Stop deporting Haitians to Haiti - says UN

The UN independent human rights experts requested States parties in the Americas to investigate all allegations of excessive use of force, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, and racial profiling against Haitians

The experts also called for measures to prevent and combat xenophobic and racist violence and incitement to racial hatred against people of Haitian origin, and to publicly condemn racist hate speech, including those uttered by public figures and politicians

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) sounded the alarm after 36,000 people of Haitian origin were deported during the first three months of the year, according to figures from the International Organization for Migration (IOM).  Some 90 per cent were deported from the Dominican Republic.

Violations and abuses against Haitians

The experts expressed concern over collective expulsions which did not take into consideration individual circumstances and needs.

They also highlighted alleged human rights violations and abuses against Haitians on the move along migration routes, at borders and in detention centres in the Americas region, “as a result of strict migration control, the militarization of borders, systematic immigration detention policies and the obstacles to international protection” in some countries.

Such obstacles exposed these vulnerable migrants to “killings, disappearances, acts of sexual and gender-based violence, and trafficking by criminal networks”, the Committee warned.

Demanding protection for Haitian refugees

Caribbean countries, such as the Bahamas as well as the Turks and Caicos Islands, have announced measures against undocumented Haitian migrants.  The United States in January also made public new border policies to permit fast-tracked expulsions to Mexico of Haitian migrants and others, crossing the southern border of the US without documentation.

Considering the desperate situation in Haiti, which does not currently allow for the safe and dignified return of Haitians to the country, as pointed out by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Committee called for an end to the collective expulsions of Haitians on the move.

It also said assessments of each individual case needed to be carried out, to identify protection needs in accordance with international refugee and human rights law, with particular attention to the most vulnerable groups.

Combatting racism and xenophobia

The independent human rights experts requested States parties in the Americas to investigate all allegations of excessive use of force, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, and racial profiling against Haitians.

They also demanded protection of refugees against other allegations of human rights violations and abuses committed by both State and non-state actors; including at borders, migrant detention centres and along migration routes, to punish those responsible and to provide rehabilitation and reparations to victims or their families.

The experts also called for measures to prevent and combat xenophobic and racist violence and incitement to racial hatred against people of Haitian origin, and to publicly condemn racist hate speech, including those uttered by public figures and politicians.

Independent human rights experts are appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, in Geneva.  They are mandated to monitor and report on specific thematic issues or country situations.  They are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work.

Source

The arrival of Venezuelans seeking better lives has strained the economies—and societies—of Latin American host countries

Venezuela’s Migrants Bring Economic Opportunity to Latin America

By Marco Arena, Emilio Fernandez Corugedo, Jaime Guajardo, and Juan Francisco Yepez

By promptly integrating migrants, the economies of host countries stand to increase their GDP by as much as 4.5 percentage points by 2030

More than 7 million Venezuelans have fled the country since 2015, with 6 million settling in other Latin American countries.  The region’s largest migration episode in history is driven by the collapse of the country’s economy, which has left Venezuelans struggling to meet their basic needs.

Between 2013 and 2021, Venezuela’s gross domestic product is estimated to have declined by more than 75 percent, the most for a country not at war in the last 50 years.  The COVID-19 pandemic compounded the country’s economic and humanitarian crisis, and in 2020 more than 95 percent of Venezuelans were living below the poverty line.

The arrival of Venezuelans seeking better lives has strained the economies—and societies—of Latin American host countries that are already balancing tight budgets, especially since the pandemic.

Colombia, which has received the most Venezuelan migrants, estimated spending about $600 per migrant in 2019.  This covered humanitarian aid, healthcare, childcare, education, housing, and job-search support.  With more than 2 million arrivals, this translates into $1.3 billion in assistance.  In 2019, this cost peaked at 0.5 percent of Colombia’s GDP.

In the long term, however, this investment has the potential to increase GDP in host countries by up to 4.5 percentage points by 2030, as we find in our latest research on the spillovers from Venezuela’s migration.

To reap the benefits from migration, host countries need to integrate the new arrivals into the formal labor force—and society—by promptly offering them work permits and access to education and healthcare.

Migration flows

After a brief interruption during the pandemic, when many countries closed their borders, migration from Venezuela has resumed and is expected to continue in the coming years, although at a slower pace.

We estimate that Venezuelan migrants will number around 8.4 million by 2025—more than 25 percent of the country’s population in 2015.

