Unlikely Allies; Or How the US Oil Industry Could Break the Cuba Embargo

On the front page of today’s New York Times Clifford Krauss presents an unlikely, but perhaps game changing, alliance in the campaign to end the United States half-century embargo on Cuba. As the island begins a period of domestic economic restructuring, it’s also preparing to open up deepwater oil fields just 50 miles off the Florida Keys next year – doing so with the help the Spanish company, Repsol. The implications for Cuba, according to the Times:

“Cuba currently produces little oil. But oil experts say the country might have reserves along its north coast as plentiful as that of the international oil middleweights, Ecuador and Colombia — enough to bolster its faltering economy and cut its dependence on Venezuela for its energy needs. “

But of growing concern to many, both inside and outside of Cuba, is what might happen in the event of a major oil spill, a la the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster of this year. The Times says Cuba is “far less prepared to handle a major spill than even the American industry was at the time of the BP spill,” with “neither the submarine robots needed to fix deepwater rig equipment nor the platforms available to begin drilling relief wells on short notice.” Moreover, the US trade embargo on the island, say oil industry officials, would make the possibility of American-Cuba cooperation in the event of a spill a bureaucratic nightmare, if not impossible. Here’s Lee Hunt, president of the International Association of Drilling Contractors, a trade group which tries to “broaden bilateral contacts” to promote drilling safety, on why the embargo must go [Hunt was also part of a delegation which visited Cuba in August]:

“This isn’t about ideology. It’s about oil spills. Political attitudes have to change in order to protect the gulf.”

In fact, officials from both Exxon Mobil and Valero Energy participated in an energy conference on Cuba in Mexico City in 2006, where they met Cuban oil officials. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a frequenter to the island says he’s had a number of conversations with top executives from the oil industry, individuals he identities as “all Republicans who could eventually convince the Congress to make the embargo flexible in this area of oil spills.” And Richardson’s prediction: “I think you will see the administration be more forward-moving after the election.”

As the Miami Herald highlights this morning, the elements of scientific community are also jumping on the anti-embargo bandwagon. “A policy of isolationism doesn't benefit anyone. We have a selfish interest in talking with Cuba,” says David Guggenheim, the organizer of a conference on marine research and conservation that has brought together Cubans, Mexicans, and Americans to Sarasota, Florida this week.

And, on the Cuba side of things, there also appears to be a growing desire for collaboration around the issue oil development and its potential environmental impacts. Again, Lee Hunt of the drilling contractors trade group, speaking on August meetings he had with Cuban officials:

“Senior officials told us they are going ahead with their deepwater drilling program, that they are utilizing every reliable non-U.S. source that they can for technology and information, but they would prefer to work directly with the United States in matters of safe drilling practices.”

Of course, it’s not all altruism. There are other interests at work here in signing up perhaps the unlikeliest of allies in the anti-embargo campaign. Once more, the Times:

“Any opening could provide a convenient wedge for big American oil companies that have quietly lobbied Congress for years to allow them to bid for oil and natural gas deposits in waters off Cuba.”

For more on the issue of US-Cuba oil and energy cooperation, the Center for Democracy in the Americas has more. It too led a delegation of energy experts to Cuba last summer. And, according to CDA, a single sentence [and the notable absence of the United States from it] captures why what is happening in Cuba could peak “interest and concern”:

“Repsol, a Spanish oil company is paying an Italian firm, to build an oil rig in China that will be used next year to explore for oil off the shores of Cuba.”

To other stories:

· Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes met with Sec. of State Hillary Clinton Wednesday. And according to the Washington Post this morning, Funes presented the secretary with a “$900 million Central American anti-drug-trafficking plan” which he’s asking the Obama administration to “help fund.” He has the support of Democratic congressman, Jim McGovern (D-MA) who called on his colleagues in Congress to provide additional backing to the Funes government on security issues. But the Post seems pessimistic that new monies will be allocated any time soon. “[W]ith the administration under pressure to cut costs, it may be difficult for the Central Americans to win more U.S. aid,” it says, cited an administration official. Nevertheless, Funes did suggest the formation of a US-Central American study group to explore the idea – which, according to the Salvadoran President, “would establish joint patrols by the countries' security forces and acquire new technology for sharing intelligence,” as well as “expand social programs to prevent young people from getting involved in drug trafficking.”

· Following yesterday’s damning AP report on the lack of US funds that have been disbursed for reconstruction in Haiti thus far, the State Department has made veteran diplomat Thomas Adams the “special coordinator to oversee Washington's reconstruction plans” for Haiti. The appointment has yet to go public, although Mr. Adams, according to DOS, has already started his new job.

· The Wall Street Journal looks at a “new push” from the US Justice Department intended to “stanch the flow of money to violent Mexican drug cartels and impound the assets of kleptocrats around the world.” The Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section of DOJ is being “refashioned,” says the paper, hiring 10 new prosecutors and lawyers who will focus on issues of corruption, with a particular focus on Mexican cartels. In the Journal’s words, “The moves…represent a strategic shift in the department's role in the Mexican drug war,” as DOJ focuses additional energies toward targeting “U.S. financial institutions and professional criminals moving drug cartels' money.”

· Meanwhile, in Mexico, the AP reports that some 30 Gulf Cartel associates were detained by the Mexican Marines in two days of raids in Matamoros and Reynosa. In addition to the individuals, the military also is said to have confiscated “50 guns, 2 shoulder-fired rocket launchers, 21 grenades and ammunition.”

