Time to blog about another election. As an FYI, there are 12 presidential elections scheduled in Latin America over the next 18 months.
The presidential election in Honduras is scheduled for November 27, 2005.
Ricardo Maduro is the current president, and his approval ratings hover around 50%. While Maduro has been tough on crime and gangs, the problems have simply grown worse during his term. In fact, the gang activity in Honduras can almost be considered "terrorism" as gangs have killed civilians and left notes at the site of the massacre intended to intimidate public officials.
Maduro also faces criticism for his handling of the economy and corruption allegations. This makes his approval rating of 50% actually quite impressive. Most politicians being criticized for security, the economy and corruption would be lower than that.
The presidential candidates are Porfirio Lobo Sosa of the president's National Party (PN), the current president of the Congress and Manuel Zelaya, a former government minister from the Liberal Party (PL).
The race is currently a dead heat with both candidates polling between 35 and 40%. Both candidates have an approval rating near 60%. Lots of polling goodness in Spanish here and here from a Gallup poll taken in early June. If you're a poll number junkie, there's lots of cross tabs and information in those two links to keep you busy.
The issues, as they will be for most Latin American elections over the next year, will be security and the economy. On security, Lobo has come out in favor of the death penalty, which may be popular in some sectors of Honduras but has drawn criticism from the Church. Zelaya is also trying to bolster his security credentials, blaming the current government for the rising homicide rate. The fact is, neither candidate has much new to offer over Maduro's policies, but both have to prove they'll be strong on security issues.
On the economy, 50% of people believe their family's economic situation has gotten worse in the last year. 74% believe the cost of living is increasing too rapidly. The economy could turn out to be a more important issue than security as there may be greater differences between the two candidates.
The other noteworthy aspect of this race is that it has turned ugly. Zelaya has accused Lobo of being linked to drug trafficking while Lobo has accused Zelaya of having links to a massacre that occurred in the 1970's. An El Heraldo editorial chastised the two candidates for not focusing on the real issues at stake.
Like Mexico, Honduras will attempt to allow its citizens to vote from the United States. They lack some of the mechanisms to make sure the vote occurs cleanly, but have received some aid from Japan and other foreign donors to help shore up their electoral system.
If you're looking for even more information about the election, I ran across two blogs from Honduras that deal with politics, Honduras y el Mundo and Omar Edgardo Rivera. They should have regular updates over the next few months.
It depends on what the definition of "blogger" is...
Yesterday morning, I linked to a site that claimed to have the first interview by a blogger of Mexican President Fox. I had some hesitation, because it almost seemed too good to be true, but the interview looked legitimate.
It turns out the interview is legitimate. Those are President Fox's words. The "blogger" part, however, is questionable.
The site is actually a blog run by an internet media outlet called Enteratehoy.com.mx. The media outlet did the interview, and the "journalist"/"blogger" simply copied the interview over to his blog.
GoLeech notes that the journalist claims he told Fox's press office that the interview was for a "blog". But if he is a mainstream journalist and it was published to the news website first, is that correct?
Yesterday, Jeff Jarvis criticized a blogger for trying to exclude the mainstream media from blogging. I absolutely agreed with his post at the time. However, he was referring to someone in the media that is blogging. A mainstream media outlet that copies its information word for word over to blogspot or typepad format is not exactly a blog. If anything, it's a wire feed that's printed on the internet.
Over time, mainstream media outlets will become more like blogs by publishing information in real time, linking directly to other sources on the internet, relying more on "amateur journalists" and not being afraid to express points of view openly. Meanwhile, some blogs will become more like journalism, with interviews and original investigative reporting. But while the concept of media is moving in that direction, it's not there yet, and I don't feel this interview qualifies as a "blogger" exclusive.
David Saaski over at Global Voices and Eduardo Arcos at ALT1040 have both helped out in looking into this case. Argentine newspaper Clarin's weblog confirmed the interview with President Fox actually occurred.
It turns out the interview is legitimate. Those are President Fox's words. The "blogger" part, however, is questionable.
The site is actually a blog run by an internet media outlet called Enteratehoy.com.mx. The media outlet did the interview, and the "journalist"/"blogger" simply copied the interview over to his blog.
GoLeech notes that the journalist claims he told Fox's press office that the interview was for a "blog". But if he is a mainstream journalist and it was published to the news website first, is that correct?
Yesterday, Jeff Jarvis criticized a blogger for trying to exclude the mainstream media from blogging. I absolutely agreed with his post at the time. However, he was referring to someone in the media that is blogging. A mainstream media outlet that copies its information word for word over to blogspot or typepad format is not exactly a blog. If anything, it's a wire feed that's printed on the internet.
Over time, mainstream media outlets will become more like blogs by publishing information in real time, linking directly to other sources on the internet, relying more on "amateur journalists" and not being afraid to express points of view openly. Meanwhile, some blogs will become more like journalism, with interviews and original investigative reporting. But while the concept of media is moving in that direction, it's not there yet, and I don't feel this interview qualifies as a "blogger" exclusive.
David Saaski over at Global Voices and Eduardo Arcos at ALT1040 have both helped out in looking into this case. Argentine newspaper Clarin's weblog confirmed the interview with President Fox actually occurred.
Peru election update
Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo enters his fourth year in office today. Since 2002, he has not had over 25% in any opinion poll and has at times been in the single digits. The most recent polling has him around 15%.
Toledo has improved Peru's economy and deserves praise simply for surviving as long as he has in a region that has kicked several unpopular presidents out of office. However, he was never able to meet the expectations from his campaign promises and Peru's media has been unrelenting in hitting him with scandal after scandal story (many of them deserved).
Peru's election is scheduled for April of 2006. The current polling shows Lourdes Flores and Valentin Paniagua in the lead with former President Alan Garcia close behind. I think Flores and Paniagua will make good candidates. In my opinion, Garcia's negatives, like Evo Morales', are too high for him to ever gain significant support in the population.
As the Economist notes this week, Alberto Fujimori is still planning his return from Japan, even though Peruvian law says he can't run. While he would be unlikely to win, like Garcia, he could have a significant impact as a minority candidate.
Lots of time to go until the election and the Peruvian media has a knack for digging up scandals, which I think could play a major role in the election. It will be interesting to see whether Flores (who was forced to resign a previous post over a scandal) and Paniagua can stay clean and give it a good race.
Toledo has improved Peru's economy and deserves praise simply for surviving as long as he has in a region that has kicked several unpopular presidents out of office. However, he was never able to meet the expectations from his campaign promises and Peru's media has been unrelenting in hitting him with scandal after scandal story (many of them deserved).
Peru's election is scheduled for April of 2006. The current polling shows Lourdes Flores and Valentin Paniagua in the lead with former President Alan Garcia close behind. I think Flores and Paniagua will make good candidates. In my opinion, Garcia's negatives, like Evo Morales', are too high for him to ever gain significant support in the population.
As the Economist notes this week, Alberto Fujimori is still planning his return from Japan, even though Peruvian law says he can't run. While he would be unlikely to win, like Garcia, he could have a significant impact as a minority candidate.
Lots of time to go until the election and the Peruvian media has a knack for digging up scandals, which I think could play a major role in the election. It will be interesting to see whether Flores (who was forced to resign a previous post over a scandal) and Paniagua can stay clean and give it a good race.
The CAFTA Vote: Good for our economy, bad for our democracy
Although my ideal scenario was one in which CAFTA was revised before it was passed, I think CAFTA will turn out to be a pretty good deal. I believe that long-term, it will create jobs in both our country and Central America and will help raise the living standards in the region. It helps maintain our foreign investment in the region, which is important for soft power and thus national security. Central American nations need our support to develop and hopefully this bill will play a role in that.
But how that vote was achieved last night and the debate leading up to the vote showed some of the darker parts of our democracy.
Southern Republicans got textile protections to secure their votes. Democrats from rural districts were promised protections for certain farming industries. In a move that may anger the anti-Castro lobby, the White House talked with Democratic Rep. Moore about reconsidering the farm trade policies with Cuba. Republicans were promised fundraising appearances by Vice President Cheney. Majority Whip Roy Blunt said the upcoming highway bill was used as an incentive. Rep. Pelosi says Democrats were offered deals by the majority that may have crossed the ethical line. (And not to blame just the majority party, Roll Call is reporting that the Democratic Caucus may punish those who voted for CAFTA by taking away key committee assignments).
The vote stretched on for over an hour as the deals went on.
Watching the vote on CAFTA last night reminded me of a conversation I had last week. The Republican Rules Committee blocked debate over two Democratic amendments to our Foreign Relations Authorization bill that would have affected Colombia aid. A Colombian friend of mine, and supporter of US assistance said, "That's great news! I mean, I'm sorry to hear about your democracy falling apart, but that's great news." (Yes, the Colombians are mocking the level of corruption and the lack of debate in the US Congress.) That quote is what I thought of as CAFTA passed.
During the debate over CAFTA, both sides demonized the other's position, which prevented compromise. Both sides pushed for votes on the basis of party lines and pork rather than what was right. Both sides talked as if failure was the end of the world. The party in power twisted arms and offered last minute deals to buy the votes necessary. Had the White House brought the moderate Democrats into the negotiation process, I truly believe this bill could have passed with 240-260 votes. But that's not how either side is playing the game of politics today. Some will say that's how politics works, but I don't think citizens should accept that as an answer.
A bill I felt was flawed, but yet I still believed was worth passing, made it through Congress last night. For some reason it makes me feel awful. And worse, I don't see a solution on the horizon.
But how that vote was achieved last night and the debate leading up to the vote showed some of the darker parts of our democracy.
Southern Republicans got textile protections to secure their votes. Democrats from rural districts were promised protections for certain farming industries. In a move that may anger the anti-Castro lobby, the White House talked with Democratic Rep. Moore about reconsidering the farm trade policies with Cuba. Republicans were promised fundraising appearances by Vice President Cheney. Majority Whip Roy Blunt said the upcoming highway bill was used as an incentive. Rep. Pelosi says Democrats were offered deals by the majority that may have crossed the ethical line. (And not to blame just the majority party, Roll Call is reporting that the Democratic Caucus may punish those who voted for CAFTA by taking away key committee assignments).
The vote stretched on for over an hour as the deals went on.
Watching the vote on CAFTA last night reminded me of a conversation I had last week. The Republican Rules Committee blocked debate over two Democratic amendments to our Foreign Relations Authorization bill that would have affected Colombia aid. A Colombian friend of mine, and supporter of US assistance said, "That's great news! I mean, I'm sorry to hear about your democracy falling apart, but that's great news." (Yes, the Colombians are mocking the level of corruption and the lack of debate in the US Congress.) That quote is what I thought of as CAFTA passed.
During the debate over CAFTA, both sides demonized the other's position, which prevented compromise. Both sides pushed for votes on the basis of party lines and pork rather than what was right. Both sides talked as if failure was the end of the world. The party in power twisted arms and offered last minute deals to buy the votes necessary. Had the White House brought the moderate Democrats into the negotiation process, I truly believe this bill could have passed with 240-260 votes. But that's not how either side is playing the game of politics today. Some will say that's how politics works, but I don't think citizens should accept that as an answer.
A bill I felt was flawed, but yet I still believed was worth passing, made it through Congress last night. For some reason it makes me feel awful. And worse, I don't see a solution on the horizon.
President Fox interviewed on a blog
In what could be a first, blogger Enteratehoy interviews Mexican President Vicente Fox about the upcoming election, his term in office and the recent scandal involving Noticias de Oaxaca. (Hat Tip to Goleech.)
Normally, I'd say something like this is a scam, but it looks legitimate and Fox's answers look like how he would actually answer the questions. If you read Spanish, it's a good read.
