What Wikileaks Teaches Us About Obama and Latin America

By Rebecca Ray - Common Dreams

President Obama has given little indication of the strategy for his upcoming trip through Chile, Brazil, and El Salvador. Will "the great listener" promote cooperation and understanding, or carry on the Bush administration’s approach of fighting against regional alliances?

Words of Wisdom from Past Leaders

Diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show that last year Chilean President Bacheleturged the Obama administration to avoid separating South American nations into ideological pigeonholes:

President Bachelet emphasized the need to understand the nuances of Latin America’s leaders and their countries rather than lumping them into populist and pro-western camps … emphasizing that Morales was very different from Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.

In prior years, Brazil has urged the US to establish direct dialogue with administrations that have clashed with the US.  In a 2009 visit:

…both [Presidential Foreign Policy Advisor] Garcia and [Foreign Minister] Amorim used the opportunity to encourage the United States to establish 'a direct channel of communication with President Chavez.' Amorim suggested that a good USG-GOV dialogue would have an impact on the domestic situation in Venezuela, as well, because much of the opposition to Chavez has ties to the United States.

And in a 2008 visit Brazil went so far as to offer help in establishing dialogue:

Garcia suggested that, "Maybe it is time (for the United States) to have a frank discussion with Bolivia" … Without wishing to be a mediator, he said, Brazil is willing to help in whatever it can, recalling a similar commitment he made to A/S Shannon two years earlier.

A Legacy of Division

If Obama takes either of these leaders' advice to heart, it will be a dramatic shift from the past.  The Wikileaks cables show us a detailed history of the Bush administration weakening cooperation between Latin American countries.  Not surprisingly, much of these efforts have been focused on separating Venezuela from its regional allies, but they also involved Brazil and Bolivia.

In a 2007 cable entitled "A Southern Cone Perspective on Countering Chavez and Reasserting U.S. Leadership," Santiago embassy staff develop a 6-point strategy to weaken Venezuela’s regional alliances:

1. "Know thy Enemy" (information sharing)
2. "Directly Engage" (more high-level US visits to other Latin American countries)
3. "Change the Political Landscape" (boosting Argentina’s and Brazil’s influence as counterweights)
4. "Play to Our Mil-Mil Advantage" (South American military training and peacekeeping operations)
5. "Stress Our Winning Formula" (aid and corporate social responsibility)
6. "Getting the Message Out" (public diplomacy)

An earlier cable from 2006 shows the US pushing for Brazil to work against Venezuela’s relationships with other countries:

Ambassador reiterated that the USG hopes more engagement by Brazil will serve to counterbalance Chavez' pernicious influence.

But the cables also focused on separating Brazil from the rest of the region.  In 2006, this entailed nipping in the bud a relationship between Lula and then-presidential candidate Evo Morales, as well as other leftist governments.  Embassy staff advised Ambassador Shannon:

… you can focus on the GOB’s outlook for what a Morales presidency means for regional integration, political stability and law enforcement. In particular, you can stress with all interlocutors our concerns about a possible dramatic expansion in cocaine production and export. … it will be interesting to press Garcia for explanations of statements by Lula last year that appeared to welcome Morales’ looming “populist” victory, and of how the GOB sees itself now in relation to the "Axis of Evo" (Morales, Chavez, Castro).

This strategy of division was far from successful for Bush. In spite of the Bush administrations' efforts, Brazil and Venezuela kept their alliance intact.

In 2005:

[Ambassador Danilovich] asked that FM Amorim consider institutionalizing a more intensive political engagement between the USG and GOB on Chavez, and standing up a dedicated intelligence-sharing arrangement. FM Amorim was clear in his response: "We do not see Chavez as a threat."

And later, in 2008:

Ministry of External Relations (MRE) contacts refuse to admit to us even in private that they are worried about Venezuelan interference in other countries.

And Brazilian diplomats insisted that they would continue their policy of cooperation, as Lula is a man who "believes deeply in South American unity."