· The Santiago Times and IPS have a pair of reports on the Mapuche hunger strikers and the very controversial anti-terrorist law they were imprisoned under. The Santiago Times: “The strike, now approaching its 80th day, has put much of the country on edge and brought national and international coverage of Chile’s ‘Mapuche problem’ as never before.”

· Adam Isacson at Just the Facts addresses the case of Piedad Cordoba, dismissed from the Colombian Senate (and banned from political life for 18 years) this week for yet undocumented but alleged “collaboration” with the FARC.

· More than 150 academics have written to Georgetown University, calling on the university’s administration to “reconsider its appointment of former president of Colombia Álvaro Uribe as a visiting scholar.” NACLA with more.

· In Nicaragua, AQ says thousands of signatures were presented to the Ortega government this week by a group of women demanding the restoration of therapeutic abortion in the country. The signatures were collected in Europe by Amnesty International.

· Two opinions on drug legalization. Bill Piper, director of national affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance, writes at CNN.com ahead of California’s vote to legalization marijuana (Prop. 19). His argument: “Even if Proposition 19 loses, it will only be temporary. Support for marijuana legalization is growing, and not just in California. Legalization will happen. It's just a question of how many lives and tax dollars will be wasted before it does.” And Jeffrey Miron, a Cato Institute senior fellow and Harvard professor, calls on conservatives to join libertarians and many liberals in making drug legalization their cause too. In the LA Times, a part of his interesting appeal: “Legalization would take drug control out government's incompetent hands and place it with churches, medical professionals, coaches, friends and families. These are precisely the private institutions whose virtues conservatives extol in other areas.”

· Finally, Dilma Rouseff and Brazil’s Sunday election. A report from the Washington Post and an opinion from Raul Zibechi, in the Guardian, both look at Dilma’s rise through the prism of Lula’s success, with the latter noting a few shortcomings of the outgoing president – among them an overreliance on export commodities to fuel growth (rather than strengthening the role of “value added” goods in the Brazilian economy), as well as still unacceptably high levels of economic and social inequality. Meanwhile, Newsweek’s Mac Margolis and FP contributor, David Rothkopf present some doubts regarding Dilma.

Dilma Hovers Around 50% Ahead of Brazil's Sunday Vote

Brazilians head to the polls Sunday in the first round of voting to elect a replacement for outgoing president Lula da Silva. Polls show the PT’s Dilma Rouseff still the clear favorite, although, as AFP reports this morning, Rouseff’s numbers appear to have fallen slightly in recent days, making the possibility of a first-round victory less assured than just one week ago. According to new numbers from Datafolha released Tuesday, Dilma lost three points this week, down to 46% expected votes. [An Ibope poll from last Friday still has Lula’s delfina at 50%]. Nevertheless, Dilma’s slight drop has not been her nearest competitor’s gain. While José Serra did pick up the endorsement of one of the country’s two principal dailies, O Estado de Sao Paulo, on Sunday, the numbers show only Green Party candidate Marina Silva, not Serra, picking up any new and significant support, says AFP.

Candidates will face off in a final televised debate Thursday. On Sunday, one of the contenders must win over 50% of “valid votes” in order to avoid a second-round runoff. Again, according to AFP, if Dilma were to hold on to the 46% of total votes she is predicted to take, that would translate into approx. 51% of valid votes and thus a first round win.

For more on Dilma Rouseff’s personal biography, two stories are worth a look this morning. First a very sympathetic piece from the Independent looks at Dilma’s rise from a leader in the resistance during Brazil’s military dictatorship to the cusp of becoming arguably “the world’s most powerful woman.” “Like President Jose Mujica of Uruguay, Brazil's neighbour, Ms. Rousseff is unashamed of a past as an urban guerrilla which included battling the generals and spending time in jail as a political prisoner,” the Independent writes. [Although, of notable historical difference, Mujica’s guerilla years began before outright military dictatorship in Uruguay; Rouseff’s commenced during]. In a piece at the New York Times, meanwhile, comparisons are made with some of the world and region’s most notable female leaders – among them Chile’s former president Michelle Bachelet and Argentina’s Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. “But more than any other factor (including the female one),” the paper maintains, “Ms. Rousseff owes her success to Mr. da Silva…”

To other stories:

· Major General Paul Eaton had an opinion in The Hill on Monday calling for an end to the Cuba travel ban. “I believe Americans have quite a lot to offer Cuba — from a robust display of American values, to our media and just plain old human contact. We would all benefit from lifting the travel ban to Cuba,” the now senior adviser for the National Security Network argues. The opinion came as Congressman Howard Berman’s (D-CA) House Foreign Affairs Committee was expected to mark up legislation (HR 4645) this week that, if passed, would end the travel ban. However, those plans were changed Tuesday, with Mr. Berman’s office delaying the mark up until after November midterm elections. Reacting to the decision, Sarah Stephens at the Center for Democracy in the Americas says “Chairman Berman has exhibited great leadership on issues relating to Cuba for three decades, and we appreciate his willingness to fight to repeal the travel ban later this year.” But “it’s a shame that when real economic and political changes are taking place right now in Cuba that neither the President nor the Congress is able to acknowledge them until after the November elections.”

· In Haiti, campaigning for November elections got underway this week with relatively little fanfare. According to EFE, 19 individuals are running to replace the embattled René Preval as president while a total of 891 candidates vie for just 11 spots in the 30-person Senate and 99 spots in the Chamber of Deputies. Meanwhile, this shocking report from the AP:

“Nearly nine months after the earthquake, more than a million Haitians still live on the streets between piles of rubble. One reason: Not a cent of the $1.15 billion the U.S. promised for rebuilding has arrived.”