Other Mexico stuff. The LA Times has an article on Mexico City mayor Lopez Obrador, who is stepping down to run full time for president. The Arizona Republic has a good article about Mexico's immigration problem; South and Central Americans travel into Mexico with the hope of going to the US. El Universal (in English) covers the recent violence along the border and says the UNDP is getting involved in making suggestions for combating the insecurity in Mexico. As my friend MH would note: "Oh good, a panel of experts."
UPDATE (July 29): Check out the comment section for debate over whether the "interviewed on a blog" statement is correct.
UPDATE2 (July 29, later that evening): Please see my followup post: It depends on what the definition of "blogger" is...
Normally, I'd say something like this is a scam, but it looks legitimate and Fox's answers look like how he would actually answer the questions. If you read Spanish, it's a good read.
Other Mexico stuff. The LA Times has an article on Mexico City mayor Lopez Obrador, who is stepping down to run full time for president. The Arizona Republic has a good article about Mexico's immigration problem; South and Central Americans travel into Mexico with the hope of going to the US. El Universal (in English) covers the recent violence along the border and says the UNDP is getting involved in making suggestions for combating the insecurity in Mexico. As my friend MH would note: "Oh good, a panel of experts."
UPDATE (July 29): Check out the comment section for debate over whether the "interviewed on a blog" statement is correct.
UPDATE2 (July 29, later that evening): Please see my followup post: It depends on what the definition of "blogger" is...
Vote coming soon
CAFTA vote is expected soon, possibly tonight. The outcome is still in doubt.
It will be interesting to read the gossip in the coming days what was promised to some of the Republicans and moderate Dems who were on the edge before the vote. What a great time to get that highway project funded... Democracy in action.
UPDATE: CAFTA passed 217-215 after the vote was held open for over an hour. It's an ugly way to pass a bill, but they got it through.
It will be interesting to read the gossip in the coming days what was promised to some of the Republicans and moderate Dems who were on the edge before the vote. What a great time to get that highway project funded... Democracy in action.
UPDATE: CAFTA passed 217-215 after the vote was held open for over an hour. It's an ugly way to pass a bill, but they got it through.
Got nothin'
Besides the links over on the side, check out this week's Carnival of the Revolutions and BBC's diary from a Red Cross worker helping in Niger. And this article from yesterday's Washington Post on counter-terror operations in Africa and Christian's post on the IDB elections. And just scroll down TPMcafe's America abroad, lots of good stuff there. That's enough reading material for everyone...
Darfur and the US media
Nicholas Kristof on the media's failure to cover the genocide in Darfur.
More than two years have passed since the beginning of what Mr. Bush acknowledges is the first genocide of the 21st century, yet Mr. Bush barely manages to get the word "Darfur" out of his mouth. Still, it seems hypocritical of me to rage about Mr. Bush's negligence, when my own beloved institution - the American media - has been at least as passive as Mr. Bush.
...if we journalists are to demand a legal privilege to protect our sources, we need to show that we serve the public good - which means covering genocide as seriously as we cover, say, Tom Cruise. In some ways, we've gone downhill: the American news media aren't even covering the Darfur genocide as well as we covered the Armenian genocide in 1915.
...When MTV dispatches a crew to cover genocide and NBC doesn't, then we in journalism need to hang our heads.
CAFTA vs. Chavez
If you look at the list below, you'll find a few good reasons to vote for CAFTA, along with a few good reasons to vote against. However, as the vote has grown closer, some CAFTA supporters, most recently the Washington Post, have backed off the economic arguments and instead focused on their regional bogeyman, Hugo Chavez.
Failure to pass CAFTA will not throw our five Central American allies suddenly to the dark side, nor will the passage of CAFTA wave a magic wand over the region and cause economic populism to go away.
Long term (5-15 years), free trade agreements like CAFTA can become a weapon against economic populism, like the type currently ruling Venezuela. Whether you agree with the specifics of CAFTA or not, free trade is essential to development in Latin America. Defeating the "Chavez threat" requires sustained diplomacy and economic interaction with countries in Latin America, of which CAFTA is only a small piece.
The bad news for bill's supporters is, in the short term (1-3 years) the passage of CAFTA may actually benefit Chavez. CAFTA becomes Chavez's whipping boy, a gringo economic policy he can point to when development doesn't come immediately or some people lose out in the new free trade deal. Chavez doesn't care whether it's true or not. The Venezuelan regime is a master of public relations and they will find a way to turn CAFTA against us in the media. This isn't an argument against CAFTA, but it is something to be prepared for.
There are plenty of economic and political reasons to support CAFTA. Advocates of the policy should not to oversell this bill as a giant-slayer or use fear of the bogeyman to gain votes.
Failure to pass CAFTA will not throw our five Central American allies suddenly to the dark side, nor will the passage of CAFTA wave a magic wand over the region and cause economic populism to go away.
Long term (5-15 years), free trade agreements like CAFTA can become a weapon against economic populism, like the type currently ruling Venezuela. Whether you agree with the specifics of CAFTA or not, free trade is essential to development in Latin America. Defeating the "Chavez threat" requires sustained diplomacy and economic interaction with countries in Latin America, of which CAFTA is only a small piece.
The bad news for bill's supporters is, in the short term (1-3 years) the passage of CAFTA may actually benefit Chavez. CAFTA becomes Chavez's whipping boy, a gringo economic policy he can point to when development doesn't come immediately or some people lose out in the new free trade deal. Chavez doesn't care whether it's true or not. The Venezuelan regime is a master of public relations and they will find a way to turn CAFTA against us in the media. This isn't an argument against CAFTA, but it is something to be prepared for.
There are plenty of economic and political reasons to support CAFTA. Advocates of the policy should not to oversell this bill as a giant-slayer or use fear of the bogeyman to gain votes.
Update on Mexican Newspaper Standoff
For background, please read my previous post on the standoff between Noticias de Oaxaca and the local government run by Governor Ruiz of the PRI.
The first place to start is Noticias de Oaxaca, which continues to publish in spite of having their office equipment destroyed. They haven't backed down either and continue their attacks against the local PRI governor in today's front page online article.
The only two new articles in English were an AP article describing Mexican federal investigators inspecting the damage and an interview with one of the journalists at the newspaper.
The National Human Rights Commission, and more importantly, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission have been called in to investigate this case.
Mexican Newspaper columnists have rallied around the attacked newspaper. You can read a sample of those columnists here, here, and here. And blogger Goleech continues his criticisms as well.
In the past, numerous journalists in Mexico have been threatened by corrupt politicians or drug trafficking gangs. It's a small newspaper, but the journalists at Noticias de Oaxaca have taken a stand against the corrupt local politics and have managed to attract national and international attention. If they win this fight, it's a step forward for Mexican democracy. I wish them the best of luck.
The first place to start is Noticias de Oaxaca, which continues to publish in spite of having their office equipment destroyed. They haven't backed down either and continue their attacks against the local PRI governor in today's front page online article.
The only two new articles in English were an AP article describing Mexican federal investigators inspecting the damage and an interview with one of the journalists at the newspaper.
The National Human Rights Commission, and more importantly, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission have been called in to investigate this case.
Mexican Newspaper columnists have rallied around the attacked newspaper. You can read a sample of those columnists here, here, and here. And blogger Goleech continues his criticisms as well.
In the past, numerous journalists in Mexico have been threatened by corrupt politicians or drug trafficking gangs. It's a small newspaper, but the journalists at Noticias de Oaxaca have taken a stand against the corrupt local politics and have managed to attract national and international attention. If they win this fight, it's a step forward for Mexican democracy. I wish them the best of luck.
CAFTA op-eds
Sebastian Mallaby and Andres Oppenheimer both had columns this weekend on the importance of passing CAFTA.
Mallaby references this op-ed from Sherrod Brown, in which he lays out a brief case against CAFTA. While I disagree with Brown's view on CAFTA, I agreed with his writing about how CAFTA's opponents have been demonized by the Republicans. There are people on both sides of this debate with good intentions and ideals, and demonizing your opponents is a sure way to prevent compromise.
I'll be looking for more good op-eds, editorials or blog entries on both sides of the CAFTA debate. E-mail me or add them in the comments below and I'll update this post later tonight.
UPDATE: OK, here's an update. I'll continue updating as they come in. I'm looking for op-eds and editorials that were actually published, try to make a legitimate case and don't attack the opposition party. So if it's a shrill rant about Democrats moving left or evil corporate Republicans, I'm not including it. Also added a "For Cafta, except..." category for articles that are for CAFTA, but still criticize parts of it.
If I find time, I'll add blog entries, but considering the amount of material out there, I may have to quit my day job. However, feel free to link to them in the comments section.
FOR CAFTA:
Rob Portman (WSJ)
Robert Zoellick (Washington Post)
Washington Times editorial.
Two economists (Washington Post, pro-free trade in general)
Donald Rumsfeld (Miami Herald)
AGAINST CAFTA:
Rahul Rajkumar (Boston Globe)
Ruth M. Heifetz (San Diego Union-Tribune)
FOR CAFTA, EXCEPT...
Washington Post editorial
Mallaby references this op-ed from Sherrod Brown, in which he lays out a brief case against CAFTA. While I disagree with Brown's view on CAFTA, I agreed with his writing about how CAFTA's opponents have been demonized by the Republicans. There are people on both sides of this debate with good intentions and ideals, and demonizing your opponents is a sure way to prevent compromise.
I'll be looking for more good op-eds, editorials or blog entries on both sides of the CAFTA debate. E-mail me or add them in the comments below and I'll update this post later tonight.
UPDATE: OK, here's an update. I'll continue updating as they come in. I'm looking for op-eds and editorials that were actually published, try to make a legitimate case and don't attack the opposition party. So if it's a shrill rant about Democrats moving left or evil corporate Republicans, I'm not including it. Also added a "For Cafta, except..." category for articles that are for CAFTA, but still criticize parts of it.
If I find time, I'll add blog entries, but considering the amount of material out there, I may have to quit my day job. However, feel free to link to them in the comments section.
FOR CAFTA:
Rob Portman (WSJ)
Robert Zoellick (Washington Post)
Washington Times editorial.
Two economists (Washington Post, pro-free trade in general)
Donald Rumsfeld (Miami Herald)
AGAINST CAFTA:
Rahul Rajkumar (Boston Globe)
Ruth M. Heifetz (San Diego Union-Tribune)
FOR CAFTA, EXCEPT...
Washington Post editorial
Supporting CAFTA and its opponents
At some point during the next several weeks, CAFTA is going to go in front of the US House of Representatives. In spite of an intense lobbying campaign by the president and the Central American nations, it looks like it might fail.
A key reason for its possible failure will be the votes of about 50 moderate, pro-free trade Democrats in the House who have voted for nearly every free trade agreement in the past but have chosen to oppose this one as a group. The president did not consult with them during the negotiations, did not attempt to include issues important to them and now wants them to act as a rubber-stamp. It's one of the hardest votes these Democrats will make in their careers, as it puts their principles on free trade directly against their principles on Congress's role in the legislative process.
The defeat of CAFTA should not be the end but rather the beginning of the debate. It's an opportunity for the moderates in both parties to take back the initiative on the issue of trade.
Some people have indicated that the failure to pass CAFTA would be a blow to all of free trade, or that somehow Central America would never have a free trade agreement because this one vote didn't pass. I absolutely disagree. While some Republicans may be willing to surrender after a single legislative defeat, those who really support free trade should be back at the negotiation table the next day.