 

The characteristics of migrants have evolved as the economic crisis intensified.  The first wave of migrants were mostly professionals with high levels of education.  The second consisted of middle-class young people with a university degree.  Since the economy collapsed in 2017-2018, migrants have tended to be from low-income households and with lower levels of education.

Overall, the demographic profile of Venezuela’s migrants is like that of the local population in host countries.  Almost two-thirds are of working age and almost half are female.

Most have settled in other Latin American countries, while some have migrated to North America and Europe, mainly the US and Spain.

While Colombia remains the main destination, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru have also received sizable flows, with their combined number of migrants exceeding 2 million, more than 3 percent of the local population on average.

Effect on labor markets

Our research finds that Venezuelan migrants—many of them more educated than the local populations—face higher unemployment, are more likely to initially work in the informal sector, and earn less than the local workers. 

We didn’t find evidence that migrants are displacing domestic workers, although we have seen downward pressure on wages in the informal sector.

The wage gap between domestic and migrant workers grows with the level of education, which suggests a misallocation of human capital—workers’ skills, knowledge, and expertise—as educated migrants tend to only find unskilled jobs.  On average, domestic workers earn about 30 percent more than migrants.

Cost and benefits

Our analysis finds that providing migrants with humanitarian assistance and access to public services carries a sizable fiscal cost and puts pressure on the budgets of host countries, as the Colombia example shows.

 

But the analysis also identifies large medium-term gains in productivity and growth resulting from an increase in the labor force and better alignment of migrants’ human capital with jobs.  These gains are greater for countries that receive larger and more educated migrant flows relative to the domestic population.

We estimate that, with the right support and integration policies, migration from Venezuela has the potential to increase real GDP in Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, and Chile by 2.5 to 4.5 percentage points relative to a no-migration baseline by 2030.

 

We also project that the cost of integrating migrants would narrow over time as migrants join the labor force, increasing economic activity and expanding the tax base.

Continued support

Early in the migration crisis, countries in Latin America welcomed Venezuelan migrants and provided support in the form of visa waivers, mobility cards, and access to humanitarian assistance, healthcare, education, and childcare.  Migrants also received work permits and credentials to help them integrate into the labor market.

However, in 2018 and 2019, we saw a shift in policies as migration flows intensified.  While some countries introduced new programs to facilitate the integration of migrants, others made it harder for Venezuelans to enter by requiring additional documentation.

Countries should continue supporting migrants and helping them integrate into the formal sector so they can find jobs that are in line with their human capital and increase productivity in the economy.

This will require improving transitional arrangements and asylum systems, bringing in migrants into the health and education systems, and formalizing migrant workers by giving them work permits and accelerating the accreditation of skills and education.

To cover the costs of implementing these policies, countries should seek help from donors and international institutions.  The IMF is analyzing the impact of migration and coordinating with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other relevant agencies to help countries access funding sources.

Countries in the region should also agree on a coordinated response to the migration crisis, in which each one contributes its fair share to the support and integration of migrants.

Source

Ebola in the Caribbean and Latin America - a matter of when?

Ebola: Will LatAm succumb?

By Christian Molinari
  

International news has been abuzz with the Ebola outbreak, its haunting effects on victims in West Africa and its spread into Europe and the US.  So far, the epidemic has not been confirmed in Latin America, although Brazil's health ministry reported its first suspected case.

Following the death from the virus of a Liberian man in a Dallas hospital on October 8, the US government expanded airport examinations. (The screening consists of questions about a passenger's history and a fever check, which passengers can beat by taking medicine to bring down their temperature.) Previously, a nursing assistant became infected in Spain, the first person to contract Ebola outside of West Africa.

Marine Corps general John F. Kelly, the commander of US Southern Command – responsible for US military activities in Latin America and the Caribbean – admitted last month that the issue keeps him awake at night.  According to Kelly, Latin America is the backdoor through which many West Africans, part of a human trafficking chain, illegally enter the US.

And if Ebola were to take hold in the Caribbean or Central America, the streaming of immigrants into the US trying to get proper medical care would be unstoppable, he said.

The numbers are frightening – with up to 1.4mn possible infections worldwide by early 2015, according to estimates, and half of the victims dying. The World Bank forecasts billions of dollars in economic losses in West Africa alone if the epidemic lasts and continues to spread. It's being called the worst calamity since the outbreak of AIDS.

