With a new year now beginning, many commentators are looking back on the year that was in Latin America, so this morning, I begin with part I of a round-up of opinions and analysis on Latin America in 2009, with a look at what might be expected in 2010.
On U.S. relations with the region, Jim Lobe writes for Inter-Press Service that “Nearly one year after his inauguration, hopes that President Barack Obama would bring fundamental changes to U.S. relations with Latin American have faded badly.” Distracted by a full plate which has included an economic crisis, a battle over healthcare, and multiple wars in Middle East, Lobe says the President has paid little attention to the U.S. relationship with Latin America and has “fumbled a number of issues in ways that have contributed to what appears to be the growing disillusionment.”
Explaining U.S. failures on the crisis in Honduras, here’s Cynthia Arnson of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars:
“The administration's about-face in Honduras over recognising the legitimacy of the elections prior to Zelaya's restoration appears to have had more to do with pressure from Senate Republicans over the confirmation of [Arturo] Valenzuela [as Ass’t. Sec. of State]."
On Military Bases in Colombia, again Arnson:
“The Colombia case had more to do with a profoundly inadequate process of consultation and vetting with regional allies.”
On U.S. Cuba policy during Obama’s first year, Sarah Stephens of the Center for Democracy in the Americas notes:
“Although President Obama departed from the Bush policy - by restoring Cuban American travel to Cuba, granting visas to some artists, and restarting the migration talks - he has preserved much of the Cold War essence of our policy just like every president since Eisenhower.”
And on drug policy, American University’s Bill LeoGrande:
“Despite acknowledging the demand side of the problem, we still appear to be fighting it on the supply side…The real issue is, what's the long-term strategy that shifts the focus from trying to stop supply to reducing demand?”
(LeoGrande adds that Latin America policy is on “autopilot” as top officials “don't have time to focus on it, and the assistant secretaries don't have the authority to make fundamental change”)
One of the most watched relationships of the U.S. in Latin America has been that with Brazil. At the London Review of Books site, NYU’s Greg Grandin writes that the honeymoon between President Obama and “his man” Lula has ended. Among the differences that have arisen in the last year between the U.S. and Brazil: the handling of the coup in Honduras, the decision to up U.S. presence at military bases in Colombia, the visit of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Brasilia, and disappointing global climate talks in Copenhagen. One important reason for the divergence between Obama’s foreign policy choices and those of Lula, writes Grandin:
“Lula, no less than Obama, operates within constraints. Brazil has powerful agricultural, financial, and industrial sectors and a large, interest-aware military. But like most of the rest of South America, it also has a vibrant, influential left that holds politicians accountable… The US, in contrast, is still very much in thrall to a vibrant, powerful right. And that leaves Obama little more to offer Latin America than military bases, coups and the empty rhetoric of free trade.”
On Iran’s presence in the Latin America, the discussion has not been limited to Brazil. In fact, a more long-standing and more scrutinized relationship with Iran is Venezuela’s (in fact, the relationship goes back to the 1960s when the two nations were founding members of OPEC). In Poder 360, the Inter-American Dialogue’s Michael Shifter examines the “Chavezjad Doctrine.” He writes:
“The key question is whether the Venezuela-Iran relationship can best be understood as merely a political alliance –that is, a byproduct of self-interested jockeying and rapidly shifting poles of power in the world --or rather as something more sinister meriting an energetic response from the United States and other governments concerned about peace and security in the Americas.”
While there appears to be no clear answer yet, Shifter concludes that Iran has gotten much more out of the relationship than Venezuela. But, he adds, in the end, “a robust relationship” will be made difficult by daunting domestic and regional challenges facing both leaders. “Chavez and Ahmadinejad's chief priority is the perpetuation of power at home, without which it will be virtually impossible to deepen ties across the globe.”
Even with latest poll numbers putting Chavez’s popularity in Venezuela still at 60%--and with others identifying with the broad Latin American left still very popular as well (see Tabaré Vázquez in Uruguay and Mauricio Funes in El Salvador, for two examples)—Alvaro Vargas Llosa argues in the Globe and Mail that key elections are about to move the region Right. Among the places where the pundit says the Left is likely to lose in the coming year or two: Chile, Brazil, Peru, Argentina along with already right-leaning Colombia and Panama.
With other somewhat provocative predictions for 2010, Newsweek predicts this will be the year Fidel Castro dies and the year Chavez faces coup #2. Brazil, writes the magazine, will also become the most dominant of the four rising power BRIC countries in 2010. A few more reflections on 2009 and predictions for 2010 tomorrow.
In other news and opinions this morning:
· Roberto Micheletti claims the United States has offered “millions of dollars in aid” if he steps down as president of the country. “The United States wants me to withdraw on January 15 with the promise to grant many millions of dollars in aid to Honduras,” said the de facto leader, after U.S. diplomat Craig Kelly paid another visit to Tegucigalpa this week. Micheletti’s reply: No thanks. I’ll wait until January 27 when Pepe Lobo is set to be inaugurated. Micheletti did, however, say he does not plan to attend the inauguration of Mr. Lobo, preferring to watch the events on TV, so as to “avoid any problems with international community.” He also called the actions of the U.S. over the last 6 months “erratic.” Meanwhile, the Honduran Public Prosecutor seems to now disagree with Mr. Micheletti’s claim that the events of June 28 represented a smooth and fully constitutional succession of power. On Wednesday, that office filed charges against the high command of the military for forcibly exiling Mel Zelaya. The BBC says three military chiefs—including Armed Forces chief of staff, Gen. Romeo Vasquez—are among the six individuals cited in the claim. The Supreme Court must now decide whether or not to hear the case. Also on Honduras, Pepe Lobo says he has invited numerous Latin American leaders (mostly Central Americans), including Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, to an upcoming meeting about resolving the ongoing crisis in his country.
· In Ecuador on Tuesday, debate began in the National Assembly over a controversial new media law put forward by the Correa government. More specifics on the bill and compromises struck between Correa and the opposition at Boz.
· Evo Morales, writes Foreign Policy, has called for an alternative climate summit to be held in April in his country and including “indigenous peoples, social movements, environmentalists and scientists as well as governments 'who want to work with their people.”
· On the drug war and drug policy in Mexico and beyond, a long article from over the holidays in the Wall Street Journal reports that “Growing numbers of Mexican and U.S. officials say—at least privately—that the biggest step in hurting the business operations of Mexican cartels would be simply to legalize their main product: marijuana.” According to one top Mexican official:
“Economically, there is no argument or solution other than legalization, at least of marijuana...Mexico's objective should be to make the U.S. self-sufficient in marijuana.”
· Finally, two opinions this morning. Andres Oppenheimer in the Miami Herald discusses growing frustration in Argentina, not over the economy, but rather over political corruption—an issue which some Argentines see as the reason their country is lagging behind neighbors like Brazil and Chile. And in the New York Times, Nick Kristof with a piece asking, why are Costa Ricans consistently the happiest people on the planet? His conclusion:
“What sets Costa Rica apart is its remarkable decision in 1949 to dissolve its armed forces and invest instead in education. Increased schooling created a more stable society, less prone to the conflicts that have raged elsewhere in Central America. Education also boosted the economy, enabling the country to become a major exporter of computer chips and improving English-language skills so as to attract American eco-tourists.”
No comments:
Post a Comment