Pro-free trade Democrats who are voting against this bill have an obligation to get Central American free trade back on track. I understand why they are voting against this bill, but that makes it all the more important for them to fix the problem. A Congressional delegation of moderates should go down to Central America the week after the vote to begin working with the executive and legislative branches in each country to find an agreement that is workable. Moderates in the Congress can and should go over the president's head on these negotiations and make this happen.
There is no reason an improved CAFTA bill cannot be passed on the floor of the US Congress before the end of this year.
50 Democrats control when and how Central American free trade will pass. Defeat the first bill, take the initiative and pass something better. This is a chance to reassert Congress's authority, to pass the right piece of legislation and to move from the party in opposition to a party that controls some of the agenda. It's a lot to ask, but nobody said leadership was easy.
UPDATE (28 July): Being that CAFTA passed, this entry becomes a bit obsolete. This doesn't mean moderates cannot retake some initiative on free trade.
There are plenty of issues that remain unsolved with Central American trade and the Andean Region free trade talks are next. I hope moderates in both parties work with the executive branch (and at times override it) to create bills that pass with a large majority rather than a plurality of two votes. Twisting arms and shoving bills through Congress works for short term victories, but it cannot be a sustainable method for promoting free trade.
Brazil poll numbers
From Folha de Sao Paulo, via Reuters:
The downside is that his government is not seen as effective. Like in Venezuela, a smart opposition should avoid attacking a charismatic leader and instead go after the problems within the government underneath that leader. Of course, the opposition would also have to provide an alternative, and in Brazil, the alternatives to Lula's policies aren't polling very well either.
Respondents in the Datafolha poll who believe Lula is honest fell to 62 percent from 73 percent in the previous survey in June, although there are no allegations Lula was involved in the scandal in which his Workers' Party has been accused of bribing lawmakers to back government legislation.The good news for Lula is that he still has wide personal support, and that in the polls he's beating all potential challengers for next year's election. Also, with Congress at 11% support, challengers from there look very unlikely.His government's approval rating fell to 35 percent from 36 percent and its disapproval rating rose to 23 percent from 19 percent. The approval rating for Congress fell to 11 percent, its lowest level since 1993.
The downside is that his government is not seen as effective. Like in Venezuela, a smart opposition should avoid attacking a charismatic leader and instead go after the problems within the government underneath that leader. Of course, the opposition would also have to provide an alternative, and in Brazil, the alternatives to Lula's policies aren't polling very well either.
Dueling Haiti op-eds
Haitian Prime Minister Gerard Latortue has an op-ed in the Miami Herald noting a few successes in Haiti and urging the international community to maintain its support and presence so that elections can be held and more improvements towards security can be made.
On the same op-ed page, two human rights activists say the upcoming elections will be a sham. Only3.5% 13% of people have registered to vote, there are no registration sites in poor communities and the Lavalas Party is boycotting until political raids cease and political prisoners are freed.
The truth is somewhere between the positions of these two op-eds. The government's police units are guilty of gross violations of human rights and few in the international community seem willing to call them out on it. The level of voter registration for the election is awful, in large part because the UN peacekeeping force hasn't succeeded in providing security. Aristide's Lavalas thugs and other gangs in the Haitian slums aren't any better. They terrorize the poor population, they traffic in drugs and weapons, they're responsible for a number of the recent kidnappings and they threaten anyone who may try to work with the interim government. The government can't ignore these security threats.
Basically, you have one side trying to terrorize the interim government while the mostly untrained government forces use repressive methods that simply inflame tensions. In the middle of this is the UN force. I have a lot of respect for the countries that sent troops, but at their current levels they simply don't have the numbers and training necessary to fulfill their mission.
The unfortunate part of these op-eds is that neither gives a solution. Latortue is arguing to "stay the course" while daily news stories show that course is not completely on track. International groups are pointing out everything that's wrong and saying "Do better" without a credible plan for bringing peace and security. If it sounds a bit like the current arguments over Iraq, that's because it is, but worse. At least people pay attention to Iraq.
On the same op-ed page, two human rights activists say the upcoming elections will be a sham. Only
The truth is somewhere between the positions of these two op-eds. The government's police units are guilty of gross violations of human rights and few in the international community seem willing to call them out on it. The level of voter registration for the election is awful, in large part because the UN peacekeeping force hasn't succeeded in providing security. Aristide's Lavalas thugs and other gangs in the Haitian slums aren't any better. They terrorize the poor population, they traffic in drugs and weapons, they're responsible for a number of the recent kidnappings and they threaten anyone who may try to work with the interim government. The government can't ignore these security threats.
Basically, you have one side trying to terrorize the interim government while the mostly untrained government forces use repressive methods that simply inflame tensions. In the middle of this is the UN force. I have a lot of respect for the countries that sent troops, but at their current levels they simply don't have the numbers and training necessary to fulfill their mission.
The unfortunate part of these op-eds is that neither gives a solution. Latortue is arguing to "stay the course" while daily news stories show that course is not completely on track. International groups are pointing out everything that's wrong and saying "Do better" without a credible plan for bringing peace and security. If it sounds a bit like the current arguments over Iraq, that's because it is, but worse. At least people pay attention to Iraq.
New Venezuela poll numbers
The Miami Herald has the new poll numbers that were released a few days ago in El Nacional. I can't access the El Nacional poll online, but here are the numbers I've been able to find from the Miami Herald and various other sources.
Chavez's approval rating is over 70% in the new poll. However, the government only has an approval rating of 55%.
It should also be noted that the Catholic Church and the Venezuelan media, both of which criticize Chavez, get higher approval ratings than Chavez at 80% and 75% respectively.
Unemployment and lack of security remain the top two complaints in the country.
55% of Venezuelans plan on not voting in the upcoming municipal elections next month.
Rejection of the Cuban model for Venezuela is at 63%. Acceptance of a Cuban model for Venezuela has increased from 3% to 11%. Just under 30% support Chavez's idea for a "new socialism" for Venezuela. George Bush and American style capitalism don't do any better, scoring somewhere in the mid-teens.
It looks like Chavez is popular as a person, but that his government and his ideology are not doing so well in Venezuela. This leaves the opposition two options: criticize "Hugo Chavez" or criticize the "Venezuelan government". The first strategy goes after Chavez's strength, his personality and charisma, in the hopes of wearing it down. The second goes after his weakness, the failures of his government and particularly its failure to help ordinary Venezuelans.
Of course, the second strategy would also require some discipline and moderation by the opposition, and that has not been their strength in recent years...
Chavez's approval rating is over 70% in the new poll. However, the government only has an approval rating of 55%.
It should also be noted that the Catholic Church and the Venezuelan media, both of which criticize Chavez, get higher approval ratings than Chavez at 80% and 75% respectively.
Unemployment and lack of security remain the top two complaints in the country.
55% of Venezuelans plan on not voting in the upcoming municipal elections next month.
Rejection of the Cuban model for Venezuela is at 63%. Acceptance of a Cuban model for Venezuela has increased from 3% to 11%. Just under 30% support Chavez's idea for a "new socialism" for Venezuela. George Bush and American style capitalism don't do any better, scoring somewhere in the mid-teens.
It looks like Chavez is popular as a person, but that his government and his ideology are not doing so well in Venezuela. This leaves the opposition two options: criticize "Hugo Chavez" or criticize the "Venezuelan government". The first strategy goes after Chavez's strength, his personality and charisma, in the hopes of wearing it down. The second goes after his weakness, the failures of his government and particularly its failure to help ordinary Venezuelans.
Of course, the second strategy would also require some discipline and moderation by the opposition, and that has not been their strength in recent years...
Copycat bombers
Yesterday's failed attacks in the UK along with today's strange events fortunately did not cause too many casualties or too much damage. They do, however, speak of a frightening possibility for the future.
Lone wolf terrorism or unnetworked terrorists who commit acts without leadership always pose a challenge. The Unibomber or Eric Rudolph are examples of this here in the US. However, this sort of terrorism as it is linked to radical Islamic ideology can be more dangerous as it has shown the ability to recruit relatively large numbers of followers for radical or even suicidal acts without the financial or communication connections that would allow governments to stop the terrorist action.
Also, for every 100 or even 1,000 lone wolf terrorists who have minimal explosives or firearms training and cause few casualties, there will be one who is much more dangerous. A lot of pundits are looking at the events over the past few days and seeing it as a good sign because they think Al Qaeda is weakening. More likely, these are the weakest of the lone wolf jihadists (or copycat jihadists) striking out, and others who are more dangerous are holding back and preparing. I don't mean to be the pessimist, but those spinning the recent events as good news risk complacency.
So far, I think Tony Blair and the British people are handling these events with remarkable skill and grace. They have the right attitude to win a war of ideas. Let's hope they can take some steps forward over the next few days and let's also hope they can pass some of that good sense on to our own government.
Lone wolf terrorism or unnetworked terrorists who commit acts without leadership always pose a challenge. The Unibomber or Eric Rudolph are examples of this here in the US. However, this sort of terrorism as it is linked to radical Islamic ideology can be more dangerous as it has shown the ability to recruit relatively large numbers of followers for radical or even suicidal acts without the financial or communication connections that would allow governments to stop the terrorist action.
Also, for every 100 or even 1,000 lone wolf terrorists who have minimal explosives or firearms training and cause few casualties, there will be one who is much more dangerous. A lot of pundits are looking at the events over the past few days and seeing it as a good sign because they think Al Qaeda is weakening. More likely, these are the weakest of the lone wolf jihadists (or copycat jihadists) striking out, and others who are more dangerous are holding back and preparing. I don't mean to be the pessimist, but those spinning the recent events as good news risk complacency.
So far, I think Tony Blair and the British people are handling these events with remarkable skill and grace. They have the right attitude to win a war of ideas. Let's hope they can take some steps forward over the next few days and let's also hope they can pass some of that good sense on to our own government.
UNSC reform debate
As the debate over the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) continues, Mexico, Canada, Italy and Pakistan have launched their proposal, the "Uniting for Consensus", which adds ten non-permanent seats. Today's LA Times covers the proposal along with the US attempts to block all proposals. Also see yesterday's AP story on Africa's proposal and Reuters on US moves to block or delay everything.
See also my prior discussion on UNSC reform here.
See also my prior discussion on UNSC reform here.
El Tiempo RSS feed
Colombia's biggest newspaper, El Tiempo, has begun running RSS feeds. The feeds are separated by section and include their space for blogs where they are allowing the political candidates to write.
Being that I read a lot of Colombia news, I've been waiting for El Tiempo to add RSS. As soon as I saw them post the feeds today, I signed up for the front page, the "armed conflict" section and the opinion section. It looks good so far. I'm sure they'll be working out the bugs over the next few days, but give it two weeks and it should be perfected.
BTW, if anyone needs an RSS reader, I highly recommend Bloglines.
Being that I read a lot of Colombia news, I've been waiting for El Tiempo to add RSS. As soon as I saw them post the feeds today, I signed up for the front page, the "armed conflict" section and the opinion section. It looks good so far. I'm sure they'll be working out the bugs over the next few days, but give it two weeks and it should be perfected.
BTW, if anyone needs an RSS reader, I highly recommend Bloglines.
VOA for Latin America
Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty are two US-funded media outlets that have credibility around the world. They have that credibility because they have been around for decades, they have provided legitimate news that other stations would not, and although they have a clear editorial bias, they do their best to distinguish between editorial and straight news.
Radio Marti, while a little more on the propaganda side than the other two, has provided news for Cubans whenever the signal has not been jammed and has provided an important alternate source for news for those on the island.
But do we need Radio Marti for Venezuela?
The proposal is talking about funding a huge amount of new programming directed at only one country, it's going to take years to build up physical infrastructure and credibility among Venezuelans, and the Venezuelan media, while somewhat censored, often criticize Chavez and are nowhere near the level of censorship in Cuba. Worse, the US proposal is simply boosting Chavez's ego by making him more important than he is. It's also distracting from more credible critics like the Venezuelan Catholic Church or Sumate.