While the US has spent $1.1 billion on post-earthquake relief, none of the monies pledged by Hillary Clinton last March have been disbursed because of three [shameful] factors in the US: bureaucracy, disorganization and a lack of urgency. However, the US is hardly alone. Again the AP: “Some 50 other nations and organizations pledged a total of $8.75 billion for reconstruction, but just $686 million of that has reached Haiti so far — less than 15 percent of the total promised for 2010-11.”

· IPS looks at the issue of transparency in Mexico. According to transparency experts Tom Blanton and Kate Doyle at the National Security Archive in Washington DC, “while Mexico's system of access to information is institutionally strong, and even serves as a model worldwide, government officials routinely ignore Federal Institute for Access to Public Information (IFAI) decisions, with no consequences.” Thus, the problem lies squarely in implementation, the two argue. Here’s Kate Doyle on the difficulties and hopes:

“The instruments of access to information are slow-moving and frustrating, but they will only be improved through use, and the public must demand that governments live up to their obligations.”

Blanton and Doyle are both in Mexico for a conference organized by México Infórmate, a civil society initiative that, in IPS’s words, “promotes the application of laws safeguarding access to information, to enable citizens to keep the government under scrutiny and monitor the use of public resources and the way the authorities make decisions that affect society as a whole.”

· In Michoacan, another mayor has been killed. Gustavo Sanchez, the 27-year-old mayor of Tancitaro, was found beaten to death by rocks Monday – the fifth Mexican mayor murdered in just six weeks, according to the LA Times. Also on Mexico, from the LA Times, a report on a Southern California prosecutor’s efforts to take down the leadership of the Tijuana cartel. The paper says “the U.S. prosecution of the Arellano Felix cartel (aka Tijuana cartel, has been a rare, albeit qualified, success story, leading to the imprisonment of most of its leaders and leaving the once powerful organized crime group severely weakened, if not dismantled.”

· A new report from the Center for a New American Security looks at the growth and evolution of transnational organized crime across the Western Hemisphere.

· Human Rights Watch is calling on Chile to reform its Pinochet-era anti-terrorism law “so that it can no longer be used to prosecute actions that do not constitute grave crimes of political violence.” Two proposals are currently under debate in the Chilean legislature, says HRW – one to modify the existing law and one to limit military jurisdiction. “The debate on long overdue changes to the anti-terrorism legislation and the military justice system is a step in the right direction,” says José Miguel Vivanco, HRW’s Americas director, but the government must make sure the “opportunity [for Chile] to meet its human rights obligations doesn't go to waste.”

· The UN is strongly backing Ecuador’s innovative Yasuni initiative which, if implemented, would see the world’s richest governments provide some $3.6 billion to the Ecuador so it does not open up new oil exploration in the Yasuni National Park -- a million-hectare tropical rainforest. “We are totally convinced in UNDP that the sustainable development, environment and climate change are totally interlinked with the objectives of poverty eradication and human development,” says the UNDP’s associate administrator, Rebeca Grynspan.

· And finally, tying up loose ends on Venezuela. The Miami Herald says Sunday’s results could lead to the release of two political figures in Venezuela, presented as controversially imprisoned by the Venezuelan justice system. José Sánchez, the former security chief for the state of Zulia, Biagio Pilieri, a former mayor who was elected to represent the state of Yaracuy, were both drafted by the opposition as parliamentary candidates and appear to have won. Venezuela’s constitution grants immunity to members of parliament, so, in theory, both should be released, the paper reports. Pro-opposition bloggers at the Caracas Chronicles seem to confirm what President Hugo Chavez maintained Monday – that the PSUV did in fact defeat the opposition MUD coalition [excluding votes for the PPT and other minor opposition groups] in terms of total national popular vote (5,400,132 to 5,311,552). With exercises in comparison El Universal notes a decline of about 890,000 votes for the chavista side when compared to the referendum on re-election in February 2009. The Chavez-leaning Venezuelanalysis, meanwhile, points out that even with Sunday’s successful showing, the opposition will hold about 20 fewer seats in the 2011 Congress than during the 2000-2005 legislative term.

· Lastly, two differing takes on Venezuela’s vote. CEPR’s Mark Weisbrot in the Guardian. And the Caracas Chronicles’ Francisco Toro at TNR.

Who "Represents" Venezuela? MUD and PSUV Disagree.

According to numbers being reported by Venezuela’s El Nacional (by way of the National Electoral Council, CNE), the breakdown of the legislature after Sunday’s vote has the PSUV with 98 seats, the opposition (MUD) with 65 seats and the PPT with 2 seats. [If one goes to the CNE’s site this morning, however, there still seem to be some problems getting the seat breakdown up for at least two states. National popular vote totals seem absent still as well]. The general opinion of those results, as portrayed by most media outlets, two days after the vote? A “victory” for the opposition who broke the PSUV’s super-majority in somewhat surprising fashion.

The New York Times’s Simon Romero writes that “in practical terms, the seats won by the opposition enable it to block critical legislation and play a role in determining the makeup of important bodies like the Supreme Court, now packed with the president’s supporters.” The Times continues: “beyond that, however, the elections also offered a view into the viability and direction of Mr. Chávez’s political movement,” adding that their seems to be a bit of soul-searching going on among Chavez supporters (Romero points readers to discussions at the popular pro-Chavez news site, Aporrea.)