In short, it's a matter of when and not if the disease will make it to Latin America.

As the 40mn-strong online activist organization Avaaz points out, the core of the epidemic boils down to a health issue, with just 0.01 doctors for every 1,000 people in Liberia.  "There just aren't enough medical staff to stem the epidemic," it says, calling for international medical volunteers to help meet needs.

For Latin America, the overall sense is that while Ebola is sure to arrive sooner or later, it will not turn into an epidemic.  According to statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO), many Latin American countries have more than one doctor per 1,000 citizens. Even the region's poorest country, Haiti, has 0.3 doctors per 1,000 – not a great figure, but still 30 times higher than in Liberia. The statistic goes all the way up to 6.7 for Cuba.

And a number of countries in the region are fairly well prepared to address the virus – Argentina (3.2 doctors per 1,000 inhabitants), Chile (1.0) and Brazil (1.9) are tightening security at airports.

Argentina, on epidemic alert, has already designated a number of hospitals in urban areas as 'Ebola-only' quarantine centers if cases are detected in the country.  Chile, in turn, while saying it is on the WHO's list of the countries least likely to be affected, has assured that it is implementing contingency plans to be able to respond to the situation should it come up.

And Brazil has for years cooperated and shared information with Hamburg-based Bernhard Nocht Institute (BNI) for Tropical Medicine. According to Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit, BNI's virology department director, Brazil is actually very well prepared thanks to past work the institute has carried out in conjunction with local authorities regarding dengue-based viral hemorrhagic fevers. That has allowed the University of Rio de Janeiro to have a virus diagnostic center to perform tests and detect Ebola relatively quickly. Additionally, the health ministry said that 37 hospitals in 25 states are in condition to receive patients infected with the virus.

The Ebola virus – believed to be naturally hosted by fruit bats – is not endemic to Latin America, which in and of itself is an impediment to its propagation, Schmidt-Chanasit said, according to German publication DW.

In summary, Ebola will arrive in Latin America, if it hasn't already. But with proper precautions and controls, it will not have the effect seen in West Africa, and cases will be limited. Keep calm – mass hysteria and panic have never helped in any situation.

October 10, 2014

BN Americas

The Summit of the Pacific Alliance: ...Return of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)?

Pacific Alliance: Return of the FTAA?

By Anubis Galardy

THE Summit of the Pacific Alliance, comprising Mexico, Colombia, Chile and Peru, which took place May 23 in Cali, Colombia, left clear its pretension to become the new economic and development organization for Latin America and the Caribbean, within a framework of the free circulation of goods, services, capital and persons among its member states.

The idea of former Peruvian President Alan García, formalized in Chile in 2012, the implementation of this new regional mechanism has generated rejection, criticism and distrust.

Argentine political analyst Atilio Borón defined it as a political-economic maneuver on the part of Washington to retrieve its lost influence in the region, after the 2005 defeat in Mar del Plata of its grand strategic project, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

In other words, the plan is to build a kind of contra-insurgency or reactionary corridor to counterbalance the radical or moderate left in the region, Borón emphasized.

Peruvian researcher Carlos Alonso agrees with this perception. For him, the Alliance is also a resurgence of the failed FTAA, this time in an undisguised neoliberal version.

The Pacific Alliance has emerged in the face of other regional integration mechanisms such as the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), MERCOSUR, the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC).with a concrete divisive and pro-Washington mission, to facilitate the United States repositioning itself with force in the region, he noted.

The Pacific Alliance divides South America into two: a part which seeks to play a role in world politics, for which it needs to act within a framework of sovereignty, and another with clear right-wing leanings, and inclined toward Washington, Alonso continues.

In summary, it is simply a merger of the Free Trade Treaties that Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Chile and shortly Panama and Costa Rica (currently observer countries) have with the United States, among themselves and with other countries in the region sharing a Pacific coast, Alonso concludes.

In his opinion, all of this is pointed toward a supra-free trade area with the Asian-Pacific region (Pacific Arch) which the United States is seeking to dominate.