On a side note, the Radio Marti proposal is on the front page of both El Universal and El Nacional in Venezuela.
Here's an alternate proposal: let's do more with VOA. Voice of America (in Spanish) is broadcast via shortwave into not just Venezuela, but all Latin America. It provides a US perspective on events, it already has some credibility, and it is not seen as targeting any particular country or leader. And if you go to the front page of their website today, it has an interview with Venezuela's cardinal, so it is accomplishing the same thing that a Radio Marti would do without all the extra funds being proposed.
Although the Venezuelan ambassador was only talking sarcastically, we really should try to get VOA broadcasts on more than shortwave. We should form partnerships with local radio stations in several countries so that people can listen to it in their cars and at work. This is an underutilized tool and could really serve the hemisphere well by providing one more media outlet people can turn to. Yet, throughout the past decade, VOA and RFE/RL funds were under threat of being cut, often by the same opportunistic politicians that now call for funding of a station dedicated to one pseudo-dictator because it plays well in their constituency.
This Radio Marti (Venezuela) idea is a political scam drawing attention and funding away from the real issues the US faces in Latin America. The truth is, to accomplish its goals everything we need is already in place. Let's use the tools we have and improve their capabilities.
Radio Marti, while a little more on the propaganda side than the other two, has provided news for Cubans whenever the signal has not been jammed and has provided an important alternate source for news for those on the island.
But do we need Radio Marti for Venezuela?
The proposal is talking about funding a huge amount of new programming directed at only one country, it's going to take years to build up physical infrastructure and credibility among Venezuelans, and the Venezuelan media, while somewhat censored, often criticize Chavez and are nowhere near the level of censorship in Cuba. Worse, the US proposal is simply boosting Chavez's ego by making him more important than he is. It's also distracting from more credible critics like the Venezuelan Catholic Church or Sumate.
On a side note, the Radio Marti proposal is on the front page of both El Universal and El Nacional in Venezuela.
Here's an alternate proposal: let's do more with VOA. Voice of America (in Spanish) is broadcast via shortwave into not just Venezuela, but all Latin America. It provides a US perspective on events, it already has some credibility, and it is not seen as targeting any particular country or leader. And if you go to the front page of their website today, it has an interview with Venezuela's cardinal, so it is accomplishing the same thing that a Radio Marti would do without all the extra funds being proposed.
Although the Venezuelan ambassador was only talking sarcastically, we really should try to get VOA broadcasts on more than shortwave. We should form partnerships with local radio stations in several countries so that people can listen to it in their cars and at work. This is an underutilized tool and could really serve the hemisphere well by providing one more media outlet people can turn to. Yet, throughout the past decade, VOA and RFE/RL funds were under threat of being cut, often by the same opportunistic politicians that now call for funding of a station dedicated to one pseudo-dictator because it plays well in their constituency.
This Radio Marti (Venezuela) idea is a political scam drawing attention and funding away from the real issues the US faces in Latin America. The truth is, to accomplish its goals everything we need is already in place. Let's use the tools we have and improve their capabilities.
Newspaper standoff in Mexico
In the state of Oaxaca, a standoff between a newspaper and its opponents is on the front page of every major newspaper's website and is beginning to attract international attention.
The employees of the newspaper Noticias had been inside their building for the past month, producing their newspaper in spite of threats from PRI-backed unions and local politicians. It should be noted that while the PRI are trying to play this as union rights, not a single employee at the newspaper has agreed with the union.
On Monday, after 31 days, those employees were forced out of their office by masked men who used axes to destroy the press equipment. Witnesses said that in spite of the masks, the could recognize some of the attackers as local police officers. The Fox government is finally getting involved, but it will have a hard time against the local PRI government in Oaxaca which is run by Governor Ruiz.
Blogger Go Leech blames the federal government for not getting involved earlier in this case or in a similar case that occurred with Canal 40. In the Mexican national media as well, while most of the blame is going to Gov. Ruiz, there is definitely some blame being given to the federal government and President Fox for waiting too long to act.
If you want the good news, the newspaper employees haven't let the eviction stop them. They are producing the paper from a remote location. And their website, while not completely updated, has a few new stories posted today, mostly about the standoff.
Go visit Noticias de Oaxaca's website. Today, it's journalism at its best.
UPDATE: (5:30, July 21): A couple more links on this story as it gains wider coverage.
Yesterday, more than 1,000 protesters marched in favor of the newspaper in the capital of Oaxaca. Meanwhile, El Universal reports that Oaxaca state Governor Ruiz will hold a dialogue and allow international press freedom NGO's to participate. That would be a good first step, but I don't expect much to come of it.
Back in English, the New York Times and the LA Times both report the "union" has taken over the newspaper building. The New York Times also ran a story a few days ago about the newspaper continuing to publish.
The employees of the newspaper Noticias had been inside their building for the past month, producing their newspaper in spite of threats from PRI-backed unions and local politicians. It should be noted that while the PRI are trying to play this as union rights, not a single employee at the newspaper has agreed with the union.
On Monday, after 31 days, those employees were forced out of their office by masked men who used axes to destroy the press equipment. Witnesses said that in spite of the masks, the could recognize some of the attackers as local police officers. The Fox government is finally getting involved, but it will have a hard time against the local PRI government in Oaxaca which is run by Governor Ruiz.
Blogger Go Leech blames the federal government for not getting involved earlier in this case or in a similar case that occurred with Canal 40. In the Mexican national media as well, while most of the blame is going to Gov. Ruiz, there is definitely some blame being given to the federal government and President Fox for waiting too long to act.
If you want the good news, the newspaper employees haven't let the eviction stop them. They are producing the paper from a remote location. And their website, while not completely updated, has a few new stories posted today, mostly about the standoff.
Go visit Noticias de Oaxaca's website. Today, it's journalism at its best.
UPDATE: (5:30, July 21): A couple more links on this story as it gains wider coverage.
Yesterday, more than 1,000 protesters marched in favor of the newspaper in the capital of Oaxaca. Meanwhile, El Universal reports that Oaxaca state Governor Ruiz will hold a dialogue and allow international press freedom NGO's to participate. That would be a good first step, but I don't expect much to come of it.
Back in English, the New York Times and the LA Times both report the "union" has taken over the newspaper building. The New York Times also ran a story a few days ago about the newspaper continuing to publish.
Happy Colombian Independence Day
On July 20, 1810, Colombia declared its independence from Spain. Independence would not be recognized until August of 1819 when Colombian forces defeated the Spanish at the Battle of Boyaca.
In a separate event (or is it?), today is also the 36th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission that landed on the moon. To celebrate, Google has set up a map.
In a separate event (or is it?), today is also the 36th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission that landed on the moon. To celebrate, Google has set up a map.
Latin Americans learn Chinese
While there is probably an article per week about China's growing influence in Latin America, much of it takes place at the upper political levels. Generally articles focus on trips by political leaders and agreements for eventual investment. Most people on the street do not feel the effects. If anything, they are more concerned about China taking their jobs than they are aware of China's investments.
One sign of that this is changing comes from today's Miami Herald article describing a sharp increase in the number of Latin Americans learning Chinese. It appears to be mostly businessmen and university students learning Chinese at this point, but at some point in the past they were the only ones learning English as well.
Learning a language is a significant investment of time and money. People are only going to spend this time and money if there has been real progress in investment and integrating economies that can offer them a reward. Government leaders can sign all the agreements they want and it doesn't matter; it's metrics like language classes we should be watching to determine the real level of China's involvement in any country.
One sign of that this is changing comes from today's Miami Herald article describing a sharp increase in the number of Latin Americans learning Chinese. It appears to be mostly businessmen and university students learning Chinese at this point, but at some point in the past they were the only ones learning English as well.
Learning a language is a significant investment of time and money. People are only going to spend this time and money if there has been real progress in investment and integrating economies that can offer them a reward. Government leaders can sign all the agreements they want and it doesn't matter; it's metrics like language classes we should be watching to determine the real level of China's involvement in any country.
Andean conference
While there is very little English language coverage of the Community of Andean Nations summit in Lima, BBC Mundo has a huge special feature on the region that they just published today. If you read Spanish and have time, they've put together quite the presentation with interviews, analysis, etc.
For those who only read English, unfortunately, the only coverage currently is from Cuba's ever wonderful Prensa Latina. If there's coverage from a real news source tomorrow morning, I'll post an update or link to it on the side.
UPDATE (5:30AM, July 19): Sad when the only English language coverage I can find online is coming from Prensa Latina and Ireland Online. The Ireland Online article outlines some of President Chavez's proposals now that he has the rotating presidency of the CAN. There are some other articles out there from AP and other wire services, but no websites have picked them up yet. Probably this afternoon.
Also, BBC Mundo has two articles on meeting between the presidents and some of the issues discussed including Venezuela's push for an energy alliance.
UPDATE 2 (July 21): Welcome Global Voices readers. Very little English news ever appeared, but a few other stories in Spanish I didn't link to previously:
Counter-narcotics were also on the agenda. Chavez donated one million to the CAN. And backroom negotiations between Venezuela and Ecuador caused a bit of media buzz.
Now negotiators from the Andean Region have moved on to Miami to discuss free trade with the US.
For those who only read English, unfortunately, the only coverage currently is from Cuba's ever wonderful Prensa Latina. If there's coverage from a real news source tomorrow morning, I'll post an update or link to it on the side.
UPDATE (5:30AM, July 19): Sad when the only English language coverage I can find online is coming from Prensa Latina and Ireland Online. The Ireland Online article outlines some of President Chavez's proposals now that he has the rotating presidency of the CAN. There are some other articles out there from AP and other wire services, but no websites have picked them up yet. Probably this afternoon.
Also, BBC Mundo has two articles on meeting between the presidents and some of the issues discussed including Venezuela's push for an energy alliance.
UPDATE 2 (July 21): Welcome Global Voices readers. Very little English news ever appeared, but a few other stories in Spanish I didn't link to previously:
Counter-narcotics were also on the agenda. Chavez donated one million to the CAN. And backroom negotiations between Venezuela and Ecuador caused a bit of media buzz.
Now negotiators from the Andean Region have moved on to Miami to discuss free trade with the US.
Hurricane Emily
Hurricane Emily has slammed into the Yucatan peninsula, hitting coastal resorts including Cancun and Cozumel, and will be continuing on to mainland Mexico. Thousands of tourists were forced to take shelter. However, in the end, the tourist resorts will recover and rebuild if they have to. The question is what happens to the tens of thousands of homes of Mexicans living near the tourist resorts. Those won't receive the major media coverage, but because of poor foundations they'll be hit the hardest and they'll have the most difficult time rebuilding.
More Venezuela articles
I linked to a few Venezuela articles in yesterday's Latin America roundup. Here's a few more from today and over the weekend.
Miami Herald: Poverty continues and public opinion is divided as to whether Chavez is helping the poor. Only 31% support his economic model.
BBC: Chavez is going to seize idle firms.
AP: More Chavez pushing 21st century socialism.
Washington Post: Jackson Diehl says the Bush administration has been successful in fighting against the political prosecutions of Maria Corina Machado of Venezuela and Ayman Nour of Egypt.
Economist (via VCrisis for those without a subscription): Opposition damned if it campaigns, damned if it boycotts.
Financial Times: Dead author found on Venezuelan electoral rolls.
CNN/Reuters: Venezuelan Cardinal calls Chavez a dictator. (Chavez's response was to call him a coup-mongering bandit).
