While signs of this oil find have been known since 2007, the positioning of Brazil as the third BRIC to become a significant economic power has become the focus of many economic success stories since the economic crisis began this time last year. The fifteen-minute blackout in Brazil’s two largest cities was nothing compared to the day long blackout of the Eastern US and Ontario Canada in 2003. While many weary Brazilian’s might see this as a sign of poor government control or a lack of proper infrastructure, the economic heart of the world has also blacked out for much longer periods of time and will remain strong despite electrical and economic issues in the past.

Brazil on the heels of the Olympic win might be able to claim a medal in the near future as the third BRIC to develop to its full economic potential. What is of more importance than being the third country of the four to grow into its own media hype, is the ability to stay in the running to become the most stable BRIC nation in the long run. Brazil is not a typical BRIC as its growth did not come about in the same fashion as Russia, India or China. Due to the resilience of its economy, diversity in its global position, and ever growing positive reputation outside of Brazil, the South American giant will likely become the next Super Economy.

Unlike the other BRIC nations, Brazil has grown to its current potential through a series of economic failures and lessons and has made diverse growth a part of its overall growth policy, in addition to a little luck. Politically, there have been many debates in the country and criticisms of policy and the new constitution since the 1990s, but the growth of the country from right of centre to left of centre governments have tried to maintain the same prudent growth strategy while addressing poverty reduction. Poverty reduction and community development combined with economic success has been a slow climb to bring Brazil into a position where its internal issues do not hinder its ability to position itself abroad.

In comparison to the other BRIC nations it must first be noted that the relation between the BRIC nations comes from some simple measures, mostly the physical and population size of the country, its relative economic weight, and political importance in its respective region. Success in these large developing economies could plausibly lead to another combination of four or more nations, which despite their size have little in common when considering growth and poverty reduction. Countries such as Mexico, Indonesia, Ukraine, Iran, Nigeria and Egypt could possibly become future BRICs, but have stronger similarities to a China or Brazil, Russia or India. In the future, the positive and negative growth trends of the original BRICs will likely become the typical measure for different developing countries that are large and emerging economically but have little in common with each other.

When referring to Brazil, it must be noted that its economic diversity and policies addressing poverty reduction outright is notably different than those growth policies in the other BRIC nations. Latin America only competes with Africa with regards to inequality between rich and poor, and this inequality is the historical and structural burden of every Latin American country and citizen. For this reason, when luck arrives in the form of a previously undiscovered oil field, the use of its revenues to grow the economy for the whole of society can be relatively balanced with equitable policy or the expectations of such revenues for Brazil as a whole. Structural problems in places like Nigeria or Iran simply turns its vast oil wealth into a source of wealth for few and is used as political leverage against its own citizens. Russia, one of the co-BRICs, also is a country with large amounts of oil and gas, but often it is used to leverage itself politically against its neighbours and maintain its own security position in the region. The lack of diversity in the Russian economy and its link to oil and gas as its main commodity might bring in a lot of economic successes in good times, but it can harm the Russian economy when oil or other commodities are hurt in poor times. Russia becomes a BRIC however as the potential of a diverse economy and a large population could make it into a large economic power as opposed to a significant country for solely security reasons and cultural influence. Brazil’s long term policies and diverse training and economy has been able to balance its resources with other economic leverages, oil simply supports the Brazilian economy, but is not the economy itself.

With regards to China and India, links to Europe and North America has played a large role in the rapid growth of both these economies. Chinese growth is completely linked with the US consumer and other Western consumers who purchase much of their lost cost items from factories in China. These factories sell directly to US and European companies who choose to move their manufacturing to China and delegate production to small manufacturing concerns in China. Quality and safety becomes an issue for many large multinationals as they can only monitor production by second hand means, and growth in China also becomes dependent on many workers with artificially low wages to grow the country. Legal measures and equality are limited for the sake of growth, and this medium term strategy may likely fail in the long term if wages do not rise or few Chinese are allowed to benefit in the long term. It is not to say that China’s growth is limited, but policy approaches to balance growth with benefits must be addressed to make China into what the pre-2008 media hype believes it to become.

India has tried to address policy concerns and poverty reduction to some degree and might become a more stable economy in the long term, due to its large labour force, basic legal development of employment concerns, and diversity of economic growth as seen in its diversity in production, services, and technological training. India also has strong ties to the UK traditionally and may become a source for UK wealth as the financial sector in the UK continues to finance and fund growth in India due to their close relationship. India’s influence economically is also strongly tied to security issues and concerns as its growth is challenged by China’s economy and Pakistan’s and Afghanistan’s internal security issues which often brings India into the debate.