Meanwhile, in Colombia, which assumed the rotating presidency of the Alliance at the Summit, Eduardo Sarmiento, director of the School of Engineering’s Economic Observatory, stated, "The free interchange of goods among members of this new bloc could possibly generate cheaper products, but at the cost of sacrificing employment and the country’s growth." (Orbe weekly)

June 06, 2013

 

Granma.cu

 

Bahamas Blog International 

Coups 2.0 in the Americas

By Gonzalo Fernández - ALAI:

Everybody is familiar with the complexity of understanding the alternative processes that are taking place in the Americas, where multiple topics and agendas intersect, in the common will to break with the history of domination and exclusion of the subcontinent.  On the one hand, the 21^st century has been accompanied by the arrival of anti-neoliberal governments in various countries, with an unequal record of transformation, but which are the response to the popular majorities being fed up with their reality of poverty, inequality and external dependence. On the other hand, precisely taking advantage of this favorable context, many social movements - and many societies in movement - have raised the need for progress in the implementation of emancipative political agendas, that once and for all get beyond the colonizing and subordination logic to which the region and the population have historically been subjected.

 

So, after a few starts in which institutional and social actors walked hand in hand, tensions between governments and movements have emerged, as well as strained relations between old and new social movements: how slowly or quickly processes of change is taking place; the short life of governments or the long life of emancipation; developmentalism or a determined transition towards good living; the urgent need to overcome the patterns of dependency or the impossibility to do so in such a short period (in historical terms).  These are precisely the debates that baffle and enrich the reality of Latin America.  The answers to these situations are not simple, nor are they categorical, and deepening reflection on them is one of the great challenges of all the Left, including the European left.

 

However, something that cannot be denied, regardless of where we are positioned, is that all these processes initiated with the new century have torn open gaps, have allowed for spaces of accumulation of forces, spaces for the interconnection of struggles, spaces for the exercise of citizenship rights by large majorities.  And nobody can capitalize that, it is part of the action path taken by both governments and movements.  The Right knows it well: it attempts to put an end to this new exciting stage by any means.  Thus, attacks of the oligarchies and their media - hegemonically aligned with them - do not cease in their effort of discrediting governments and social struggles, with the aim of destabilizing the region and returning to the previous situation of absolute control of the subcontinent.  To do so, they are willing to do anything, including coups d'état.

 

This is the key to understanding the coup d'état in Venezuela in 2002 and the coup d'état in Mexico in 2006 - via electoral fraud -.  But it is also useful for understanding the coups d’état 2.0 in Honduras (2009) and Ecuador (2010), where new formulas of coup are being tested, seeking for the international community and the population not to assimilate them as such (but with identical results).  In this way, instead of the pure and simple military coup, new ways are emerging, ranging from social destabilization generated by the police to the fraudulent use of judicial and even constitutional resources.

 

This new coup scheme 2.0 is still very present in America today.  Last week, the President of Paraguay was dismissed on the basis of a political trial, a legal figure of the Constitution which makes it possible to remove a President from office based on a manifest disability to perform his duties.  In this sense, a legal staging was orchestrated for an illegitimate and anti-democratic event, where a President elected by popular vote was fulminated in a summary trial in which he only had two hours to exercise his defense, unable to prepare it properly, and against a very serious accusation. The ultimate goal of the coup: that one of the most retrograde oligarchies of the continent could put a stop to the timid processes of change engendered in recent years, and prevent the Left from accumulating enough forces to face the presidential elections in 2013.

 

On the other hand, since the past weekend, all the media of the world echoed the turmoil generated by the police strike in Bolivia - illegal in many countries - and which is perhaps a prelude of further attempts of destabilization in the Andean country.  Finally, we'll see what happens in the Mexican elections, where a broad student movement has gained significant momentum against the possibility that the PRI returns to power (with the full support of the Right and large media conglomerates.)

 

We must remain very much on the alert for these new realities, and denounce without palliatives, both here and there, the abuses perpetrated against democracy in the Americas.  Regardless of the views we hold about one government or the other, or their greater or lesser commitment to the emancipation of the continent, we must be clear about one thing: we cannot allow what has been achieved in the last decade to be reverted, and we must join forces to prevent anti-democratic regressions, not only because of international solidarity, but also given the importance of the region as a source of inspiration to raise proposals that allow us to envision other paths to overcome this crisis of civilization that affects us all.  Our paths are deeply intertwined, their democracy is also ours. 

(Translation FEDAEPS).

 

 

- Gonzalo Fernández is a member of the Internationalist Working Group of Alternatiba, Basque Country.