And then from my roundup yesterday:
Going back to the articles from today and yesterday, there is a surprisingly negative tone about all of them. Also, other than the Washington Post op-ed, there is surprisingly little criticism from US officials. Even looking at that Boston Globe article, there is not a single US official quoted in that story, leaving it all up to Latin American military analysts. The lesson here is that when Washington stays relatively quiet, the media turn against Chavez. It's a lesson we should remember.
Miami Herald: Poverty continues and public opinion is divided as to whether Chavez is helping the poor. Only 31% support his economic model.
BBC: Chavez is going to seize idle firms.
AP: More Chavez pushing 21st century socialism.
Washington Post: Jackson Diehl says the Bush administration has been successful in fighting against the political prosecutions of Maria Corina Machado of Venezuela and Ayman Nour of Egypt.
Economist (via VCrisis for those without a subscription): Opposition damned if it campaigns, damned if it boycotts.
Financial Times: Dead author found on Venezuelan electoral rolls.
CNN/Reuters: Venezuelan Cardinal calls Chavez a dictator. (Chavez's response was to call him a coup-mongering bandit).
And then from my roundup yesterday:
The Boston Globe covers the growing concern over Chavez's politicization of the military and his arming and training of left-wing civilian paramilitary groups. BBC reported on Venezuelan doctors marching against the growing presence of Cuban doctors. The Chicago Tribune discusses Telesur, the Venezuelan funded TV station that goes live on July 24th and will be about as fair and balanced as Fox News.I don't want to say the media cover Venezuela and its power-happy too much, because each of these articles is important. However, I'd love to see this level of coverage for some other countries and issues in Latin America. Chavez is easy to cover because he says and does lots of outrageous things. He also provides the media with the "anti-Bush" and a "leader of the left" although both those are true only in the media's mind. I'd love to see the media challenge themselves a bit more to move outside of the meme's they have constructed.
Going back to the articles from today and yesterday, there is a surprisingly negative tone about all of them. Also, other than the Washington Post op-ed, there is surprisingly little criticism from US officials. Even looking at that Boston Globe article, there is not a single US official quoted in that story, leaving it all up to Latin American military analysts. The lesson here is that when Washington stays relatively quiet, the media turn against Chavez. It's a lesson we should remember.
La Ciclovia
Every Sunday between 7AM and 2PM, the city of Bogota shuts down several major roads and allows people to bike, rollerblade and run. Known as the ciclovia, it has become a major community activity. According to the Bogota mayor's website, they shut down over 70 miles of road throughout the city and provide a number of officials to watch and guide traffic and to rent bikes. The ciclovia is also part of Bogota's push to promote public transportation and has increased sales of bicycles nearly 1,000% in the last eight years. I know I saw hundreds of people along my three mile route today, so I can only imagine that the number taking advantage of the ciclovia is in the tens of thousands.
Two blocks in, gasping for breath, I was also reminded that Bogota is 8,660 feet above sea level and I should slow down. Hopefully by next week my gringo lungs will be acclimated to the altitude and I can keep up a normal pace.
Two blocks in, gasping for breath, I was also reminded that Bogota is 8,660 feet above sea level and I should slow down. Hopefully by next week my gringo lungs will be acclimated to the altitude and I can keep up a normal pace.
Three more articles
Three other articles from outside Latin America that grabbed my attention today
From the LA Times:
From the New York Times:
From the LA Times:
During the last two years, President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao have taken oil executives on trips to oil-rich countries from Algeria to Uzbekistan to seal major deals. The government in Beijing has welcomed top officials from all 11 members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. A major point of a trip Hu made to Moscow this month was to secure access to Russia's vast reserves.The whole article gives a great rundown of China's diplomacy to secure oil supplies around the world. The unspoken conclusion is that the US needs a better energy policy, or we will be facing some major competition in the next few years.
Chinese crews are building roads in Africa in exchange for the right to extract oil from remote regions. Viewers in Saudi Arabia, a nation that U.S. oil firms once had to themselves, now watch Chinese programs on satellite TV as China drills into Saudi sands. China is also taking advantage of tensions between the Bush administration and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to wrest oil from one of the largest U.S. suppliers.
To secure deals worth tens of billions of dollars, Beijing is cozying up to regimes in nations, including Iran and Sudan, that Washington labels pariahs. And it is flexing its military muscle to lay claim to contested fields in East Asia.
China's aggressive search is putting it in growing competition with the United States, the world's largest oil consumer. Some observers even warn of a possible showdown between the two economic giants.
From the New York Times:
In the months before the Iraqi elections in January, President Bush approved a plan to provide covert support to certain Iraqi candidates and political parties, but rescinded the proposal because of Congressional opposition, current and former government officials said Saturday.In a statement issued in response to questions about a report in the next issue of The New Yorker, Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said that "in the final analysis, the president determined and the United States government adopted a policy that we would not try - and did not try - to influence the outcome of the Iraqi election by covertly helping individual candidates for office."
The statement appeared to leave open the question of whether any covert help was provided to parties favored by Washington, an issue about which the White House declined to elaborate.
The article, by Seymour M. Hersh, reports that the administration proceeded with the covert plan over the Congressional objections. Several senior Bush administration officials disputed that, although they recalled renewed discussions within the administration last fall about how the United States might counter what was seen as extensive Iranian support to pro-Iranian Shiite parties.
Any clandestine American effort to influence the Iraqi elections, or to provide particular support to candidates or parties seen as amenable to working with the United States, would have run counter to the Bush administration's assertions that the vote would be free and unfettered.
If this is true, and I'll leave that as a big if, the consequences are ugly. First, it would have violated some laws against covert action because it went behind Congress's back. More importantly, groups like NED, NDI and IRI do some amazingly great work around the world in building democratic institutions. News like this will serve to hurt their credibility and hurt the efforts to promote democracy around the world.
From the Washington Post:
Unheard of only a few decades ago, suicide bombings have rapidly evolved into perhaps the most common method of terrorism in the world, moving west from the civil war in Sri Lanka in the 1980s to the Palestinian intifada of recent years to Iraq today. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide attacks in the United States, suicide bombers have struck from Indonesia to India, from Russia to Morocco.
...The pace of such attacks is quickening. According to data compiled by the Rand Corp., about three-quarters of all suicide bombings have occurred since the Sept. 11 attacks.
The numbers in Iraq alone are breathtaking: About 400 suicide bombings have shaken Iraq since the U.S. invasion in 2003, and suicide now plays a role in two out of every three insurgent bombings. In May, an estimated 90 suicide bombings were carried out in the war-torn country -- nearly as many as the Israeli government has documented in the conflict with Palestinians since 1993.
Some Latin America stuff
It's Sunday, I've got my cup of Colombian coffee, and yes there is a lot of news out there. This isn't meant to be a comprehensive list of news, just stuff I found and read this morning; I'm keeping most of the links in English so everyone can share.
Starting from the top and working my way south...
US governors were to meet with their Mexican counterparts to discuss border security and immigration. However, only Bill Richardson actually stayed for the whole meeting. The rest showed up for photo-ops and left early.
From the LA Times, but copied in the Miami Herald, the Zapatistas have lost face after not accomplishing anything for the poor with their decade long guerrilla movement.
Some 30,000 police files have been found in Guatemala, confirming many human rights abuse allegations from the 1980's.
Tim notes that Salvadoran President Saca is requesting money from the Millenium Challenge Accounts to build a "dry canal" or a highway to move goods across the country.
Former Costa Rican President and Nobel Prize winner Oscar Arias has an op-ed in the Washington Post that argues for CAFTA, but says development aid must be combined with free trade in order to lift Central American nations out of poverty.
The Miami Herald covers the FARC's growing international reach including some criminal activities outside of Colombia.
The Boston Globe covers the growing concern over Chavez's politicization of the military and his arming and training of left-wing civilian paramilitary groups. BBC reported on Venezuelan doctors marching against the growing presence of Cuban doctors. The Chicago Tribune discusses Telesur, the Venezuelan funded TV station that goes live on July 24th and will be about as fair and balanced as Fox News.
Presidents from the Andean Region will meet Monday in Lima.
BBC says Lula's popularity remains strong despite scandals in Brazil. Brazil is planning $3 billion in sanctions to protest US cotton subsidies. A Brazil bank was conned by one of those Nigerian scams. Fortunately, Nigeria prosecuted and convicted the woman in the biggest international fraud case ever.
MABB has a good post on Bolivia-Chile relations.
A new poll shows Michelle Bachelet is easily outpacing the other candidates in Chile's presidential election. Barring political disaster, she'll be Chile's first female president (hat tip to Randy Paul).
Earlier this week, but Argentina admitted to major failures in their investigation of a 1994 bombing that killed 85. Most people believe an Islamic extremist group, possibly linked to Iran, was behind the bombing.
And finally, regionwide, Andres Oppenheimer says the Latin American braindrain may end up being a net positive. Marcela Sanchez discusses the search for a new model that learns from the failures of the Washington Consensus and that combines free market economics with political reforms and economic justice for the poor.
Starting from the top and working my way south...
US governors were to meet with their Mexican counterparts to discuss border security and immigration. However, only Bill Richardson actually stayed for the whole meeting. The rest showed up for photo-ops and left early.
From the LA Times, but copied in the Miami Herald, the Zapatistas have lost face after not accomplishing anything for the poor with their decade long guerrilla movement.
Some 30,000 police files have been found in Guatemala, confirming many human rights abuse allegations from the 1980's.
Tim notes that Salvadoran President Saca is requesting money from the Millenium Challenge Accounts to build a "dry canal" or a highway to move goods across the country.
Former Costa Rican President and Nobel Prize winner Oscar Arias has an op-ed in the Washington Post that argues for CAFTA, but says development aid must be combined with free trade in order to lift Central American nations out of poverty.
The Miami Herald covers the FARC's growing international reach including some criminal activities outside of Colombia.
The Boston Globe covers the growing concern over Chavez's politicization of the military and his arming and training of left-wing civilian paramilitary groups. BBC reported on Venezuelan doctors marching against the growing presence of Cuban doctors. The Chicago Tribune discusses Telesur, the Venezuelan funded TV station that goes live on July 24th and will be about as fair and balanced as Fox News.
Presidents from the Andean Region will meet Monday in Lima.
BBC says Lula's popularity remains strong despite scandals in Brazil. Brazil is planning $3 billion in sanctions to protest US cotton subsidies. A Brazil bank was conned by one of those Nigerian scams. Fortunately, Nigeria prosecuted and convicted the woman in the biggest international fraud case ever.
MABB has a good post on Bolivia-Chile relations.
A new poll shows Michelle Bachelet is easily outpacing the other candidates in Chile's presidential election. Barring political disaster, she'll be Chile's first female president (hat tip to Randy Paul).
Earlier this week, but Argentina admitted to major failures in their investigation of a 1994 bombing that killed 85. Most people believe an Islamic extremist group, possibly linked to Iran, was behind the bombing.
And finally, regionwide, Andres Oppenheimer says the Latin American braindrain may end up being a net positive. Marcela Sanchez discusses the search for a new model that learns from the failures of the Washington Consensus and that combines free market economics with political reforms and economic justice for the poor.
NK writing from NK
I'm sure that by tomorrow, many bloggers will be pointing at this article from Nicholas Kristof on North Korea. No comments on this right now, just wanted to point out the key paragraphs.
Many conservatives in and out of the Bush administration assume that North Korea's population must be seething and that the regime must be on its last legs. Indeed, the Bush administration's policy on North Korea, to the extent that it has one, seems to be to wait for it to collapse.I'm afraid that could be a long, long wait. The central paradox of North Korea is this: No government in the world today is more brutal or has failed its people more abjectly, yet it appears to be in solid control and may even have substantial popular support.