Links between growth in India and China and its European and American counterparts is responsible for much of their rapid growth, and many of its challenges as well. Brazil’s economy has recently been linking to a greater degree with other BRIC nations, but has often has balanced links with the US, EU, Asia and the rest of the world. Links with the EU and US over the last 40 years often bounced between 25% to 40% of Brazil’s economy and maintained a diverse position economically. Focus on MERCOSUR and Latin America has given Brazil better leverage and has balanced its influence in the world economy. While the US has been slow to react to Brazil’s influence outside of Latin America, other nations in the Americas would do well to take advantage of Brazil’s emerging position. Countries like Canada that are diverse and share an economic position like Brazil as not being terminally damaged by the economic recession of 2008-2009 could benefit via ties with Brazil as Canada is based in the financial and resource industry. Canada could become Brazil’s key to financial opportunities worldwide if Wall Street is slow to create stronger ties with Brazil. While economic ties remain diverse, Brazil is becoming a source of political attraction for many who often have little links with Latin America. Recently competing envoys from Iran and Israel have been sent to Brazil due to its new position as a global power and have been welcomed as Brazil seeks to balance its relations between the US and Venezuela with their counterparts in the Middle East. China continues to seek partners in Latin America as the US loses its economic clout and discusses the future of “Buy America” with its nervous allies. Brazil and other Latin American economies have been creating fast paced economic ties over the last two years as the US decides whether or not to approach the Americas with an open hand.

Media impressions of Super Economies are often done via a lens of paranoia that the US, the EU or Western countries will become the underdeveloped nations of the future. The likely outcome is that the US and EU will remain as strong economies as they have links abroad and are large and influential and will remain so for a long time. BRICs nations often do not involve themselves in other regions beyond a trading relationship or the need for resources. Brazil is balanced economically and resource wise to maintain its influence in Latin America, yet not come in conflict with other BRICs or Western Economies. While the Eastern US may not become an economic blackout in the long run, trends and policy concerns should create strong ties among strong neighbours economically and create decisive and strong coalitions between current or future BRICs and Western powers if economic hubs will grow or remain at their current levels of importance. Brazil is likely not going to be limited by 15 minutes of fame or of darkness, but will grow slowly and surely over the next few years.

The first film  is called Romero (1989) and is a film about the real Monsignor Romero who was one of the top Catholic Church leaders during El Salvador’s revolution in the 1980s. Many church officials were unable to escape the violence of the civil war, and along with Romero, many were killed in conflicts between the warring factions at the time. The film gives a good account of the issues surrounding Romero’s lack of choices in attempting to protect his community and his church from the prevalence of violence in El Salvador at the time. Many have claimed the events in El Salvador as the dark point and strongest criticism of the otherwise well respected Pope John Paul II. While still in debate today, the lack of support from the Vatican for its representatives in El Salvador at the time and the involvement of US interests in El Salvador makes this film as valid today as it was twenty years ago. There are many documentaries about Romero as well, but if one wants to understand El Salvador in the 1980s and issues in the country and Salvadoran communities abroad today, a good starting point would be looking into Romero’s struggle and the film about his life. The link to Sean’s review can be found here.

The second film is called Beyond the Gates of Splendor (2004) and is about a group of missionaries who travel back in time to meet a stone aged tribe living in a region of South America where Ecuador exists today. I have not seen the film, but from what I have read of Sean’s review it sounds like a film which is a mix of events and a documentary style as family and colleagues of the scientists become part of the narrative of the film. You can read Sean’s review here.

I encourage all of you to check out these reviews and Sean Murphy’s other reviews on the FPA Global Film Review Blog. Gracias!

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!