In 2008:

…the USG encourages the GOB to assume greater leadership responsibilities, but the GOB is reluctant to take the controversial stances that go with leadership. Diaz replied that Brazil cannot assume leadership alone in the region, it must have partners, which would naturally be Argentina and Colombia, just as Germany and France are essential to each other in Europe. As a result, Brazil must continue to act in harmony with them and other regional players.

Has Obama Brought Change?

So far, the Obama State Department seems to have continued on the same path.

In 2009, several years after the US denied the intellectual property transfer necessary for Brazil to sell military aircraft to Venezuela, Brazilian diplomats explained to their US counterparts that it would be inconvenient if something similar blocked their sale to Bolivia.

If Bolivia wants Super Tucanos, Lula needs to be able to sell them. Brazil can’t afford the type of embarrassment caused by not being able to sell Super Tucanos to Venezuela.

The status quo appears to be continuing with isolating Venezuela, as well. For example, during the Venezuela-Colombia tensions of 2010 it chose a side rather than choosing to help ensure peace. While Brazil worked on de-escalating the conflict, the Obama administration reacted by agreeing to share intelligence with Colombia on any troop movements within Venezuela.

They did this even though they recognized Colombia’s concern about Venezuela to be "almost neuralgic." Moreover, they knew that Colombia had intentionally provoked Venezuela into the 2008 border dispute, and that Uribe held that the best reaction to any escalation in tension with Venezuela was "action – including use of the military."

Rebecca Ray is a Research Associate at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (www.cepr.net).

February 14th 2011

venezuelanalysis

Bahamas Blog International

Latin America: Regional reflections, 200 years on

Regional reflections, 200 years on
By David Roberts




As several Latin American countries celebrate their bicentenaries, the latest being Chile and Mexico, marking 200 years since the start of the process that led to their independence from Spain, now is probably as good a time as any to reflect upon the progress the region has made over recent decades.



And not insignificant progress that is, too. Almost every country in the region now enjoys a relatively stable democracy, a situation quite unlike that of 20, 30 or more years ago, when military dictatorships and guerrilla wars were commonplace. Of course, there's no such thing as a perfect democracy - witness the 2000 US election when Al Gore lost despite receiving more votes than George W Bush - and in Latin America it comes in various shapes and sizes, some more steadfast than others, but there remains just one country that cannot seriously claim to be a democracy, and we all know which one that is.



Then there's the economic progress made in recent years. Most countries in the region now have stable, regulated and market-based economies that have seen steady growth, and generally survived the financial meltdown of 2008-09 better than their counterparts in the so-called developed world. Indeed, countries like Chile, Peru and Colombia have made remarkable headway, and even the "socialist" countries like Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador are a far cry from the old-style socialism seen in the communist/Soviet era. Brazil, meanwhile, has emerged as a genuine world economic powerhouse, with many of its corporations being global industry leaders (Vale, Petrobras and Embraer, for example). Compare all that to the constant banking, foreign debt and hyperinflation crises of yesteryear.



Of course, all that is no excuse for complacency. The region faces many severe challenges, such as the still unacceptable levels of poverty and a shameful record on wealth distribution, high rates of crime and drug-related violence, indigenous rights issues, corruption, weak institutions and inadequate infrastructure, to name a few. Large parts of Latin America are still over-dependent on exports of raw materials and consequently remain vulnerable to commodity price cycles, and economies in some parts of the continent, as in the case of Mexico in the recent global slump, are too reliant on demand for their products in the US.



The region is also particularly susceptible to natural disasters, such as earthquakes, flooding and hurricanes. The consequences of these "acts of God" can only partly be blamed on divinity, as many of the deaths and much of the damage are more often than not the result of shoddy building (Haiti in January, for example), poverty, deforestation and other human frailties.



And the region remains divided between the left-leaning Venezuela-led bloc and the more "liberal" nations, although perhaps less so than some may imagine as leaders such as Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador have shown they are not always prepared to toe the Chavez line.