Al-Jazeera’s Lucía Newman called Sunday’s vote a “huge setback for Chavez and a dream come true for his opponents.”

The Washington Post meanwhile says the opposition “benefited from widespread concerns over rampant crime and a grinding economic recession now in its second year.” Juan Forero quotes Ramon Guillermo Avelado, director of the MUD coalition’s candidates, who told Venezuelan television Monday that “clearly a majority of the country has expressed itself for a change in the National Assembly.”

It is that claim which President Chavez spent much of Monday rejecting. As Al-Jazeera reports, in his first public news conference since the vote, Chavez maintained his PSUV won 5,422,040 votes nationally, while the MUD coalition, says Chavez, garnered slightly less, at 5,320,175. Another 520,000 votes went to left-leaning PPT, a break-off of the PSUV and a body Chavez now says should not be included among the opposition’s total vote numbers. Again, I have yet to see the CNE confirm any these numbers but the debate surrounding them does seem to indicate just how important it is for Chavez to show he is governing on behalf of Venezuela’s majority (or at least a plurality).

Looking forward, speculation has begun about the direction the opposition will takes in its new position of “power.” Michael Shifter, quoted in today’s Times, says if the opposition is to succeed it must find both an appealing leader who can “articulate a vision for a post-Chávez Venezuela that would include the president’s supporters” and “develop serious policy ideas to address a range of problems, particularly mounting crime and economic distress.” In the past, some have pointed to the ex-chavistas who have formed the PPT as the only individuals capable of doing so, emphasizing what one of its candidates for deputy in Caracas, the respected historian Margarita Lopez Maya, has called a “non polarized alternative.” But the PPT seems to have struggled Sunday, even in areas where it was thought to be strongest – namely, the state of Lara where the party’s most well-recognized leader, Henri Falcon, is governor.

A quick round-up of other Venezuela notes today, before moving on:

· The AP reports this morning that Hugo Chavez followed up election questions yesterday by saying Venezuela will begin carrying out initial studies into starting a nuclear energy program. He insists it will be for “peaceful purposes,” but I am sure we’ll be hearing much more about this in the coming days. UNASUR secretary general, Nestor Kirchner, speaking in New York Monday, said Sunday’s vote will force President Chavez to “reflect” on “what … needs to be improved upon” in Venezuela. Spain’s El País looks at gerrymandering and the issue “overrepresentation” in the Venezuelan electoral system. The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial and video commentary from Mary Anastasia O’Grady, continues to predict the end of Hugo Chavez. An editorial in the Guardian is more balanced arguing that “Chávez's reforms are undermined not so much by ideological opponents, although they exist, but by the inefficiency and waste with which they are carried out.” Their call: a move away from polarizing rhetoric. “Demonising critics as traitors to the national political movement will not turn around an economy which is in deep trouble. He needs to listen to his critics as well.” And IPS looks at the potential medium-term implications of Sunday’s vote – the possibility of a “brewing crisis,” in the news agency’s words.

· In other major news yesterday, Colombia’s inspector general has ousted Senator Piedad Cordoba from the Colombian senate, barring her from public service for 18 years for “promoting and collaborating” with the FARC. Cordoba has brokered more than a dozen hostage releases, says the AP, and has not officially been charged with any crime. Nevertheless, the Colombian inspector general apparently has the constitutional power to dismiss any member of Congress, even without proper due process. Cordoba’s attorney says the decision will be challenged but acknowledged that the senator “lacked the option of appealing to a higher authority,” in the AP’s words. For his part, the inspector general says his decision came out of “digital documents found in computers belonging to Raul Reyes.”

· The Colombian government is also claiming to have discovered new computers (15), USB drives (94), and hard disks (14) following the strikes that killed FARC leader Mono Jojoy last Thursday. According to forensic informatics specialists, the guerrilla group “restricts its use of mobile phones and other electronic devices to the minimum for fear its communications will be intercepted” thus explaining the alleged treasure trove of other technologies. How all of this stuff survives multiple bombings is another question for which I yet have no answer. Also see Time’s recent interview with President Juan Manuel Santos, following last week’s FARC strikes.

· Also on Colombia, a good report on the prospects of and hurdles facing land reform. Here’s Jorge Rojas, head of one of Colombia’s leading rights group, the Consultancy for Human Rights and Displacement (CODHES), with his hopes and doubts.

“If the legislation goes through, this will represent a democratic transformation in Colombia on a grand scale and the most ambitious land reform in recent history."

But, Rojas continues:

“We have serious doubts about the bill's viability and whether the government really has the capacity, resources and will to take away lands that were stolen by paramilitary and mafia groups who still yield power and give them back to displaced families.”

· From IPS, a report on Peru’s demand that a regional alliance against the drug trade be created. According to IPS, the Peruvian government plans to unveil the details of the plan at the 20th meeting of the Heads of National Drug Law Enforcement Agencies (HONLEA) of Latin America and the Caribbean, to be held Oct. 4-7 in Lima. “It is the Latin American countries that should shape the plan from our perspective and convene a meeting of combined efforts,” says Rómulo Pizarro, head of Peru's National Commission for Drug-Free Development and Life (DEVIDA).

· Professor Dana Frank at the Huffington Post is critical of President Obama’s decision to host Honduran President Pepe Lobo this week at the White House.