 

Source: ALAI

 

July 04, 2012

 

Venezuelanalysis 

The Summit of the Americas: A Cuban conundrum for Colombian President Santos

by COHA Staff

From April 9 to 15, 2012, the Organization of American States (OAS) and other multilateral bodies will host the Sixth Summit of the Americas, which will take place in Cartagena, Colombia. Bogota is absorbed by this major meeting of hemispheric heads of state; according to the Spanish website Infodefensa.com, Colombia will deploy up to five thousand police officers, six planes and helicopters and three unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), to ensure the event goes on without a hitch.[1]

Unfortunately, the Juan Manuel Santos administration has been deeply concerned that the event’s occurrence would be flawlessly staged, while at the same time it has had to face a diplomatic incident leading up to what Latin America correctly has conceptualized as an extremely important summit. Cuba, which is the only state in the Western Hemisphere that is not a de facto member of the OAS, declared its interest in attending what is certain to be a very substantive meeting of the heads of state.

This possibility became a concern for Washington, which has been at diplomatic odds with the Castro government (first Fidel and then Raul) for decades. Tensions regarding the OAS-led summit further flared up even more when Ecuador, a member of the ALBA bloc (Alianza Bolivariana para las Americas – Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas), let it be known that the ALBA bloc could possibly boycott the meeting if Havana was not allowed to participate.

This situation led to President Santos being placed in an untenable position (he would have to invite Castro to avoid an ALBA boycott but, in turn, this would have angered Washington, who would undoubtedly decide to boycott the meeting), so the Colombian head of state decided to travel to Havana to meet with the Cuban leadership. He met with Raul Castro closed doors and had the onerous chore of having to ask Castro to reconsider his intention to go to Cartagena, in order to avoid an incident with the US delegation. This incident, if it had progressed, would have presented Santos with a guaranteed diplomatic conundrum, but thankfully, this situation did not escalate. The ALBA bloc, including Venezuela, will attend the meeting in lieu of a boycott, and Castro won’t attend.[2]

Cuba, the OAS and the Santos Trip

Cuba and the OAS historically have had a troubled relationship. The island state, with its pre-revolution regime, was one of the original OAS members. The OAS was founded in 1948 as successor to the Pan American Union. After the Cuban 1959 revolution was staged, the John F. Kennedy administration pushed for the continent to politically and economically isolate Cuba after its military relationship with Soviet Moscow was acknowledged by Fidel.

The OAS suspended the Caribbean island from January 1962 until June 2009. It would take nearly five decades for there to be sufficient momentum on the continent for a major policy shift to be made regarding Cuba. In the end, even though Cuba’s membership was validated, Havana decided to dismiss its prospects for full participation and chose not to return to the OAS at this time.

This historical development occurred due to the rise of regimes in the region which have been vociferous in their criticism of US foreign policy (as can be found in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador), along with the rise of powerhouses like Brazil.

In 2002, Mexico held a major international conference on financing for development, called by then-United Nations (UN) Secretary General Kofi Annan.[3] Then-US President George W. Bush was scheduled to attend, but a diplomatic impasse developed when Fidel Castro, the historical Cuban head of state, decided to attend as well. In order to avoid the embarrassment that was sure to follow, then-Mexican President Vicente Fox privately called Castro and asked him not to come, and the Cuban leader appeared to agree to this. However, even though the conversation between the two leaders was supposed to have been private, Castro actually taped their phone conversation and then made it public. In a famous line, Fox tells Castro that “puedes venir pero comes y te vas” (“you can come, but you eat and then you’ll leave”).[4]

Another causative Cuba-related diplomatic incident occurred in 2009, when Trinidad and Tobago hosted the Fifth Summit of the Americas, and there was a clash between Washington and Caracas over Havana. Even before the summit, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez declared that it would be clear that “we’re going to Trinidad and Tobago to put that issue on the table […] from the moment the curtain goes up, Cuba will appear on the stage.”[5] Throughout the Summit, there also was concern that Chavez and his allies would follow the final declaration at the end of the meeting with one of their own as a way to protest the US embargo against Cuba.