Finally, and this may be more of a symptom than a cause of the region's ills, Latin America remains largely ignored by the outside world. Events like earthquakes and the attempts to rescue the 33 trapped miners in northern Chile do, quite naturally, capture the attention of the world, but even Washington's policy towards Latin America (talk of a partnership of equals, etc) is fuzzy to put it kindly, and regions further afield simply don't seem to have Latin America on their radar. This too represents a major challenge that regional leaders must face up to - to make sure Latin America's voice is heard on the global stage, and it's one that cannot wait another 200 years.

bnamericas

Bahamas Blog International

To OAS or not to OAS: that is the question

Ronald Sanders





At a meeting of leaders of Latin America and the Caribbean on February 23, Caribbean Community (Caricom) governments supported a joint "Declaration on (the) Falklands Islands Issue".

The Declaration "confirmed their support of Argentina's legitimate rights in the sovereignty dispute with the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands Issue", and recalled "regional interest in having the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom resume negotiations to find a fair, peaceful and definitive solution to the dispute over the sovereignty" of the Falklands/Malvinas islands. They went further to call on the European Union (EU) countries to amend their charter to remove the Falkland Islands from the list of overseas territories associated with the EU.

The support of Latin American countries for Argentina in this matter is quite understandable. They have links of language, culture, history and proximity that go back centuries.

But the support of Caricom countries for Argentina's "legitimate rights" is puzzling. Both the UK and Argentina have claimed the Falklands/Malvinas for almost 200 years. So what now makes Argentina's rights more "legitimate" than Britain's? And why call for "negotiations" between Argentina and Britain to find "a fair, peaceful and definitive solution" to the dispute if it has already been decided that Argentina's rights are "legitimate"?

Unless there is something they have not made public, this position by Caribbean governments appears on the surface to run counter to their own national interests.

The Caribbean has always strongly supported a people's right to self-determination. It is in fulfilment of their own right to self-determination that Caribbean Community (Caricom) countries are independent states. In this regard, since the people of the Falklands/Malvinas have consistently and overwhelmingly chosen to be British, Caribbean governments would certainly not argue that the manifest wish of the people of the Falklands/Malvinas should be ignored, particularly since Britain has exercised de facto sovereignty over the islands continuously since 1833.

The national interests of 12 of the 14 independent Caricom countries are much more bound up with Britain than they are with Argentina. Caricom's trade with Britain far exceeds trade with Argentina; investment in Caricom countries from Britain is much greater than any investment from Argentina; official development assistance from Britain to Caricom countries directly and indirectly (through the European Union and the Commonwealth for instance) is much larger than any assistance from Argentina; the number of tourists from Britain to Caricom countries is considerably greater than from Argentina; and far more Caricom nationals live, work and study in Britain than in Argentina.

What appears to have triggered this discussion at the 33-nation Cancun meeting is the fact that a British oil exploration company, Desire Petroleum Plc, announced that it had started drilling for oil 60 miles (100 kilometres) north of the Falklands/Malvinas. Argentina objects to this development.

In giving support to Argentina, Caricom countries run the risk of compromising their own interest. For instance, where would they stand if Venezuela objected to oil exploration off part of Guyana, despite long-standing international arbitrations and agreements confirming Guyana's title? Also, where would these countries stand if Venezuela objected to oil explorations that might be granted by some of them near Aves Island/Bird Rock to which Venezuela lays claim? In the case of Belize where Guatemala claims the entire country, the same argument applies.

Then we come to the matter of the creation of a grouping of these 33 countries that excludes Canada and the United States. Some of the Latin American leaders - in particular those with a strong anti-American position - proclaimed to the media that this new grouping should replace the Organisation of American States (OAS).

Well, replacing the OAS is simply in no country's interest - not even those with the most rabid anti-American governments. There has to be a forum in the Hemisphere where all its countries are represented and where discussions can take place at all levels of government and on all issues. And that organisation is clearly the already well-established OAS. In this regard, Cuba should return to the OAS and the exclusion of the present elected government of Honduras should cease.

In any event, I suspect that only a very few governments touted the idea of an "alternative" organisation to the OAS and even fewer would have supported it. Certainly for Caricom countries, there is no other organisation in which they can engage the US government on a regular and sustained basis at all levels. That alone makes the OAS worthwhile for them.