...If the American policy premise about North Korea - that it is near collapse - is highly dubious, our essential policy approach is even more so. The West should be trying to break that hermetic seal, to increase interactions with North Korea and to infiltrate into North Korea the most effective subversive agents we have: overweight Western business executives.
Instead, we maintain sanctions, isolate North Korea and wait indefinitely for the regime to collapse. I'm afraid we're helping the Dear Leader stay in power.
Blair's speech
From Prime Minister Tony Blair's speech on the London bombings:
After 9/11, President Bush called for action, and nobody doubted that he meant military. After 7/7, PM Blair called for action, but not so military focused. The differences are subtle, but they are there if you look for them.
What we are confronting here is an evil ideology.On one hand, it sounds a bit like President Bush with some of its democracy promotion. On the other, Blair didn't call for the bombing of a specific target, he didn't say you are with us or you are against us, he didn't say we would take out state sponsors of terror, he didn't say a specific enemy would be taken dead or alive. Tony Blair just called for a battle of hearts and minds across cultures.
It is not a clash of civilisations - all civilised people, Muslim or other, feel revulsion at it. But it is a global struggle and it is a battle of ideas, hearts and minds, both within Islam and outside it.
...This is what we are up against. It cannot be beaten except by confronting it, symptoms and causes, head-on. Without compromise and without delusion.
...We must be clear about how we win this struggle. We should take what security measures we can. But let us not kid ourselves.
In the end, it is by the power of argument, debate, true religious faith and true legitimate politics that we will defeat this threat.
That means not just arguing against their terrorism, but their politics and their perversion of religious faith. It means exposing as the rubbish it is, the propaganda about America and its allies wanting to punish Muslims or eradicate Islam.
It means championing our values of freedom, tolerance and respect for others. It means explaining why the suppression of women and the disdain for democracy are wrong.
The idea that elected governments are the preserve of those of any other faith or culture is insulting and wrong. Muslims believe in democracy just as much as any other faith and, given the chance, show it.
After 9/11, President Bush called for action, and nobody doubted that he meant military. After 7/7, PM Blair called for action, but not so military focused. The differences are subtle, but they are there if you look for them.
Chavista poll numbers #2
A few weeks ago I wrote:
The article on the whole does a good job capturing the complicated situation in Venezuela, especially with the oil money rolling in. Let's hope the Washington Post sticks around in the region and gives it a bit more attention. They have some of the best Mexico reporters out there, but in the past year they have tended to ignore the Andean Region.
I'll be interested to see which is the first major US media outlet to use a new poll number not sanctioned by the Chavez government or provide a diversity of poll numbers.Congrats to today's Washington Post's front page article for being the first major article I've seen in the past month to move away from the 70% number other media outlets are using.
While critics at home and abroad warn of his increasingly dictatorial tendencies, Chavez enjoys broad support among the poor and popularity ratings exceeding 60 percent.It's a start. Chavez's poll numbers vary between 54% and 68% in recent polls and no single number really captures the situation. Some of those (probably 10-20%) are people who don't like Chavez, but don't like the opposition either and are waiting for a good alternative. Another 10-20% are militant Chavez supporters, ready to take to the streets to defend him.
The article on the whole does a good job capturing the complicated situation in Venezuela, especially with the oil money rolling in. Let's hope the Washington Post sticks around in the region and gives it a bit more attention. They have some of the best Mexico reporters out there, but in the past year they have tended to ignore the Andean Region.
Continuing the COHA critique
OK, so maybe it's not nice of me. There are plenty of crazy groups out there that make COHA look sane and reasonable. But now that I got started reading their recent articles this morning, just one more. This one is more style than substance.
In their article "Sovereignty Sinks in Latin America as Dollarization Rises" the researchers claim:
1) None of the three dollarized countries have experienced major benefits
and
2) Partial dollarization is a better solution.
On point one they're correct that dollarization was not a magic cure-all for Ecuador or El Salvador's problems, but they don't bother to show whether any other system did significantly better during this time period. For example, Venezuela's economy is still performing below where it was four years ago, Bolivia isn't developing all that fast and the other Central American nations aren't exactly glowing models for economic development. Dollarized countries have done about the same economically and seem to have traded one set of problems for another.
On point two they have this to say:
Somehow, COHA manages to miss the fact that less than ten years after Argentina committed to the pegged peso plan, the Argentine government and economy collapsed, the country went through five presidents in two weeks, they experienced their first major malnutrition cases ever in the country and today the poverty and unemployment levels remain incredibly high in a society that used to be seen as a model for the region. I don't believe that partial dollarization was the reason for the above events, but the system did exacerbate the problem near the end.
It's also probably not helpful for their argument to portray Carlos Menem's economic policies as positive in one article only to go criticize the Washington Consensus, for which Menem was the poster child, two days later in a different article.
If COHA wants to make the case for partial dollarization systems and the only real example they provide is Argentina, they should explain in their article why the system collapsed in a way far worse than Ecuador and El Salvador have faced under dollarization.
The point here isn't to praise one system or another, because it's quite possible that partial dollarization is a good solution. But COHA shouldn't pick and choose their facts while making an economic argument. They shouldn't ignore the last five years of Argentine history with the economic and political collapse because it doesn't fit their conclusions. And when describing development, they can't consider their dollarized countries in a vacuum but need to put them into the context of how Latin America has done on the whole.
In their article "Sovereignty Sinks in Latin America as Dollarization Rises" the researchers claim:
1) None of the three dollarized countries have experienced major benefits
and
2) Partial dollarization is a better solution.
On point one they're correct that dollarization was not a magic cure-all for Ecuador or El Salvador's problems, but they don't bother to show whether any other system did significantly better during this time period. For example, Venezuela's economy is still performing below where it was four years ago, Bolivia isn't developing all that fast and the other Central American nations aren't exactly glowing models for economic development. Dollarized countries have done about the same economically and seem to have traded one set of problems for another.
On point two they have this to say:
A number of Latin American countries have taken advantage of partial dollarization, including Argentina during the decade of rule by President Carlos Menem.They then go on to praise the benefits of partial dollarization with Argentina as the main example.
Somehow, COHA manages to miss the fact that less than ten years after Argentina committed to the pegged peso plan, the Argentine government and economy collapsed, the country went through five presidents in two weeks, they experienced their first major malnutrition cases ever in the country and today the poverty and unemployment levels remain incredibly high in a society that used to be seen as a model for the region. I don't believe that partial dollarization was the reason for the above events, but the system did exacerbate the problem near the end.
It's also probably not helpful for their argument to portray Carlos Menem's economic policies as positive in one article only to go criticize the Washington Consensus, for which Menem was the poster child, two days later in a different article.
If COHA wants to make the case for partial dollarization systems and the only real example they provide is Argentina, they should explain in their article why the system collapsed in a way far worse than Ecuador and El Salvador have faced under dollarization.
The point here isn't to praise one system or another, because it's quite possible that partial dollarization is a good solution. But COHA shouldn't pick and choose their facts while making an economic argument. They shouldn't ignore the last five years of Argentine history with the economic and political collapse because it doesn't fit their conclusions. And when describing development, they can't consider their dollarized countries in a vacuum but need to put them into the context of how Latin America has done on the whole.
COHA out of touch
Some US based groups that deal with Latin America are far out of touch with reality, and one of those is the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. They're recent article "A coca grower to lead Bolivia" argues that Evo Morales is likely to win in Bolivia because of growing US discontent.
First, they go a little overboard on the anti-US rhetoric in trying to prove that Bolivians want an anti-US candidate like Morales. But that's ok, because they are correct in the basic assumption that there is a dislike of current US policy in the country and that current counter-drug policies are not working well there. The US needs to work on that.
Second, and I say this nicely:
HAVE YOU SEEN HIS FREAKING POLL NUMBERS?????
One poll put Morales at 16% for the next presidential election. Other polls have his negatives at above 70%.
Think about this, 70% is about as high as George Bush's negatives in Bolivia. In fact, if there are two things a majority of Bolivians can agree on, it's that they don't like George Bush or Evo Morales. Just because someone has anti-US rhetoric doesn't mean everyone automatically likes him.
COHA belongs to the leftist version of the neo-cons, smart people who are blinded by ideology and incapable of accepting reality even when it's right in front of them. And in the same way neo-cons supported Chalabi even as it became evident he had little support inside Iraq, groups like COHA will support and believe in Morales to the bitter end, then make up some excuse why his candidacy didn't work out.
UPDATE: Looking back, the tone on that last paragraph was a little harsher than I meant it. I have significant disagreements with COHA, but they haven't dragged us into any poorly planned wars recently, so the comparisons with the neo-cons may have been a bit out of bounds. I'll try to be more constructive in my next criticism.
First, they go a little overboard on the anti-US rhetoric in trying to prove that Bolivians want an anti-US candidate like Morales. But that's ok, because they are correct in the basic assumption that there is a dislike of current US policy in the country and that current counter-drug policies are not working well there. The US needs to work on that.
Second, and I say this nicely:
HAVE YOU SEEN HIS FREAKING POLL NUMBERS?????
One poll put Morales at 16% for the next presidential election. Other polls have his negatives at above 70%.
Think about this, 70% is about as high as George Bush's negatives in Bolivia. In fact, if there are two things a majority of Bolivians can agree on, it's that they don't like George Bush or Evo Morales. Just because someone has anti-US rhetoric doesn't mean everyone automatically likes him.
COHA belongs to the leftist version of the neo-cons, smart people who are blinded by ideology and incapable of accepting reality even when it's right in front of them. And in the same way neo-cons supported Chalabi even as it became evident he had little support inside Iraq, groups like COHA will support and believe in Morales to the bitter end, then make up some excuse why his candidacy didn't work out.
UPDATE: Looking back, the tone on that last paragraph was a little harsher than I meant it. I have significant disagreements with COHA, but they haven't dragged us into any poorly planned wars recently, so the comparisons with the neo-cons may have been a bit out of bounds. I'll try to be more constructive in my next criticism.
Venezuela's military and politics
Oppenheimer is on a roll, with five or six columns in the past month that I've completely agreed with (and I'm sure that's exactly how the famous Latin American columnist measures success :)
Yesterday he wrote about the politicizing of Venezuela's military and the training of left-wing paramilitary units.
Yesterday he wrote about the politicizing of Venezuela's military and the training of left-wing paramilitary units.
If Chavez means to do half of what he says, his transformation of Venezuela's armed forces -- and distribution of weapons to civilians -- will haunt Venezuela for decades to come, no matter how long he stays in power or who succeeds him.While I've written previously that I think the threat from Chavez to the greater Latin American region is a bit exaggerated, this threat to Venezuela is not. Chavez is arming and training hundreds of thousands of supporters in paramilitary tactics. He claims it is to fight off an alleged US invasion. But if even a small percentage of these Chavista paramilitaries are radical enough to take up arms once he leaves power, it could create a very dangerous situation in Venezuela.
Islamic public opinion
Lots of people have already noted that the Pew Global Attitudes Project has published a new report on public opinion in the Islamic world. While support for Bin Laden and suicide bombing is down overall, both numbers are up in Jordan.
Interestingly, 80% of Jordanians believe democracy would work in their country. Looking at the numbers showing majority support for some rather extreme ideals and a 100% disapproval rating of Jews (and honestly, I don't know that I've ever seen a major poll with 100% support or opposition to anything), they'd sadly come to a majority consensus more easily than say... Bolivia. I don't know how the US would deal with a Jordanian government reflecting the majority public opinion. It would be the a democratic government supporting Bin Laden and justifying suicide terrorism. We'd probably just classify it as a dictatorship, wish for the return of the monarchy and move along.
