here to see the Reuters Video of Chavez Meeting Obama

Click here to see the Reuters Video of Obama on New Ties with Cuba

This week’s New York Times published a fascinating article about a topic that many experts on Latin America should find very intriguing. The article titled Deals Help China Expand Sway in Latin America by writers Romero and Barrionuevo was an analysis of China’s growing influence in Latin America, with examples of how Chinese liquid investment in many large projects in the Southern Cone and Andean region seek to take American influence via multilateral organisations and FDI and divide the regions investment among the US, EU, China and the rest of Asia.

Since the admitting of China to the WTO and the drastic change in global trade and manufacturing flows, China has become a benefit to some in Latin America and less of a benefit to others. The New York Times article goes into many examples of how Chinese FDI seeks to fund many large projects in the region, from a development fund in Venezuela, to a hydroelectric project in Ecuador and providing Argentina $10 billion in financial loans and Brazil’s national oil company a similar amount to ensure future projects will send a guaranteed percentage of future oil to China. Relations between the US and many of its southern neighbours often have been strained politically in places like Venezuela and Bolivia, or have been tied in with economic restrictions such as Argentina’s relationship with many international financial institutions which set high risks for investment in the country, often funded and controlled by US investment policy within those institutions. For some in Latin America, Chinese investment is not only a good alternative, but can equal the amount invested by the IMF, World Bank and the US itself as noted in the article.

Concern from American officials will likely become greater as China seeks to displace any US and European FDI and by-pass conditions set by many international institutions that often placed Latin American and other developing countries into a position of forced policy measures. Chinese investment, most notably in Sudan and other parts of Africa, Latin America and Asia are starting to become an alternative source of funds for many countries which prefer to receive investment, but do not want conditions on their local policies, namely those which affect human rights and those connected to poverty reduction strategies. A benefit to a country like Argentina, who’s loan defaults in the past has placed it in a position where poor investment ratings still linger from 8 years ago, have received Chinese investment without major sacrifices at this point. However, places like Sudan, who are responsible for one of the largest ignored genocides since Rwanda receive not only Chinese investment in developing their oil industry, but are also suspected of receiving arms which some have connected to human rights violations in Darfur. Investment without any restrictions or a moral compass was not always practised by those in the West; especially during the colonial period, but the international investment community must decide how investment should be dealt with in the future to avoid mass slaughter of innocent communities, whether it be Chinese FDI or from the West.

Investment in Latin America has often been seen in a different light, depending on the attention Latin America has been paid during various American administrations. The Summit of the Americas this weekend comes on the heels of one of those moments in history where Latin America is becoming re-engaged, at least for the first few months of the Obama Presidency until there are added problems in the Middle East once again. The issue often seems not only one of Economics vs. Security, but one of the Americas being seen as one complete investment block/FTAA vs. a source of illegal immigration and narcotics. Often this debate plays out using clear statements of interest, referring to Latin America as a region described as America’s backyard as opposed to statements linking narcotics, illegal immigration and terrorism in much of US media on Latin America. A debate on US policy always accompanies the region, wavering as Latin America fades in and out of their sphere of influence with attention due accordingly. This challenge does have a distinct element however in 2009, as Mexico continues to fight a full scale drug war and continues its very close economic ties to the US, and Cuba and the US opening dialogue between Raul and Fidel Castro and the Obama administration. These issues may keep the US tied to regional policy until those issues lose interest, as has always been the case. Luckily some policies linked with security and partnership often pay off, as Colombians have seen in 2008-2009 and some successes with Plan Colombia and in Mexico with the Merida Initiative, not always a media attention grabber, but long term policy nonetheless.

Likely future Chinese investment may re-ignite the debate on trade with Latin America if it is seen as a major threat. The US must decide in the end where it wishes to develop its trade policy as those in the Americas seek to promote their own investments abroad if the US does not wish to pursue major investment and trade in the Americas. Debates on NAFTA and trade agreements with countries like Colombia must be taken as policies which benefit not only the United States, but the Americas region as a whole. In reality, trade between those countries in South America had on average less than 40% of their trade with the US and a significant amount with the EU and Asia. China has now displaced the EU as the second largest investor. Countries such as Canada, America’s closest trading partner has signed trade agreements beyond NAFTA, with Chile, Costa Rica and are discussing an FTA with Colombia and even the EU. According to writers such as Khanna and Zakaria, the US must consider its role in the Americas as its leader and develop its interests beyond security in the region if it is to maintain investment in a strong United States. China as a matter of investment policy is often not competing in places where the US have established strong investment ties, but in those areas where the US have been absent. The next decade of American policy towards the Americas will likely been discovered in the Summit of the Americas this weekend, determining the viability of a Fortress Americas in future US investment policy.