First to address the return of Zelaya to Honduras, mind you within the legal jurisdiction of Brazil. Manuel Zelaya, the removed elected leader of Honduras finally returned to Tegucigalpa after several attempts. He arrived with unknown help, but ended up inside Brazil’s Embassy in the Honduran capital. Arrests were attempted and protests ensued, but he remains there for the time being as the OAS and US push for a meeting between Zelaya and the “new” leaders of Honduras. The reality is that Central America is often not a principal concern for many major powers in the Americas, but major powers often determine the outcome of politics in Central America as opposed to the people themselves. The role of Brazil, who many see as South America’s political giant is somewhat skewed in this incident, as often Central America is left alone to the sphere of the US. Brazil might unwillingly be dragged into the Honduran mess in a mediation role and since the US is surprisingly supporting Zelaya, Brazil may be the only country in the region who can be seen as somewhat impartial in this incident as is usually the case in the region. Even though the US and Venezuela are supporting Zelaya, the reason why Honduras has become for the first time in its history a subject of national interest is because Zelaya’s attempt to be elected indefinitely mirrors the populist approach Chavez has taken in Venezuela successfully. Obama’s support for Zelaya may be tantamount to his speech in Cairo, showing a new moderation towards past opposition, in this case leftists in the region, and a balanced approach to policy. It does not seem to be working all that well unfortunately, as possible interference by Venezuela in Honduran affairs cannot be balanced by an impartial Brazil and is not being critcised by the US in any substantial form. This leaves the “new” Honduran leadership with few options but to hold up a strong front against Zelaya, one that will remain at the doors of the Brazilian Embassy as not to cross into Brazil’s legal property inside Honduras. As long as Zelaya is accused by his opposition in the Senate and Judiciary of Honduras, the likelihood of allowing Zelaya to regain any position of power will result in more protests and cracking down of protestors. The only positive aspect of a likely messy outcome is that at least they are not in Iran.

Larry King on CNN brought two surprise interviews this past week with Hugo Chavez, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Fareed Zakaria will be interviewing Gadhafi this weekend. Gadhafi has received a lot of attention recently with his extended speech at the UN and the scandal in the UK regarding the release of a convicted terrorist and their return to Libya due to illness. Before that incident however the relations between Libya and the western world were luke warm. The issue that will likely have the largest impact long term is the open policy actions by the UK government mixing business interests with justice issues, as opposed to actions by Gadhafi himself which were most likely expected by anyone who knew anything about Libya. The view of the British people shows that their government might be doing something which many in developing regions have accused western powers of doing for decades, placing oil before rights, and this will bring down the Labour Government and tarnish Mr. Blair’s reputation and keep Mr.Brown in the political crosshairs where he essentially has always been. Like Honduras, Libya’s issue will die out with a lengthy investigation or the death of the Lockerbie bomber, and the world will refocus on the major players, which brings us to King’s interviews.

The first one I was able to see was the one with Hugo Chavez. It was an interesting interview, but no new information came out of it that Chavez did not speak about in length whenever he had the opportunity. Three comments stood out as one’s of interest in my opinion. Chavez compared his military spending as being one-tenth of that of Colombia. Documented information makes his claims quite puzzling, as Venezuela has purchased and continues to purchase a great number of top of the line Russian military equipment. Compared to similar equipment in Colombia there is no threat from the Colombian army technologically. Colombia also has internal security issues, claimed by Colombia as supported by Chavez himself and would be able to justify large amounts of spending. Chavez’s fear was that Colombia could attack Venezuela as was done briefly two years ago against Ecuador when raiding a FARC encampment seems to the root of his security concerns, but with people dying in Colombia possibly due to arms coming from Venezuela, he might not be the innocent party between the two countries.

Chavez also spoke about his past detention and referring to Bush as the devil. He is convinced that in his past detention in Venezuela and afterwards that US agents were trying to kill him. He didn’t explain how he knew this was the case, but there will be an Oliver Stone movie coming out about Chavez soon that will likely explain as little as Stone movie about Castro did.

The issue that caught my attention was King’s question on why Chavez is supporting Iran’s government, despite the popular protests taking hold there. Chavez noted that internal issues of a state are internal, mind you Chavez often involves himself in the issues of other countries, but for some reason when blood is spilled for a similar cause he stands for in Venezuela and is crushed in Iran, then it seems to be allowed. This is nothing less than disgraceful to those in Latin America who had to endure real threats to their lives and those in Iran who peacefully protest and are cut down in the streets while Chavez ignorantly tours the Middle East. They both shared the perspective that Israel’s “genocide” was the issue that dominated internal issues in Iran and Latin America, although I am unsure why possible crimes in another city gives the right for someone to kill their neighbours in their own city. Chavez did acknowledge the Holocaust unlike Ahmadinejad. He also said he was a friend of the Jewish people and even said he was a Colombian himself. Previously he also said Colombia was Latin America’s Israel; maybe he is an Israeli too?