· And finally, the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg responding to Mary Anastasia O’Grady’s vitriolic opinion in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, particularly O’Grady’s claim that Cuba in some way represents a “threat to global stability” in 2010.

Chavistas Retain National Assembly, But Lose Super-majority

Allies of President Hugo Chavez secured a new parliamentary majority Sunday but the opposition has won over a third of the National Assembly’s seat, “threatening the Chavez government’s ability to pass socialist reforms” [in the words of Reuters,] before 2012 presidential elections. Or, as the New York Times’ coverage begins:

“Supporters of President Hugo Chávez won a majority in legislative elections held on Sunday, but the opposition secured at least one-third of the seats, giving it the ability to block critical legislation and top federal appointments.”

A quick glance around both the US and the Venezuelan press demonstrates there are a variety of ways to spin the results Sunday’s highly anticipated vote. Here’s a quick sampling:

The Wall Street Journal’s headline/lead: “Chavez stripped of Key Majority” / “Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez suffered a major political blow in congressional elections, losing the ability to pass new laws at will after opposition candidates banded together.”

The headline from Venezuela’s El Universal: “Opposition Breaks Absolute Majority of PSUV.” [The paper also Sunday’s voter turnout was just over 66%].

Venezuela’s El Nacional has the preliminary parliamentary seat breakdown, according to the National Electoral Council, as its headline: “Oficialismo Wins 96 deputies; Opposition 61 and PPT 2.” [El Nacional also prints a good breakdown of the vote, by state].

At least one opposition blogger, titles his first post-election post, “Venezuela has officially ceased to be a democracy” pointing to the fact that the opposition appears to have won a slim majority in terms of national popular vote (the opposition says 52%). Venezuela News and Views: “In Bolivarian Venezuela the opposition gets MORE VOTES than the regime…and yet it is beaten at least 90 to 65 seats!” [For more on changes in the Venezuelan electoral law which raise concerns about chavista “overrepresentation”, El Universal has a backgrounder as does Ojo Electoral].

Meanwhile, the Venezuelan state news agency maintains Sunday’s vote was still a “Great Socialist Victory.” For his part, Chavez himself addressed supporters, by way of Twitter, just minutes after the CNE announced the results, calling Sunday’s vote a “solid victory” – one “sufficient enough to continue deepening Bolivarian Democratic Socialism.”

So, quickly, cutting through the spin, what might all of this mean?

First, returning to Reuters, Sunday’s results does mark a significant improvement for the opposition. “While not an outright defeat for Chavez,” Reuters writes, “the result confirms Venezuela's opposition forces are galvanizing.” According to the spokesman for the opposition umbrella group, MUD, Armando Briquett, “This gives us a lot of political power…We are very happy.” Analyst Michael Shifter at the Inter-American Dialogue, meanwhile, says Sunday’s results “change the political dynamics of Venezuela.” Shifter, in the Wall Street Journal:

“It's a respectable result which the opposition can build on for the 2012 presidential race. It shows they are back in the game and Chávez is vulnerable.”

According to Venezuela analyst Greg Wilpert, Sunday’s results are “a mixed bag for the opposition.” But, Wilpert adds, for the opposition, “it's a step forward in the sense that they've committed themselves to playing the democratic game” after backing the 2002 coup against Chavez and boycotting 2005 parliamentary elections.

What does this mean for the way Chavez will govern ahead of the 2012 presidential poll? One possibility is that the Chavez government will become increasingly pragmatic in its policy making. Here’s Prof. Miguel Tinker Salas, in the AP’s reporting:

“It might force him to be more pragmatic and increasingly more focused on internal matters, especially now that he's got his eye looking toward 2012.”

Those issues include rising crime and insecurity, infrastructure problems, as well as economic woes. [Kevin Casas Zamora in Foreign Policy, as well as Joaquin Villalobos in El País, have recent opinions on the former].

Meanwhile, some anti-chavistas worry that, even with Sunday’s results, the government could sidestep the national assembly, either “devolving some lawmaking capacity to community groups loyal to him” or “passing key legislation before the new legislators take office in January.” All things that we’ll be watching over the coming months.

To other stories from this weekend:

· Two stories on Colombia from the LA Times. First, Chris Kraul looks at the effects of Plan Colombia, ten years after its implementation, arguing that security has improved in the country as a result of the controversial initiative. The LA Times: “Colombian national police claim to be present in all 1,100 counties, up from 950 in 2000. Violent crime has dropped to a fraction of what it was in 2002, when there were an average of 10 kidnappings a day.” But this has not been without costs and unintended consequences. Critics argue Plan Colombia’s “extensive eradication program has simply pushed coca production to neighboring countries, notably Peru.” And an aggressive military response has brought notable increases in human rights violations. Again, quoting the Times: “A study released this year by the New York-based peace group Fellowship of Reconciliation found that the Colombian military may have committed 3,000 extrajudicial killings from 2002 to 2009.”

· Second, the paper’s Ken Ellingwood returns to Hillary Clinton’s Mexico-Colombia comparison of a few weeks ago, arguing that “when it comes to drug cartels,” the two countries are quite distinct.