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

Hugo Chavez is set to open another referendum on allowing himself to be elected for another term in office beyond constitutional limits, but with the last referendum vote to increase his term in office losing by a small majority and his lack of popularity abroad being adopted by many in Venezuela itself, recent history will likely give him the measure he needs to either win or lose him power beyond Venezuela’s Constitution.

A list of pros and cons would easily draw a deep line on anyone’s page whether or not Chavez is more of a benefit or weakness for Venezuela and its neighbours. Recent diplomacy from Brazil had gained the release of captured Colombian government officials and other kidnap victims from the FARC, an action Chavez accomplished as well last year around the same time. The result was positive in both instances and gave Chavez a lot of clout, but support and documents found by Colombian officials during the two month Cold War between the two countries claimed evidence that Chavez was supporting the FARC in its battle against Colombia as well, illustrated for many Colombians by Chavez’s support for the FARC being recognized as a legitimate governing power after the release of some hostages to Venezuela. Eventually the rift was returned to status quo, and the Colombian government gave the FARC a strong coercive response, weakening the organization and pushing for more assertive diplomacy as video of Ingrid Betancourt and the ability of the Colombian Army made international headlines. Support for the FARC, even in Venezuela could not have helped Chavez, nor had nasty words from the respected democrat of Spain the King Juan Carlos towards Chavez in a public conference, helped Chavez be seen as a democratically elected leader in the process. Despite this, Chavez is still strongly supported in Venezuela. In recent regional elections he gained about half of the vote, and in the past referendum and in recent polls, he could win, albeit by a slight majority due to popular support in the country.

Poverty and rights should be the main focus for elections in Venezuela. Recent moves and disappearances have been brought to light against Venezuela’s opposition leaders, highlighted by the ejecting of officials from Human Rights Watch for a critical report on Chavez’s years in office. In the last month recent anti-Semitic actions in the country that were at least passively supported by the Chavez’s government, came through a policy of advancements towards Iran and comments on the conflict in Gaza. The reduction of oil prices and inflation numbers has brought Chavez closer towards losing financial supports for many of his anti-poverty programs in the last four months. While many of the programs during his term of office supplied much needed anti-poverty measures towards Venezuela and even other private individuals in Latin America, oil revenues may make this more difficult, and may make him lose his popular support to an unknown degree among his supporters in the country and reduce his influence in the region through less aid and loans to other Latin American countries.

Recent changes in the world economy have likely affected Chavez greatly. Some journalists and experts on the region believe this latest referendum is an attempt to gain support before the effects of inflation and the lack of oil revenue hits Venezuela’s poor. Poverty reduction is important for any future leaders of Venezuela, but populism and popular support can be easily lost if the balance of power changes, and funding cannot be provided for political support. With the election of Obama, Chavez has had to appeal in a positive manner towards the US, as did the President of Iran, and try to open dialogue towards the new President as scapegoating Obama would likely hurt Chavez more than help him. With the US regaining some legitimacy post-Bush and Brazil filling in the diplomatic gap with its own non-antagonistic poverty reduction strategies, Chavez might win the referendum, but lost popular support quickly after taking office for a third term beyond his rights in the current Venezuelan Constitution. Moves by Obama might make a world of difference in places like Venezuela and Iran, assertively addressing issues affecting the US, regional peace and minority and opposition rights in Venezuela and similar governments worldwide.

Latin America, while feeling ignored for the better part of eight years was one of President Obama's first international meetings that held the weight of his future power in his discussion with Mexican President Felipe Calderon last week. Mexico has spent the better part of 2008 fighting an intense conflict against internal drug cartels and towards the end of the year Bush and Obama have set to dedicate $400 million to help counter the violence taking hold in Mexico. Called the Merida Initiative, it mirrors aid sent to Colombia that started nearly eight years ago to help quell drug cartels in that country. Success of these initiatives has brought on a great deal of criticism, but the attention from the US is often due in these circumstances. With over 4000 deaths due to Mexico's drug war in the last 12 months, Mexico may become closer to the US as violence spins out of control.

Threats to the US since 9/11 have come mostly from non-state actors. From Al Qaeda to drug cartels, the method to fight them often is unknown as popular movements motivates unknown people to seek fortune, political change, extreme ideals and in almost all cases are fuelled by poverty. With the exception of agreements made with North Korea, George Bush was seen by many as a reflection of overbearing power that the hegemony of the United States used to enter nations despite local and international protests, in order to serve its own interest and punish others indefinitely. This debate rages on, but in those countries that were not directly in conflict with the US, their leaders often invoked Bush as a scapegoat for problems in their own countries, whether it was America's fault or a way to adjust public perception away from local government errors and policies.