In the interview with Ahmadinejad, the issue of Venezuela did come up. Two points were addressed by King that were related to Venezuela. One was the fate of the young girl Neda, who was shot during a protest. Ahmadinejad supposed that in Venezuela a similar incident took place where two cameras were fixed on the victim before they died in a protest in Caracas. He didn’t say much after that, but it hinted that the death was arranged somehow, and they left it at that. The second issue that was asked by King of both leaders I believe was the growing ties between Iran and Venezuela, especially ties to nuclear energy. While both countries are energy giants with vast oil reserves, the persistent development of nuclear energy and ties with Iran and Iran’s aggressive stance in the region might turn Chavez from Castro minus the wit into a major security concern, or another “missile crisis” with Iran and Venezuela pressuring western powers in Europe and the US with ballistic missile threats in both the Middle East and Latin America. With the discovery of a new secret nuclear plant in Iran and a cohesive stance being built in the Security Council, it is likely that sanctions will not be seen as sufficient in dealing with Iran, and any nuclear activity in Venezuela may be swiftly dealt with by the US itself. The reality is that a minimal percentage of people in Venezuela and Iran would give their lives in a war to keep either leader in power. Both claim the right to any activity they wish as a sovereign state, but when other states are affected by their actions, a right to respond is also within reason. It could be that Zelaya is returned to power and Gadhafi simply retires as their allies enter into armed conflict over issues that do not need to exist. King’s interviews did not bring to light anything new, but his great questions did confirm the worst expectations most have of leaders who wish to define their destiny as populists who do not mind claiming sovereignty over local jurisdiction while involving themselves aggressively within their regional issues.

On PBS next Monday Director Juan Mandelbaum brings his personal experience growing up in Argentina during the military junta to American networks. Information about the airing of the documentary is listed below:

OUR DISAPPEARED/NUESTROS DESAPARECIDOS is the heart-breaking chronicle of director Juan Mandelbaum’s personal search for the souls of friends and loved ones, idealistic young students and activists, who were caught in the brutal vise of the right-wing military and “disappeared” in his native Argentina during the 1976-1983 military dictatorship. OUR DISAPPEARED/NUESTROS DESAPARECIDOS will air nationally on the Emmy Award-winning PBS series Independent Lens, hosted by Terrence Howard, on Monday, September 21, 2009 at 10PM (check local listings.)

While this blog often addresses issues between nations and between power brokers on many of these nations, it is crucial to view political views from the perspective of those individuals who have suffered personal trials within the context of a larger political events or crisis. I encourage everyone to try to watch the documentary if living in the US or having access to a PBS station. If information for those you living outside to US is made available in accessing the film, I will post further information about dates or viewing times on this blog.

Please tune in!

While the perspective of many Americans often is the opposite of their European colleagues, a similar 8 years of the Bush Presidency will likely not become an alternative to any policies of the Obama Administration. With respect to local US issues, especially the current health care debate, to become like Canada or Europe from a health perspective is often not desired and often not understood. Most Americans do actually have very decent health care coverage, as do most Canadians and Europeans. Administering such care often lacks in many systems from one problem to another. After living in the US, UK, Canada and Spain, I would say problems and scandals abound, but also that the debate in the US might allow other nations to debate their own systems and resolve their own issues respectively. The debate is the benefit, but locally nothing will change much in the end for the most part. The dialogue is of a certain value however as Obama and his international perspective, the move towards a right of centre government on the European continent and middle powers now being able to work with the US without being tarnished by Bush allow a consensus to be formed on how to approach trade with China, rogues states such as Iran, North Korea and to some degree Venezuela and find commonalities between Europeans, Americans and other similar countries in dealing with a globalised world where nations seem to be choosing where to camp and prosper for future security and economic strength. A good example of the fallacy of this in the UK will likely come at the political career of Mr. Brown and perhaps Mr. Blair, as the consensus seems to not look favorably on making economic deals in spite of security. Britain will most likely endure a political change in order to being itself on board and regain respect from its allies, soldiers in Afghanistan and its political class.

Fans of Castro or those who seem to believe they have as much luck and intelligence often are those leaders who have a substantial amount of oil or somehow have been able to gain weapons technology and have a population which is controlled and oppressed so that no information leaves or enters the nation. This latter example is that of North Korea, who seems to be forgotten on the world stage, at least outside of Northern Asia when they are not kidnapping Japanese or Korean neighbours or shooting surface-to-surface missiles towards Japan and Hawaii. While the North Koreans have more in common with old Soviets than old Cubans, it is likely that they will stay that way for generations as China seeks to re-integrate culturally with the world and keeps its foot on North Korea and its actions.