· With more on Mexico and the drug wars. The New York Times ran an editorial Friday on last week’s much-discussed editorial from El Diario de Juarez. The Times’ demand: “The Mexican government needs to do more to aggressively investigate and prosecute violence against the press. And it needs to do more to protect judges, mayors, civil servants and human-rights workers and police officers.” Ditto from Human Rights Watch which has sent a long letter to Mexican President Felipe Calderon, criticizing his administration’s “contradictory messages on human rights.” The letter ends with a series of recommendations, which can be read in full here. Al-Jazeera reports on the latest shooting of a local official in Mexico. On Friday the mayor of Gran Morelos in the state of Chihuahua was “shot in the head several times.” Molly Molloy, moderator of Frontera List, has a piece at Narco News on the difficulties of Mexican journalists seeking political asylum in the US. And the AP yesterday, with news that the head of Zeta operations in Cancun was detained by the military over the weekend. Jose Angel Fernandez, aka “El Pelon,” is believed to have run an extortion ring for the Zetas and recently “ordered a bar attacked with gasoline bombs because its owner refused to pay protection money.”

· In Colombia, the former president of the Colombian Congress, Sen. Javier Caceres, has been jailed after his arrest last week for “alleged ties to illegal armed groups.”

· And on last Friday’s headline about the killing of FARC #2, Mono Jojoy, Juanita Leon at LA Silla Vacía has a concise analysis of the possible political effects.

· At the UN last week, Honduran President Pepe Lobo and OAS Sec. General José Miguel Insulza apparently met to discuss the return of Mel Zelaya to Honduras.

· The New York Times reports on Cuba’s new policies for entrepreneurs, which include, according to a recent piece in Granma, allowing small business owners to “rent spaces for their businesses, hang out a shingle, and if things go well, hire a few employees.” Yoani Sanchez, at the Huffington Post, says she has been denied the right to travel away from Cuba – the eighth such denial in three years. Sanchez had been invited to attend the 60^th anniversary of the International Press Institute and the presentation of the Internet for the Nobel Peace Prize in New York.

· And in opinions, Mary Anastasia O’Grady lashes out at the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg and CFR’s Julia Sweig for their recent visit with Fidel Castro, calling the latter “a trusted friend of the dictatorship.” And, in the Washington Post, Jackson Diehl uses a talk by AEI’s Roger Noriega to point to what he calls the “intriguing” case of possible Venezuela “collaboration” in Iran’s nuclear program. His call: the US must more actively support the Venezuelan opposition.

· Finally, if you haven’t watched Stephen Colbert’s testimony before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship and Border Security last week, here’s your link.

Mono Jojoy Killed: What's Next for the FARC and Colombia?

A multiday Colombian bombing raid, culminating with a ground operation Thursday, has killed the FARC’s second in command – the 57 year old field commander “Mono Jojoy” (aka Jorge Briceno), perhaps the most emblematic face of the rebel group. According to the New York Times, some 20 other FARC rebels were also killed in the attack, which took place in the mountains of Meta, some 150 miles southwest of the Colombian capital of Bogotá . Colombia’s defense minister, Rodrigo Rivera, said the strikes came after receiving intelligence from informers about the whereabouts of Jojoy’s concrete bunker which the strikes targeted. Speaking to the press Thursday Rivera said the FARC was “crumbling from within.” The AP calls the killing of Jojoy a “demoralizing shock to an already weakened insurgency.” In New York for the UN General Assembly, President Juan Manuel Santos, meanwhile, said it was “the most crushing blow against the FARC in its entire history,” arguing it surpassed the controversial 2008 cross-border raid which killed then FARC #2 Raul Reyes. President Santos:

“It is as if they told New Yorkers that Osama bin Laden had fallen.”

So who exactly was Mono Jojoy and what does his death mean for the future of the FARC and Colombia? According to Aldo Civico, co-director of the conflict resolution center at Rutgers University (quoted in the Washington Post’s coverage this morning), Jojoy was the “military mastermind of the FARC” for the last 25 years. He was a “rigid hard-liner,” the Post adds – someone who “favored the use of kidnapping to apply pressure on the government.” But he was at the same time the most beloved leader within the FARC, a sort of “living legend,” according to Ariel Avila of the Colombian think tank Nuevo Arco Iris. Jojoy, whose real name is Victor Julio Suarez, according to the military, joined the FARC when he was just a teenager, leaving his peasant upbringing to take up the guerrilla fight against the Colombian state. At the FARC’s height of power, he controlled the Eastern Bloc, the FARC’s most potent military force, which a few years ago had some 7,000 fighters. [Today the Eastern Bloc is believed to be made up of just 3400 rebels].

As for the future, the AP’s report says analysts have predicted Jojoy’s loss “could lead many rebels to give up the fight and might lead the FARC to seek peace in earnest.” But the group’s leader, Alfonso Cano still remains at-large and, says WOLA Colombia expert Adam Isacson, Jojoy’s “exit from the scene is unlikely to bring the group close to surrender.” Here’s Isacson, in a great blog post on Thursday’s military operations:

“The FARC continues to have 7,000-9,000 members scattered across at least half of the country’s departments (provinces), including vast empty zones. It has a steady stream of income from the drug trade. And it has increased the frequency of its attacks in the past two years, albeit in more remote areas of the country.”

And, in the short term, “violence could get worse,” Isacson says, with the FARC likely increasing “the tempo of its violent attacks to avenge the death of its ‘martyred military’ leader.” Nevertheless, Jojoy’s death does seem to make the possibility of Colombia-FARC negotiations more likely, at least in the “medium term,” as less military-minded leaders, such as Cano, gain more clear control of the FARC. Concluding, again Adam Isacson:

“If the FARC does eventually send good-faith signals of its willingness to talk, the Colombian government must respond positively and creatively by taking steps necessary to move toward dialogue. The United States, which has so generously funded Colombia’s war machine, must also be ready to accompany a possible peace effort.”