Ironically, in spite of the tension surrounding the meeting, Obama met with Chavez, which was immortalized in an iconic photograph.[6] The US leader also stated that “the US seeks a new beginning with Cuba […] I know there is a longer journey that must be traveled to overcome decades of mistrust, but there are critical steps we can take toward a new day.”[7]

As preparations for the Cartagena summit began to take shape, rumors began to circulate that Cuba would insist in attending the summit. At first, Bogota remained neutral on this development. For example, in early February, Colombian Foreign Minister Maria Angela Holguin stated to the press that “it is not up to Colombia to invite Cuba to the Summit of the Americas.”[8]

Bogota’s position was in response to declarations made by Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa, who said that “from now on I propose that if Cuba is not invited to the Summit of Americas, no member of ALBA is to attend the summit.”[9] Correa’s statements gained some momentum as fellow ALBA members like Venezuela and Bolivia also seemed to be considering a boycott of the summit if Castro was not invited. ALBA has 11 members, all of which are OAS members (which has 34), hence a boycott would have a significant impact on the summit as it would cut the number of attending heads of state by a third. Washington has made it clear that it will not attend the meeting if Castro is present.

William Ostick, a spokesman for the State Department, said that “today’s Cuba has in no way reached the threshold of participation […] there must be significant improvements in political liberties and democracy in Cuba before it can join the summit.”[10] If Washington carries out this threat, this will continue to diminish the multilateral and institutional ties it has with the rest of the continent, at a time when we are witnessing the creation of regional bodies to which US does not belong, like UNASUR (Union de Naciones Suramericanas – Union of South American Nations) and CELAC (Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños -- Community of Latin American and Caribbean States).

To prevent the hemispheric rift from growing, in early March, President Santos traveled to Cuba to ask point blank Raul Castro not to travel to the Cartagena Summit. Given the 2002 precedent, it is understandable that Santos decided to travel to Havana instead of calling Raul Castro. As part of the aftermath, President Chavez stated that there seems to be a consensus among the ALBA bloc to attend the meeting. Nevertheless, he warned that, from the bloc’s point of view, this should be the last summit in which Cuba does not participate.[11]

Cuba and the US: No Breakthroughs On the Horizon?

In recent years there has been a rising momentum to improve relations between Washington and Havana. When President Obama was campaigning, he pledged that he would close down the detention center in the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, located in Cuba. Unfortunately he has yet to do so.

Other more ambitious initiatives included lifting the decades-old embargo on the island. Obama managed to gain enough support to lift some travel restrictions so Cuban Americans can more easily travel to the island or send money to their relatives there,[12] but the trade embargo relentlessly remains, and will continue to do so as long as the political weight in Miami continues.

Regarding the continued tensions between the two countries, in February of this year, Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont traveled to the island and privately met with Raul Castro to pledge for the release of US contractor Alan Gross, who is serving a 15 year sentence for espionage and “smuggling illegal communications equipment and attempting to set up an Internet network that could escape government detection.”[13]

On the other hand, the US has controversially imprisoned five Cuban citizens (known as the Cuban Five), for allegedly being spies for Havana. One of the Cubans, Rene Gonzalez, was released this past October 2011 after serving 13 years in prison.[14] The global negative reaction to this political trial further undermined U.S. stature in the region.

Summits of the Americas, a Historical Source of Criticism

If anything, the tensions over whether Cuba should or will attend the Summit of the Americas adds some flavor to a hemispheric gathering that is usually critiqued for its irrelevancy. The first Summit was carried out in Miami in 1994; at the time, the OAS had former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria as Secretary General. While the 1994 summit was an important milestone regarding the initiatives for hemispheric integration, it was critiqued by Latin American specialists as a simple gathering of heads of state without much substance.

Criticism of such high-level meetings and whether anything productive ever comes out of them has continued over the past two decades. In a recent interview between journalist Andres Oppenheimer and former Peruvian President Alan Garcia, the two-time head of state downplayed the importance of these Summits. The Peruvian politician stated that such high-level encounters “[are] a dialogue for the deaf,” and that each leader “goes with a prepared speech, to read it, and to blame someone else of [his country’s] problems, usually Uncle Sam or the ‘horrendous’ international financial system.”[15]

To be fair, it is noteworthy to state that such meetings have brought about important initiatives. For example, in April 2001, during the Third Summit of the Americas, held in Quebec City, the heads of state decided to push for a new pro-democracy treaty, which would become known as the Inter-American Democratic Charter. As the Charter states, the hemispheric leaders decided to create:

“A democracy clause which establishes that any unconstitutional alteration or interruption of the democratic order in a state of the Hemisphere constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to the participation of that state’s government in the Summits of the Americas process.”[16]

Washington has never been slow to point to this clause when it comes to promoting and protecting its interests in the Western Hemisphere.