The good news, however, comes in both Indonesia and Morocco. Numbers in both countries for supporting Bin Laden and supporting attacking civilians has dropped significantly. Indonesia has seen the best Western culture has to offer in our help for tsunami relief. Morocco is becoming more aware of the extremist threat in their midst and a majority of Moroccans do not want to live under a system like that. I think they are also becoming increasingly concerned with how they are being portrayed in Europe.
Interestingly, 80% of Jordanians believe democracy would work in their country. Looking at the numbers showing majority support for some rather extreme ideals and a 100% disapproval rating of Jews (and honestly, I don't know that I've ever seen a major poll with 100% support or opposition to anything), they'd sadly come to a majority consensus more easily than say... Bolivia. I don't know how the US would deal with a Jordanian government reflecting the majority public opinion. It would be the a democratic government supporting Bin Laden and justifying suicide terrorism. We'd probably just classify it as a dictatorship, wish for the return of the monarchy and move along.
The good news, however, comes in both Indonesia and Morocco. Numbers in both countries for supporting Bin Laden and supporting attacking civilians has dropped significantly. Indonesia has seen the best Western culture has to offer in our help for tsunami relief. Morocco is becoming more aware of the extremist threat in their midst and a majority of Moroccans do not want to live under a system like that. I think they are also becoming increasingly concerned with how they are being portrayed in Europe.
In the land of futbol, I celebrate hockey
About 14 months ago, I walked into a sports bar in Bogota and asked them to turn on the Stanley Cup finals. Fortunately, there were no soccer games on, or else I'd probably have been lynched or laughed out of the bar. The game was a weird experience because there were no commercials, so during commercial breaks or in between periods, we'd just get the live feed of the ice. During those breaks, I'd spend my time explaining hockey to the bartender and any Colombians attempting to watch.
So I'm quite excited to see that hockey is very close to an agreement. Newspapers are starting to discuss what their teams will do when, not if, the agreement is signed.
While hockey fans are excited, Wayne Gretzky's quote captures the other half
Ray Rotto notes on ESPN that we now get to really begin discussions fixing the sport. His article is more on moving hockey to markets where it will succeed. While that's an interesting economics and marketing discussion, the more fun discussions are the rule changes.
Let's start with no-touch icing, eliminating the two line pass and possibly widening the rinks over time. I don't want to see the NHL become a high scoring sport, but I would like to see the end of some of the neutral zone traps that have made the game unenjoyable for many who don't understand the sport (and some who do). The AHL has played with some new rules this year including some of those above and restricting the movement of goalies. Other than the stupid goalie rule, the rules seemed to work well in the games I saw.
These will be fun debates over the next few weeks, assuming the deal gets approved. It's July, I'm in the mountains of South America, and I'm glad to able to write that hockey will probably be back next season. In the meantime, I guess it's time to brush up on that other sport they watch here where the players can't use their arms...
So I'm quite excited to see that hockey is very close to an agreement. Newspapers are starting to discuss what their teams will do when, not if, the agreement is signed.
While hockey fans are excited, Wayne Gretzky's quote captures the other half
"At the end of the day, everybody lost," Wayne Gretzky, the NHL's career scoring leader and the managing partner of the Phoenix Coyotes, told Canadian television. "We almost crippled our industry. It was very disappointing what happened."However, hockey can regain some lost ground. As I once wrote on this blog, in a world where professional poker, bowling and world's strongest man competitions are broadcast on ESPN, they are sure to find a market for hockey.
Ray Rotto notes on ESPN that we now get to really begin discussions fixing the sport. His article is more on moving hockey to markets where it will succeed. While that's an interesting economics and marketing discussion, the more fun discussions are the rule changes.
Let's start with no-touch icing, eliminating the two line pass and possibly widening the rinks over time. I don't want to see the NHL become a high scoring sport, but I would like to see the end of some of the neutral zone traps that have made the game unenjoyable for many who don't understand the sport (and some who do). The AHL has played with some new rules this year including some of those above and restricting the movement of goalies. Other than the stupid goalie rule, the rules seemed to work well in the games I saw.
These will be fun debates over the next few weeks, assuming the deal gets approved. It's July, I'm in the mountains of South America, and I'm glad to able to write that hockey will probably be back next season. In the meantime, I guess it's time to brush up on that other sport they watch here where the players can't use their arms...
Two stories out of Mexico
Everyone knows the Mexican mail system is corrupt; nobody is doing anything about it. This has become a major concern now that the absentee voting law has passed and many Mexicans will be voting by mail in 2006. Originally, the PRI tried to block the law by claiming the system is corrupt. The idea of cleaning up the system apparently goes against official PRI policy.
Hundreds of exiles in Mexico from the Spanish Civil War (1930's) will begin receiving pensions from the Spanish government. I don't exactly understand what these exiles did to receive pensions (probably a European thing), but it's a nice reconciliation gesture.
Hundreds of exiles in Mexico from the Spanish Civil War (1930's) will begin receiving pensions from the Spanish government. I don't exactly understand what these exiles did to receive pensions (probably a European thing), but it's a nice reconciliation gesture.
What's boz reading?
Good morning from Bogota. My linkroll on the side is down, so here's some stuff that should be on there.
US and Mexican authorities will hold a "mirror operation" on each side of the border to arrest drug traffickers. If this works, it could be a good model for future counter-narcotics operations between any two countries. Of course, it would help if Mexico captured the right people. Also, see my post below about the PRI internal politics and this article from the NYT on deforestation in Mexico.
In Brazil, Lula is naming new cabinet ministers after dealing with weeks of scandal in the media. It's not just Lula's Party, an opposition deputy was arrested with a lot of money in his suitcase. The US will oppose the G4, led by Brazil, in their UNSC reform plan.
Nearby, the Washington Times runs an AP article about Arab communities in Brazil and BBC Mundo (in Spanish, por supuesto) has a special with several articles on Islam in the tri-border region.
Eduardo over at Barrio Flores has some thoughts about why Evo Morales may be pushing for absentee voting. It's definitely not the Bolivians in the US that will be voting for him.
Joseph Britt has an op-ed questioning Arab silence on the Darfur genocide and Maria Szalavitz questions why we can't buy Afghan poppies to make cheap medical pain relief medications. The answer to the second has to do with the Afghan traffickers simply increasing production over what's legally allowed.
The head of the State Department's Cuba desk will switch jobs with Venezuela's DCM, in an obvious attempt to show how close those two governments are. In the meantime, James Cason, the former chief in Havana, will become the US Ambassador to Paraguay.
And finally, the Associated Press has a look at Colombia's coal industry and compares it to the American Old West. Well, except for the assassins on motorcycles and the thermal imaging sensors to detect them. The article, however, never answers my question. I know they're probably just running extortion rings, but what the hell do the bad guys do with a train of coal if they capture it?
US and Mexican authorities will hold a "mirror operation" on each side of the border to arrest drug traffickers. If this works, it could be a good model for future counter-narcotics operations between any two countries. Of course, it would help if Mexico captured the right people. Also, see my post below about the PRI internal politics and this article from the NYT on deforestation in Mexico.
In Brazil, Lula is naming new cabinet ministers after dealing with weeks of scandal in the media. It's not just Lula's Party, an opposition deputy was arrested with a lot of money in his suitcase. The US will oppose the G4, led by Brazil, in their UNSC reform plan.
Nearby, the Washington Times runs an AP article about Arab communities in Brazil and BBC Mundo (in Spanish, por supuesto) has a special with several articles on Islam in the tri-border region.
Eduardo over at Barrio Flores has some thoughts about why Evo Morales may be pushing for absentee voting. It's definitely not the Bolivians in the US that will be voting for him.
Joseph Britt has an op-ed questioning Arab silence on the Darfur genocide and Maria Szalavitz questions why we can't buy Afghan poppies to make cheap medical pain relief medications. The answer to the second has to do with the Afghan traffickers simply increasing production over what's legally allowed.
The head of the State Department's Cuba desk will switch jobs with Venezuela's DCM, in an obvious attempt to show how close those two governments are. In the meantime, James Cason, the former chief in Havana, will become the US Ambassador to Paraguay.
And finally, the Associated Press has a look at Colombia's coal industry and compares it to the American Old West. Well, except for the assassins on motorcycles and the thermal imaging sensors to detect them. The article, however, never answers my question. I know they're probably just running extortion rings, but what the hell do the bad guys do with a train of coal if they capture it?
PRI primaries
The PRI announced they will be opening up their primaries to all voters in Mexico. This is fantastic news for both the PRI and Mexico as a whole.
The current leading PRI candidate, Roberto Madrazo, is in many ways a machine politician. Yes, Madrazo has had some breaks with the old, corrupt PRI machinery. However, his style of politics definitely resembles everything wrong with the PRI. I believe that is one reason so many Mexican voters remain unsure of their 2006 vote.
By allowing a primary, it gives the northern PRI candidates a chance to make a national name for themselves and compete for the PRI presidential spot. Even if Madrazo wins (which he is likely to do), winning in a open and transparent primary may be just what he needs to break from some of the negative baggage of the past. Moderate Mexicans who are hesitant to vote for the PRI may be influenced by the PRI's moves towards more transparency.
Either way, a primary helps the PRI win some credibility and gives Mexican voters a voice in a decision that used to be made in an almost dictatorial way. It's certainly not perfect, but it's one more step forward in the long process of democracy.
(UPDATE: 5:20AM, 13 July): And just so nobody gets the wrong idea about Madrazo, the LA Times does a good job rounding up how Madrazo is bending the PRI party rules to maintain power and the divisions he has created within the PRI.
The current leading PRI candidate, Roberto Madrazo, is in many ways a machine politician. Yes, Madrazo has had some breaks with the old, corrupt PRI machinery. However, his style of politics definitely resembles everything wrong with the PRI. I believe that is one reason so many Mexican voters remain unsure of their 2006 vote.
By allowing a primary, it gives the northern PRI candidates a chance to make a national name for themselves and compete for the PRI presidential spot. Even if Madrazo wins (which he is likely to do), winning in a open and transparent primary may be just what he needs to break from some of the negative baggage of the past. Moderate Mexicans who are hesitant to vote for the PRI may be influenced by the PRI's moves towards more transparency.
Either way, a primary helps the PRI win some credibility and gives Mexican voters a voice in a decision that used to be made in an almost dictatorial way. It's certainly not perfect, but it's one more step forward in the long process of democracy.
(UPDATE: 5:20AM, 13 July): And just so nobody gets the wrong idea about Madrazo, the LA Times does a good job rounding up how Madrazo is bending the PRI party rules to maintain power and the divisions he has created within the PRI.
South vs. South
Brazil formally introduced the Group of Four (G4, the other three are Germany, Japan and India) proposal for UNSC reform yesterday.
Besides the G4 and "Uniting for Consensus" proposals, the US has proposed adding two permanent seats including Japan and the AU wants six permanent seats with veto power, which seems highly unlikely.
The proposal from Brazil, Japan, Germany and India would expand the council from 15 to 25 members, adding six permanent seats without veto power and four non-permanent seats. Those four each want a permanent seat, with the other two earmarked for Africa.Only to have it shot down by other developing nations.
Opponents of the idea retorted with their argument: that the so-called Group of Four's bid is nothing more than a bid for power.Although the G4 proposal is backed by 20 other nations including France, key disputes from the developing world, not the developed world, are holding it back. I think this shows that while developing nations are willing to allow Brazil to stand up for them in the short term, they also realize that world politics could change over the coming decades and they don't want to create a system that eventually hurts them.
"The seekers of special privileges and power masquerade as the champions of the weak and disadvantaged, asserting that the special privileges that the seek would make the council more rep and neutral," said Pakistan's U.N. Ambassador Munir Akram.