Iran’s popular uprising is slowly degrading Iran’s leadership and the legitimacy of the government to justify any legitimate justice in society through a government which is habitually hiding its abuses and justifying its nuclear ambitions despite any evidence of the latter. The regime will likely come to and end at the footsteps of its infamous Evin prison as its leaders seeks to murder more and more of its citizens in order to keep itself in power. Consensus on Iran will likely reach the point where Western journalists, citizens and others will be kidnapped or killed for having contact with the country and its regime, or the regime will play its last card like North Korea by claiming nuclear capabilities, but unlike North Korea who is surrounded by a weaponised China and Japan, Western powers and their political allies who have lost many in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan would likely come to brutal terms with Iran, especially since Iran’s Diaspora and locals have made a strong point to show the illegitimacy of their government and its lack of support. As well, the will of many in Iran to fight a full scale war to support a leadership who is illegitimate and likely will begin a war in order to regain legitimacy will be difficult. Weapons capabilities of Iran come with a few modern SAM batteries at best, not coming close to the defense capabilities of North Korean or even Venezuela. Iran will likely never reach the point of becoming a Cuba or North Korea, as people inside Iran have already published their new revolution and spilled blood in the 1980s and in 2009.

Venezuela is the most curious example, as support for the poor and measures against Chavez has given him more legitimacy due to strong opposition and addressing poverty issues directly, but moves towards closing down opposition media, enabling himself to be elected indefinitely and making it illegal to criticize the government. As he tours the palaces and homes of leaders who have openly killed many of their own citizens in other nations, Chavez seeks to turn Venezuela into an Iran or eventual North Korea optically, but the severe opposition and debate in Venezuela and open discussion about Chavez inside and outside of the country by many from Venezuela and others with interests in the region keep Chavez as more of an empty threat than anything else. Colombians, who are enduring yet another cold war with Venezuela often do not have issues with Venezuelans themselves, and vice versa. Despite this, Venezuela has purchase some advanced weaponry from Russia and China and is seeking closer economic ties with Iran, seen in Chavez’s recent tour of the Middle East and opening petroleum trade with Iran. The popular support of Chavez, coming from poorer rural supporters ties in well with a history of poverty and popular uprising in Latin America, but when popular support in Iran is met by unequivocal support by Chavez of Iran’s regime, it simply leads leaders and Kings of other nations to simply tell his to quiet himself, as opposed to opening a dialogue on poverty reduction and popular support for all, whether it be Iranians on the streets of Teheran or impoverished in the slums of Caracas. Ties with Iran might do so much to see Venezuela as a possible target, but no one takes Chavez serious enough it seems to come to a consensus on the issue…A problem that Fidel Castro never had with Cuba since the Missile Crisis.

On August 24th HBO will present a new documentary titled “Which Way Home”. This film follows a number of children, as young as 9-years old, on their perilous journey from Central America into the United States. While seeking to enter the US illegally, they dream of building better lives.

The documentary was presented at the prestigious Tribeca film festival. See more at: http://www.tribecafilm.com/filmguide/41263932.html..

An article in today’s New York Times gives further description on how the director, Rebecca Cammisa, shot the film.

Regardless of where one stands on the issue of illegal migration, “Which Way Home” provides an opportunity for audiences to hear the voices of underage migrants, who make up approximately 5% of migrants passing northwards through Mexico. It reveals the personal stories of young migrants that can become lost within the polarizing public debate over immigration to the United States.

While Hollywood seems to focus on selling glitz or scoring big at the box office (how could “Transformers 2” earn over $200 million in five days?), it is nice to see movies that spread awareness of key social issues to a wider public audience. A few other flics touching on the theme of migration also come to mind:

“Tears of the Sun” (2003): Please don’t laugh. This Hollywood action movie starring Bruce Willis may not describe the complexities of refugee situations, but it does place the issue of displaced persons squarely within the film’s plot.

“Maria Full of Grace” (2004): Portrays the use of women as “mulas” (mules) to transport cocaine, ingested in latex balloons, on flights into the United States. Actress Catalina Sandino Moreno was nominated for an Oscar for her leading role.

“Human Trafficking” (2005): A TV movie revealing the exploitation of women forced into prostitution in other countries (although it could have also shown with greater depth that men and economic migrants are also at risk of being trafficked).

“David D. Sussman also writes about Venezuela on FPA blogs. You can find further commentary and analysis at: venezuela.foreignpolicyblogs.com