The Agencies of the OAS: Working in Obscurity

At a time when the OAS continues to be critiqued regarding how it serves Washington’s interests, it is noteworthy to highlight how the OAS has fielded a number of autonomous agencies that carry out important and relevant work for hemispheric issues. When the OAS is criticized, this is usually targeted at the Secretariat and the General Assembly, but there are various agencies that operate under the OAS umbrella, like the Pan American Health Organization, Inter-American Commission of women,[17] Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Inter-American Committee against Terrorism[18] and the Inter-American Defense Board[19] ( IADB; and its military educational wing, the Inter-American Defense College –IADC).

The IAD Board (created in 1942, which makes it older than the OAS), and the IAD College (created in 1962), throughout their existence, have been accused of being at best, irrelevant, and at worst, a “mooseclub.” In a Strategic Forum report entitled “Reforming the Inter-American Defense Board,”[20] John A. Cope, Senior Research Fellow in the Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) at the National Defense University (NDU), perfectly conceptualizes the issues with the IADB, explaining that:

“The reluctance of diplomats to tap the Board’s expertise, even when considering regional defense and security issues, and the IADB’s unwillingness to subordinate itself in practice to the Committee on Hemispheric Security of the OAS Permanent Council or the Secretariat for Multidimensional Security, present a serious impasse.” (P.2)

Cope also adds that, beyond senior officials, most OAS staff members have little awareness of IADB activities (P.2) and that “the IADB structure evokes an earlier period in Latin American and Caribbean history when military institutions were largely autonomous and regularly played a significant role in politics. The legacy of civil-military tension still influences thinking and actions at both the OAS and IADB.” (P. 3)

Conclusions

It appears that Cuba will not attend the summit in Cartagena after all, and the Cuban government is blaming Washington for its likely absence. Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez has stated that the US government has acted with “disdain and arrogance” over Havana’s intentions to participate in Cartagena.[21] The Cuban official also stated that:

“The exclusion of Cuba is probably the most notorious, most evident symbol that (these summits) are made in the image of the owner, which is the government of the United States, and they are instruments to exercise domination in a manner not at all democratic”

Indeed, the upcoming Cartagena summit has proved to be a big headache for President Santos. The Colombian leader successfully achieved a diplomatic solution for the Cuba question. At the end of the day, Santos did manage to avoid a humiliating personal defeat as he was put between a rock and a hard place by Hillary Clinton’s completely obdurate and senseless actions on Cartagena, all aimed at improving Obama’s political prospects in November. But its outcome hardly represented a brilliant victory for Santos’ image as a brave and principled new voice for Colombia and his own amazing hegira from being a defense ministry goon to earning the right to a completely renovated reputation.

After all, while Bogota no longer can be found on the wrong end of the leash regarding its diplomatic relationship with the US, the events leading up to the Cartagena summit so far are hardly a victory for him. By carrying out Washington’s wishes regarding Castro’s presence at this major gathering, the Santos presidency appears to continue being under Washington’s sphere of influence as it was during the Cold War. It seems that, when it comes to hemispheric gatherings, the US continues to reserve the right of determining who makes up the guest list. In 2012, it is correct for Latin American and Caribbean governments to advocate that they should no longer feel destined to be eternally under Washington’s narcotic policy spell.

To review sources, please click here

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being "one of the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers." For more information, visit http://www.coha.org/ or email coha@coha.org

April 5, 2012

caribbeannewsnow

Obama's trip to South America: Not before time

By David Roberts

We all know US diplomats, or any other diplomats for that matter, don't say what they mean when they speak in public - we never needed WikiLeaks to show us that - and in recent days we've been subject to yet another insult to our intelligence in the form of various officials from the US and elsewhere claiming that President Barack Obama's forthcoming tour of Latin America, announced recently in the State of the Union address, is proof of Washington's high degree of interest in the region and of Latin America's importance to the administration.   In fact, the exact opposite is true.

The fact that Obama's first visit as president to South America - the March trip will encompass Brazil and Chile, while El Salvador is the other country on the itinerary - is scheduled to take place more than two years after he took office, shows Washington's lack of interest in the region and how low a priority Latin America is for US foreign policy.   Obama will have visited nearly every other region of the world before he finally sets foot in the southern part of "America's backyard," although he did make previous trips to Mexico and Trinidad & Tobago.

