The future of Latin America is often seen in two perspectives. One is the US and its approach to other countries in the Americas. Many in the United States see Latin America as its proper sphere of influence. While many in Latin America would prefer an increasingly independent status, the reality of geopolitics is that for better or for worse, the United States has had a lot of power in determining the future of Latin America via economic relationships, political ties and support to groups and officials in various Latin American countries. The question now is based on how the US wants to approach the region in the future. With economic successes in Mexico and Brazil and Chile, and diplomatic challenges with Venezuela and Bolivia and a mix of both with every other country, the opportunity to reengage after five years in Iraq will determine how the US progresses in the future as a regional power or a source of conflict for many of its neighbours.

In his new book The Second World and in an interview with Edward Baker of Strategy+Business, Parag Khanna of the New America Foundation discusses how the future of geopolitics will likely take shape in the future. With power becoming divided among China, the US and the EU, many regions of influence which he refers to as the Second World will often become influenced by one of the three main powers. These middle powers have yet to determine which influence they wish to presume, but as Khanna points out the opportunity for influence comes only from those powers and their ability to coordinate their diplomacy in a productive fashion. As with Latin America and the OAS, the region is essentially available for diplomacy and will be the determining factor of future influence of the US in the near future. Isolationism and the fear of working within the international community will only hurt the US in the future. The OAS and Latin America is seen as the answer for many, as Edward Baker states: “The answer lies right under our noses.”

For a Video Interview by Charlie Rose with Parag Khanna click here. 

For further discussion ofthe issue of US influence in the World, see The Washington Post article The Rise of Non-Americanism by Fareed Zakaria by clicking here. 

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The panel’s discussion hit some key issues important to foreign policy towards Cuba. A comparison of policies towards China when abuse of rights is accepted by the international community, as compared to the heavy sanctions on Cuba for less abusive acts was the glue between the discussions of the two issues. Much of the criticism comes from the openness of the US and other countries towards China when many of the policies towards Tibet run contradictory to policies which support an embargo of Cuba. While rights abuses by any country are unacceptable, it is those who are abused which suffer from inconsistent policies which allow trading partners to ignore political pressures while placing a small country into poverty for the same reasons. Ideally, abuses by Cuban and Chinese officials should not be accepted for the sake of trade, and policies should not starve citizens of any country in an attempt to protect them from the abuses of the own government. This was the case during the oil sanctions on Iraq after the Gulf War, which lead to the starvation of many innocent civilians at the behest of Saddam Hussein. Bad policy which leads to increased suffering of politically oppressed people should be clearly unacceptable in any rights based society.

I encourage our FPA readers to take the time to watch the TVO program. Please address these issues in our blog comments accordingly.

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.