Staying with Colombia:

· The Washington Post has an interview out today with Juan Manuel Santos, conducted prior to news of yesterday’s strikes. He discusses the Uribe presidency, the FARC, Hugo Chavez, trade, and drugs. He saves the best for last. Santos on the drug problem and the need for Plan Colombia to “evolve” into something different:

“[Plan Colombia] should not finish because we still have the drug problem. As long as you have yuppies here snorting coke in New York, you have coca production in Colombia.”

· Also on drug policy, Brookings’ Vanda Felbab-Brown says marijuana legalization in Mexico is not a panacea for overcoming violence and organized crime in the country. In fact, she argues, legalization could exacerbate violence and paradoxically increase the drug trafficking organization’s [DTOs’] political power, in the short-term. Her recommendation is to focus rather on “improving Mexico’s law enforcement,” [see interesting data published by Reforma, on how slow-going one part of this process has been thus far.] Felbab-Brown:

“Without a capable and accountable police that are responsive to the needs of the people from tackling street crime to suppressing organized crime and that are backed-up by an efficient, accessible, and transparent justice system, neither legal nor illegal economies will be well-managed by the state.”

· Other stories on Mexico this morning include news of another Mexican mayor being murdered by suspected cartel hitmen. The murder took place in Doctor Gonzalez, a small municipality outside of Monterrey. The killing was the fourth of a public official in the country this month. The El Paso Times reports yesterday that Felipe Calderon claims the government has made an arrest of a suspect in the murder of journalist, Armando Rodriguez, a crime reporter for El Diario de Juarez who was killed two years ago. More on the new government protections being implemented for journalists, from the Wall Street Journal. From Frontera NorteSur, an excellent look at resident outrage with drug traffickers and organized crime – outrage which led to a mob citizen attack on two suspected kidnappers in the town of Ascensión this week. And outside the drug war, the New York Times yesterday on how the Mexican state is cracking down on abortions.

· Venezuela votes Sunday in highly anticipated legislative elections. The Wall Street Journal has a rather alarmist take on what’s at stake, ending its reporting with this perhaps overly dramatic quote from one Venezuelan opposition leader: “What is at stake on September 26 is that I believe we will choose between a Cuban-style Communism that we are being led to, or a Venezuelan-style Democracy.” Ditto from Armando Duran of the Center for Hemispheric Policy, in a Miami Herald opinion. Rory Carroll at the Guardian has a more nuanced view of Venezuela on the eve of elections. And MercoPress directs attention to an interesting COHA report on Venezuelan communes that is certainly worth a look. With elections on our minds, the take away line of the report:

“Ultimately, the debate over Venezuela’s communes demonstrates perfectly the opposition’s central flaw. They are not debating the issues relevant to the life of ordinary Venezuelans, or analyzing the merits of Chávez’s proposal. Instead, they paint all his proposals and ideas as a plot to turn Venezuela into the next Cuba. Regardless of how one feels about Chávez, this is a regrettable practice that undermines Venezuelan democratic institutions and deprives the Venezuelan people of a meaningful debate about the issues facing them today.”

· In New York City, Nicaragua’s consul general was found dead in his Bronx apartment yesterday, his throat cut and abdomen stabbed. No suspects and no motive as of yet.

· Two interesting pieces from this week’s Economist. A fascinating look at the possible rise of a new left in Peru – one of the only Latin American countries absent from the “pink tide” of the last decade.

“If the opinion polls are correct, Susana Villarán, a human-rights activist who is standing for a new left-wing party called Fuerza Social (Social Force), will be elected mayor of Lima, the capital, on October 3rd. It would be the first time the left has won the capital since 1983.”

And finally a look at the modernization of the Brazilian military, part of what the magazine characterizes as Brazil’s very concerted effort to enter onto the international stage.

Calderon Announces New Measures to Protect Journalists

Mexican President Felipe Calderon says his government will put in place a new plan aimed at protecting journalists, increasingly the target of drug-related violence in battles that have pitted Mexican security forces against drug traffickers. The AP reports that, according to a statement released by Mr. Calderon’s office Wednesday, the new initiative includes “an early warning system in which reporters would have immediate access to authorities when threatened, the creation of a council to identify the causes behind attacks on reporters, legal reforms, and a package of ‘best practices’ in journalism.”

The announcement comes after the murder of a photojournalist working for the Juarez’s El Diario last week and follows a Wednesday meeting between the Mexican President, the Inter-American Press Association and the Committee to Project Journalists (CPJ). According to Gonzalo Marroquin, the Inter-American Press Association’s vice president, the Mexico strategy resembles a similar initiative adopted in Colombia at the peak of that country’s struggle with drug-related violence. In Colombia that included “moving threatened journalists out of the areas where they worked” and “not adding bylines to stories on Colombia's cocaine business.”

In a press release about the Wednesday announcement, CPJ quotes President Calderon:

“We categorically reject any attack against journalists because this is an assault against democratic society. It pains me that Mexico is seen as one of the most dangerous places for the profession.”

The US-based media watchdog also says Mexico’s new journalist protection measures will include efforts for new legislation that “make attacks against free expression a federal crime.” [CPJ: “In 2008, the president proposed a Constitutional amendment that included federalization of anti-press crimes, among other things, but the measure stalled in Congress.”] According to Joel Simon, CPJ’s executive director and a participant in yesterday’s meetings with the President Calderon:

“President Calderon showed his deep commitment to press freedom issues by spending an hour and half with our delegation openly discussing the challenges and pledging a robust response. We commit to doing our part to ensure that Mexican journalists can work freely and safely in the face of this perilous environment.”