Nevertheless, the countries he has chosen to visit "to forge new alliances across the Americas," as he puts it, should take advantage of the honor.   Details of the trip are still sketchy but Brazil as the region's economic powerhouse was an absolute must for Obama, and the visit is long overdue.   While in Brazil, which under President Lula experienced at times tense relations with the US, especially over Iran, Obama will meet with new President Dilma Rousseff and the two are expected to discuss issues such as clean energy, the Haiti situation and the sale of fighter jets, among others.   But the important thing as that Rousseff sets her own agenda, and uses the occasion to help Brazil take its rightful place on the world stage.

In Chile, Obama is expected to discuss with President Sebastián Piñera topics such as nuclear security, clean energy and crisis management, in the wake of last February's earthquake.   Piñera needs to take advantage of the visit to get the almost forgotten topic of free trade in the Americas firmly back on the political and international agenda.

El Salvador is at first sight a curious choice to include on the tour, but issues such as immigration to the US will undoubtedly be featured in talks between Obama and President Mauricio Funes.   Indeed, the need to win back the votes of many Latinos in the US may well be the prime motive for the El Salvador visit.

Perhaps equally interesting are the countries in the region not included in the tour.   The omission of Venezuela was no surprise to anyone, given its leftist leader, but not including Colombia, where the US has some unfinished business in the form of ratifying the free trade deal between the two countries, and Argentina, and perhaps Peru too, may be seen as a snub.   Some have said Obama did not want to be seen to be meddling in the upcoming elections in those latter two countries, but even so, he will probably never make it to those important and friendly nations, at least not unless he wins a second term in office, and that is another indication of Washington's - and not just this administration's, the same thing has been true under several previous presidents - lack of interest in the region.

bnamericas

The free trade what???

By David Roberts:

So what is the Barack Obama administration's strategic plan with respect to Latin America?  It's tempting to conclude it simply doesn't have one, at least at the moment.  From a political perspective, the man who should be behind policy towards the region, Arturo Valenzuela, hasn't even taken up his post yet, nine months into the administration, as his nomination as assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs has been blocked by Republican senators led by Jim DeMint in protest of Obama's stance on the Honduran coup.  The irony is, of course, that Obama doesn't really have a policy on Honduras either, being mildly critical of both elected President Manuel Zelaya and interim leader Roberto Micheletti, but clearly preferring not to get too involved.

And apart from a lot of pleasantries about there being no senior or junior partners in Washington's relationship with Latin America, so far Obama himself has shown scant interest in his southern neighbors.  He's only set foot in Latin America once since taking office - a very brief visit to Mexico in April while on his way to the fifth Summit of the Americas in Port of Spain - and has generally adopted a "let's be nice to everyone and sit on the fence" approach, even with regards to Hugo Chávez & Co.

But rather than ask what the strategic plan on Latin America is, maybe first we should ask whether the Obama government needs a plan at all?  If his policy is going to be what we've seen so far, perhaps not, but with respect to trade at least, he should have one, as the region needs it.  Yet, here again there's not much cooking.  While visiting Chile last week, Obama's commerce secretary Gary Locke made it pretty clear that we shouldn't expect much in the way of more free trade agreements with Latin American countries, let alone deals on a more regional basis.  Asked about the prospects for ratifying the FTA reached under George W Bush with Colombia, Locke declined to give any indication of whether or when it would get the nod from Capitol Hill, saying the priorities for the Obama administration in terms of passing legislation are healthcare and energy.

That's perhaps not surprising, considering the strong opposition to free trade in the US congress, mainly among Democrats like Obama (many of whom prefer protectionism), the lack of the fast track authority for ratifying deals and the current economic climate.  But what was perhaps surprising was that Locke, when asked about the topic by a reporter, obviously was not even aware of past attempts - led by US governments - to create the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which was supposed to be the free trade bloc par excellence, from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego (conveniently excluding Cuba) and be in place first by 2000 (according to George Bush Sr) and then by 2005.

Indeed, the Summits of the Americas were in a sense born out of attempts to maintain the moribund process of FTAA and continental integration alive, a process that fell apart amid unseemly squabbling between free traders and Chávez's Alba bloc of nations over everything from intellectual property to US farm subsidies, with Bolivia's Evo Morales calling the FTAA "an agreement to legalize the colonization of the Americas."

October 18, 2009

bnamericas