Akram is a leading proponent of an alternate proposal, from a group calling itself "Uniting for Consensus." Their proposal would add only non-permanent members who would face periodic election.
Besides the G4 and "Uniting for Consensus" proposals, the US has proposed adding two permanent seats including Japan and the AU wants six permanent seats with veto power, which seems highly unlikely.
Travel Day
Taking the day off from the blog due to work, travel, etc. Next stop: South America.
UPDATE (10:55 PM): Long day; now safe and sound in my hotel room, and still able to blog :) The Internets are a wonderful thing.
UPDATE (10:55 PM): Long day; now safe and sound in my hotel room, and still able to blog :) The Internets are a wonderful thing.
Flypaper facts and theories
The US and coalition presence in Iraq serves as a sort of flypaper or honeypot, attracting extremist Islamic militants from the region, but also as far as Europe and Northern Africa.
For anyone who has seen the statistics and media reports, the above sentence is almost indisputable. I will call that the “Flypaper fact”.
On top of this we have the “Flypaper theory”, which I will define as: By fighting terrorists in a country “over there”, we can avoid fighting them at home.
Separating out the fact and theory on this issue is important.
First two points on the “Flypaper fact”. Iraq, like Afghanistan in the 1980's, is a target of opportunity for the terrorists. It's not the only target, but it is the easiest one for them to enter and work within. The borders to Iraq are porous. Terrorists know they will find allies, weapons, training and financing once they are there. They know there will be a variety of hard and soft targets. They know it's the place they are most likely to find US military on patrol.
Secondly, due to its low entry cost, most (I'd guess upwards of 85%) of those terrorists entering Iraq are relatively untrained. They are Al Qaeda's cannon fodder. They are recruited, they enter Iraq, they are sent on suicide missions. A few of those untrained recruits (I'd guess 10%) will manage to leave Iraq as trained militants ready to take on future operations elsewhere. Most will die there as long as there is a strong security presence.
I believe that we do need to take on the terrorists “over there” so that we can win the long term war against terrorists. However, taking them on “over there” does not make us safer in the short term. Understanding the “flypaper fact” shows the two places where the “flypaper theory” breaks down.
First, assuming Iraq is a target of opportunity for many extremist jihadists, there are still groups of jihadists who will find targets of opportunity elsewhere. These are militants who are “homegrown” like those who bombed London or those who may be recruited in US prisons. For them, the target of opportunity is not Iraq, but rather the soft targets near where they live. They turn out to be Al Qaeda's cannon fodder here, rather than “over there.
Second, we face a problem in that most of the foreign fighters captured by the flypaper country are the lesser educated cannon fodder. The better educated middle and upper class recruits are the ones Al Qaeda and similar organizations identify for their “spectacular” attacks like 9/11. While these comprise a very small percentage of the terrorists, these are the ones the flypaper theory will fail to catch and who pose the greatest risk to a future attack here or in Europe.
As long as I'm grouping my thoughts into pairs, two final thoughts on this issue.
First, nobody should use the flypaper theory as a post-hoc justification for the war in Iraq. We did not go into Iraq to create a honeypot for terrorists and if anything it has made our long term job much more difficult. We have never and should never overthrow a government or occupy a country to create a battleground for terrorists. It's a side-effect of our military actions, not a justification. And with thousands of Iraqis and Americans killed and wounded, nobody should use rhetoric that views this as an opportunity. It should be viewed as a threat and a problem to be fixed as it is holding us back from creating a decent government in Iraq. Anyone who views this as an opportunity that should be encouraged and continued is sick.
Second, the “flypaper fact” is one we will need to consider if our military goes into other Muslim nations around the world, or if future religious conflicts begin to come to a boil (Nigeria and Thailand come to mind). There is no denying that groups of jihadist militants will use US presence or religious conflicts anywhere as a recruiting tool and a target for terror. All future military plans in the “war on terror” must take this into account as we move forward. Any politician, Democrat or Republican, who fails to plan for this scenario will have failed at his or her duty.
Brazil wins one more
Brazil won its showdown with Abbott Laboratories, which I originally wrote about here. After ten days of negotiations, Abbott has agreed to sell the Brazilian government more drugs for the same price. This is not the first time that Brazil has received cheaper drugs by threatening to break patents and manufacture generics.
Eventually, one of these drug companies will stop reducing the prices for Brazil, at which time Brazil will show whether it is really willing to follow through on its threat (and there are reasons not to). Today, however, Brazil has once again forced a pharmaceutical company to blink. It's a lesson for those countries interested in playing hardball politics with soft power.
Eventually, one of these drug companies will stop reducing the prices for Brazil, at which time Brazil will show whether it is really willing to follow through on its threat (and there are reasons not to). Today, however, Brazil has once again forced a pharmaceutical company to blink. It's a lesson for those countries interested in playing hardball politics with soft power.
IDB election
That's right, nothing as exciting as hemispheric politics. Marcela Sanchez outlines the race for the head of the Inter-American Development Bank. The leading candidates are Luis Alberto Moreno, Colombia's ambassador to the United States, and Joao Sayad, the current IDB vice-president from Brazil.
Sanchez explains the election as an ideological division between the US and South American countries. She questions whether Chavez will play a role, because up to this point he's been uncharacteristically quiet. There is also a question of whether a third candidate from Central America or the Caribbean will take enough votes to force everyone to find a consensus candidate.
Most importantly, Sanchez also gives the real stakes in this election:
UPDATE (27 July): Being that this post has become a popular Google hit, I'll note that Luis Alberto Moreno, Colombia's ambassador to the United States, won the election for the IDB presidency. Christian over at Juanson World did a great roundup of events leading up to the election.
Sanchez explains the election as an ideological division between the US and South American countries. She questions whether Chavez will play a role, because up to this point he's been uncharacteristically quiet. There is also a question of whether a third candidate from Central America or the Caribbean will take enough votes to force everyone to find a consensus candidate.
Most importantly, Sanchez also gives the real stakes in this election:
...Income disparity in Latin America is the largest in the world and 222 million people live in poverty, 96 million of whom live on less than one dollar a day.Anyone running for IDB president should not forget that.
UPDATE (27 July): Being that this post has become a popular Google hit, I'll note that Luis Alberto Moreno, Colombia's ambassador to the United States, won the election for the IDB presidency. Christian over at Juanson World did a great roundup of events leading up to the election.
July 7, 2005
Terrorists attacked London's transportation system today, killing dozens and wounding hundreds. The attacks appear to be the work of a group inspired by al Qaeda, although to what extent the groups are linked remains unknown. The attacks also seem to have been timed to coincide with the G8 meeting in Scotland.
It's easy to be melodramatic.
As people worked their way through the morning rush hour, bombs did not discriminate between Christians, Muslims, Jews and Atheists. Bombs do not know whether people voted for Tories, Labour or Liberal Democrats. Bombs harm citizens, tourists and immigrants alike.
It's easy to be political.
These attacks show that there is much more to do to fight terrorism and ignoring this threat would be a big mistake. The attacks also disprove the notion that fighting terrorists in Iraq has stopped them from attacking us here.
It's easy to call for action.
The American government should rethink its vulnerabilities, especially on soft targets. Congress needs to provide more resources to first responders. And we, as citizens, need to be more vigilant in reporting suspicious packages and people to the authorities.
It's hard to find the right words.
We grieve for the victims and their families. We offer whatever help we can give. And we in the US stand with the UK the same way you stood with us on 9/11.
It's easy to be melodramatic.
As people worked their way through the morning rush hour, bombs did not discriminate between Christians, Muslims, Jews and Atheists. Bombs do not know whether people voted for Tories, Labour or Liberal Democrats. Bombs harm citizens, tourists and immigrants alike.
It's easy to be political.
These attacks show that there is much more to do to fight terrorism and ignoring this threat would be a big mistake. The attacks also disprove the notion that fighting terrorists in Iraq has stopped them from attacking us here.
It's easy to call for action.
The American government should rethink its vulnerabilities, especially on soft targets. Congress needs to provide more resources to first responders. And we, as citizens, need to be more vigilant in reporting suspicious packages and people to the authorities.
It's hard to find the right words.
We grieve for the victims and their families. We offer whatever help we can give. And we in the US stand with the UK the same way you stood with us on 9/11.
London
Watching the events in London this morning. There have been six explosions in the Underground plus one three on a bus above ground. CNN just called it a "coordinated activity." Pray for the victims.
A followup on Failed States Index
Being that my last post on the Failed States Index has gotten a fair amount of Google traffic, here's a quick followup.
The Fund for Peace has the data on the rankings. The article on the index was released by Foreign Policy magazine. Looking through the data is actually an interesting exercise and I'm looking forward to digging down a bit more.
An op-ed in today's Miami Herald discusses the Latin American states on the index and how it relates to democracy (this writer from Inter-American Dialogue, like Oppenheimer, says the positions of Colombia and Cuba are misleading). I think the final line captures the correct attitude about this index:
The Fund for Peace has the data on the rankings. The article on the index was released by Foreign Policy magazine. Looking through the data is actually an interesting exercise and I'm looking forward to digging down a bit more.
An op-ed in today's Miami Herald discusses the Latin American states on the index and how it relates to democracy (this writer from Inter-American Dialogue, like Oppenheimer, says the positions of Colombia and Cuba are misleading). I think the final line captures the correct attitude about this index:
Generalizations are often helpful in seeing the forest. Knowing the trees in their own uniqueness is, however, a must.Placing countries onto a ranking system is always a bit misleading. Anyone who is interested in the topic of failed states should look beyond the initial index, but definitely study the data behind it.
More Venezuela polls
Following up from my post this morning, I wanted to note this essay by Daniel Duquenal over at Vcrisis (anti-Chavez website). First on the polls:
Trying to find a common thread is rather difficult. Perhaps the complexity of the times? Perhaps the reluctance of people to reply frankly since confidentiality seems every day more and more impaired? However one thing seems certain: no matter how we analyze the different poll results, there seems to be a hard core pro Chavez support that is between 30 and 35% (even seen in a nice pie chart!). And the hard core opposition seems stuck at 30%. Thus there is a floating 40% that seems to have loosely set on Chavez for the time being, thankful for the social programs but perhaps not as grateful as this one would like.
There is also another explanation: Chavez is like Reagan in a certain Teflon like quality, nothing sticking to him.
On the Venezuelan opposition:
The opposition seems on the verge of two more major electoral defeats. Unfortunately this time it will have only itself to blame as Chavez will not even need to cheat electorally and thus will get the final validation from the dubious August 15 result.
Can the opposition still do something? At this late point no. Any major agreement should have been reached at least 2 or 3 months earlier to give it a chance of some momentum. At least we can hope that August 7 will witness the end of a few people within the opposition that are just dead weight, the painful emergence of some new leadership, and the realization that organization and programs are the only way out. People like the folks at SUMATE, editors like Petkoff, NGO organizing neighborhoods (asambleas de ciudadanos) are what it will take to perhaps one day remove Chavez from office before the country becomes once and for all some freaky construct that depends on the humor of the supreme leader depending on what he has had for breakfast.
If everyone had that level of candor in the Venezuelan opposition, maybe they would come together and actually get something done. He's right that the opposition needs a new set of leaders and that there is little they can do within the next few months. They have to aim their goals at some longer term goals.
The essay also has a lot of good stuff on how Chavez has altered the political landscape to maintain power through some less than honest means and what the opposition must do to overcome some of the institutional factors against them. For those interested in the current political situation in Venezuela and the upcoming local and congressional elections, it's really a must read. However, for those who aren't geeks like me, you may want to skip some of the technical aspects of the first section on the mechanics of the electoral system and move onto section two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)