For more on violence against journalists in Mexico – particularly the response of El Diario de Juarez to last week’s brazen killing – the AP, the Investigative Fund, and In These Times have new reports. The latter interviews Charles Bowden, author of Murder City: Ciudad Juárez and the Global Economy’s New Killing Fields. The former says the UN and OAS have characterized El Diario’s powerful Sunday editorial (here and here) as a potential turning point for Mexicans, “pushing them to recognize the corrupting forces on freedom of expression in a country considered the most dangerous in the Americas for journalists.” Or, in the words of another Juarez-based newspaper editor who has limited his coverage of organized crime since his car was torched in 2005:

“[The editorial] is something unusual. I see it as a call to the people, a call to awaken society to what's happening in our country.”

A total of 65 news workers have been slain since 2000, according to Mexico's National Commission on Human Rights – at least 22 (plus7 disappearances) have been in the last four years alone.

To a round-up of other stories:

· Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega has apparently taken the liberty of making several “modifications” to his country’s constitution while legislators vacationed last week. The full story from the CS Monitor which says the Ortega government printed new copies of the constitution last week, adding an article that was taken out of the document some 20 years ago. Here’s the CS Monitor:

“According to the resurrected second paragraph of Law 201, supreme court judges, electoral magistrates, and other public officials can remain in office beyond their term limits until new officials are appointed. The problem is, according to legal analysts, that the law was a ‘transitory’ provision in the 1987 Constitution and expired more than two decades ago. That's why it wasn't included in the current Constitution, which was printed after the reforms of 1995.”

Ortega’s FSLN contends that the re-inclusion of the article will ensure government stability and prevent “anarchy.” The opposition doesn’t quite see it that way. They argue it’s all part of Ortega’s bid for re-election, prohibited under the current constitution.

· With more on Venezuela before Sunday’s legislative vote, the Washington Post’s Juan Forero has his take on the Venezuela’s opposition, focusing on one time Chavez ally-turned-opponent, Lara Governor, Henri Falcon. While not on the ballot this weekend, Falcon is characterized by the paper as attempting to “carve out” a political space for “moderate leftists seeking an alternative to Chavez.” In particular, Falcon says his attempt has been to connect with Venezuelans who have tired of political polarization and confrontation. According to the Post, Falcon’s recently created party, Fatherland for All, could become a “kingmaker” in the next Congress, “if more traditional and conservative opposition also advance” after Sunday’s elections. More again from the Miami Herald as well, focusing on the issue of “voter disillusionment.”

· From the Global Post, a good report from John Otis on the legacy of Alvaro Uribe and the “rocky” start to the ex-Colombian president’s retirement. He’s been met with protests at Georgetown University, where he was controversially given a post as a distinguished scholar for the year. Meanwhile, in Colombia, “nearly a dozen of Uribe’s former advisers are under investigation for abuse of power and could end up in prison.” Nevertheless, Otis writes that pockets of significant popularity at home keep Uribe thinking about a potential run for mayor of Bogota next year.

· More on Colombia from Colombia Reports which says 26,000 homicides have been identified through the country’s Justice and Peace Process thus far. During a radio interview this week, the president of the National Reparation Commission, Eduardo Pizarro said that “The results of the application of the Justice and Peace law reveal that 26,000 murders have been identified, 44,000 crimes confessed, and 3,000 bodies discovered in mass graves, of which 1,000 bodies have been returned to their families.”

· President Barack Obama announced a new US foreign aid policy at the UN General Assembly Wednesday. In the words of the White House it will “target U.S. assistance at a select group of countries to help transform them into the next generation of emerging economies.” What might that mean for Latin America? Potentially a loss in USAID money and attention. The agency’s head Rajiv Shah tells the Washington Post that USAID plans to “move staff from Eastern Europe and Latin America to countries such as Ghana, Malawi and Bangladesh, which are becoming bigger priorities.” A bit more on the new foreign aid strategy from BBC Mundo. Latin American News Dispatch has more on the central position the UN Millennium Development Goals have taken at UN meetings this week, particularly a lack of progress made in fighting poverty. Also, an interesting speech by Venezuela’s ambassador to the UN, Jorge Valero, on what he calls his country’s “alternative” path toward achieving UN Millennium Development Goals.

· From Just the Facts, the Congressional Research Service says the US is now Latin America’s third largest arms provider, behind Russia and France.

· The Wilson Center has a new working paper out on the entry of Mexican black tar heroin into the Eastern US.

· From Argentina, the Wall Street Journal says criminal charges have been filed by the government against executives of the country’s two leading dailies, Clarin and La Nación. The government has accused the executives of human-rights violations, “saying they colluded with Argentina's 1976-1983 dictatorship to force the Graiver family to sell the company against their will.”

· With poll numbers. Dilma Rouseff still appears headed to a first round victory in Brazil, despite the recent corruption scandal within Lula da Silva’s government. Meanwhile, in Peru, Keiko Fujimori has emerged as the new favorite for 2011 presidential elections. In a full field, Fujimori has a 24 percent approval rating, followed by former Lima mayor Luis Castaneda with 19 percent, according to a poll by Ipsos Apoyo. Third is Alejandro Toledo, president from 2001 to 2006. And in fourth is the runner-up in the 2006 Ollanta Humala, with 14 percent.