President Barak Obama may change the dynamic of the situation by simply presenting the optics that would reduce the ability of leaders in populist states to place blame on the US for local troubles and push for more populist support among their population. Mexico traditionally has felt strongly influenced by the US, whether the US had great influence or not. Recent cooperation on Mexican security and a reopening of trade ties had brought Obama closer to Mexico, pulling anti-American feelings away from those of Cardenas' nationalisations of the 1930s and enabling a new relationship between the US and Mexico to flourish in troubled times. While this may be temporary, Mexico and the US have learned that they gain nothing from being divisive, and Calderon and Obama will likely not change this in the next four years.

Populism of the past has not been better represented in recent years than with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Morales in Bolivia and Castro in Cuba. While Morales exists through popular support internally and from Venezuela, and Castro is coming to the end of his days, Chavez has been able to take popular support and high oil prices in the last few years and apply it to not only anti-poverty measures, but pushing his support beyond Venezuela's Constitution to push for indefinite power. Chavez has been known to quell journalistic opposition by increasingly extreme measures and by placing blame for his country's ills on Bush and Uribe. In very recent history however, three factors have cut Chavez down to the role of elected official where he will have to leave office at term due to lack of popular support. Initially the referendum to increase his term of office indefinitely was rejected by Venezuelans, albeit by a slight margin, and a second try at a referendum drags with it accusations that media and opposition has been attacked or shut down. Nothing makes this clearer as when representatives of Human Rights Watch were assaulted and ejected from Venezuela for their analysis of Chavez during his term of office. The second grand effect was the cutting of oil prices by half, in a country where all other industries have been culled for the sake of oil, which is controlled by the government and is used for political reasons. Talk is never cheap when is it bathed in oil revenues, but Chavez will likely lose a lot of support when he realizes that he lost 40% of his savings, like everyone else has in the last two months. The third possible strike against Chavez is the loss of Bush and America as scapegoats for problems faced by Venezuela's people. Obama, which not yet addressing Latin America beyond the meeting with Calderon is not seen as a divisive figure in Latin America, and comes off more as someone who could have easily grew up in the streets of Havana or Caracas as opposed to growing up through the military like Chavez or as inheriting his position as President through channels in the upper class in a region where wealth and poverty is the determining factor of power in society. While this might not eliminate the US or even Obama as being seen as abusing the power of a hegemony, it will simply show the US as a country where any citizen can come to power through their own efforts, a reality that does not exist in Venezuela or few other states.

The greatest challenge to Obama might be that of the Middle East, and he is very aware of this fact. With conflict in Gaza, the government of Lebanon being challenged daily by Hezbollah, Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan to boot, Obama will have to challenge issues and popular support in many of these regions, and as a result have to solve issues by coming to terms with populism and policy in Iran which could easily tilt the region to peace or chaos if support in Iran allows for it. While many Middle Eastern experts see anti-American sentiment as justified or simply as political posturing, the reflection of support and opposition in political movements in a country like Iran has never been simple rhetoric. Opposition in Iran goes well beyond simple human rights abuses and has gone to the point of the murder of local and foreign journalists and politicians, the legislation of laws allowing the execution of coverts and the arrest of Baha'I leaders for the second time in a generation, the first being murdered in prison and the most recent being taken without charge in a continual attack on minorities and political opposition in Iran. These incidents are few examples of a long list of abuses ignored by the international community. Populism in Iran could go in either direction, as the country has one of the highest number of people under 35 and also has been greatly affected by the change in oil prices, which could lead to a situation of grave unemployment and populist leaders to gain a great deal of power if a tone of anti-Obama or conflict through Hamas or Hezbollah can place Obama in the same light as Bush when attacks or retaliations are claimed by allies of populists in Iran or nations allied with the US in the region. While poverty, oil and political repression abounds in many countries in the region, Obama will likely lose any support in the region, and has already been attacked by regional media on his first day in office. The strength Obama has in this case is that the silent opposition and those who are at the receiving end of threats by Iran's populists could change their tone when oppression and Barak Hussein Obama challenges, builds and offers and alternative to threats by someone who is a non-traditional leader of the free world. This however will never succeed if an America based on a just tradition will not push for justice of those in the region who are sitting in prison waiting for the day of their possible execution. While Chavez will likely lose his seat in power, Iran's populists sit at the centre of a peace process in the region. Compromise and posturing is common in populists movements, but human rights should be at the forefront of any actions taken in the region for President Obama.