Further, Caricom governments greatly value their relations with Canada, which has been an ally and partner for generations in the Hemisphere and in the Commonwealth. They would want deeper, not distant relations with Canada.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Latin American and Caribbean countries establishing a grouping that is not an alternative to the OAS, but is additional to it.

However, no one should believe that it will be anything more than an opportunity for dialogue at the leadership level. It will have no secretariat and therefore little means of implementing decisions; decisions will have to be made by consensus, therefore no binding decisions will be made. In truth, the grouping is so amorphous and is made up of countries at such different levels of development and with such differing interests and ambitions, that its meetings will largely be obligatory and its decisions only declaratory.

The Summit "Declaration of Cancun" does have as one of its objectives "the co-ordination of regional positions ahead of meetings and conferences of global reach... to project the region and increase its influence". This is to be welcomed provided that the view of smaller Caribbean islands are seriously considered and reflected by the larger Latin American states.

This brings us to the OAS itself. The US government should regard this move by Latin American and Caribbean countries to set up a Hemispheric grouping, which deliberately excludes it, as a firm warning that its neglect of Latin America and the Caribbean's development needs and issues, and its oftentimes casual dismissal of their positions is not in the interest of the United States. The authorities in Washington need to engage Latin American and Caribbean countries as genuine partners and neighbours, and a strengthened and revitalised OAS is the place to do so.

In this connection, Caricom countries should indicate their support for the re-election on March 23 of the incumbent Secretary General José Miguel Insulza. His task over the last five years in a fractious organisation, which also relies on consensus for decision-making, has not been easy. But he has tried to introduce reforms and he has been the most forceful secretary general the OAS has seen for a long time. Additionally, he has been very mindful of his obligations to his Caribbean member states.

He has also taken on Hugo Chavez over violations of media freedom in Venezuela and he has not been afraid to point out shortcomings by the US government. To have offended both these adversaries, he must have done something right for the rest.

Over the next five and final years as secretary general, Insulza can be bold in giving the OAS real direction in reforming its mandate and establishing it as a meaningful forum for settling hemispheric issues and advancing democracy, development and human rights.

Responses and previous commentaries at: www.sirronaldsanders.com


Sir Ronald Sanders is a consultant and former Caribbean diplomat.


February 28, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest

By David Roberts:



First the good news. Support for democracy in Latin America is at its highest level since the late 1990s, according to the latest version of the highly respected Latinobarómetro survey, published a few days ago. And that's despite the quasi coup in Honduras and the financial crisis-cum-economic slump.

Overall explicit support for democracy - those believing it is preferable to any other system of government - stands at 59%, according to the survey of some 18,000 people in all Latin American countries except Cuba. Last year the figure came in at 57% and the year before 54%.

"Implicit" approval, meaning accepting democracy has its shortcomings but it's still better than other systems - what Latinobarómetro calls Churchillian democracy based on his famous quote paraphrased in the headline of this column - stands at 76% in the 2009 survey.

"In summary… Latin America is more democratic after the 2009 crisis, it is more tolerant, is happier," the survey's authors conclude, as reforms in the region are starting to bear fruit. It seems we've never had it so good, to paraphrase another former British prime minister.

Interestingly, support is strongest in Venezuela, a country where many regard democracy as being under threat at present, at 85% in the explicit category and 90% in the implicit one, the 2009 version of the survey concludes. Perhaps if Cuba had been included it would have scored even higher. Next, in the explicit category, come Uruguay, Costa Rica and Bolivia.

A little disturbingly, however, at the other end of the scale support is a mere 42% in Mexico (explicit) and 62% implicit. It's also worryingly low in Colombia, Paraguay, Ecuador and Guatemala, at least according to the 115 page survey produced by the Santiago-based NGO.

It's easy to pick holes in a survey of this type, but one thing is for sure: Latin America is in much better shape now than it was two or three decades ago, at least in terms of democracy and stability.

In the 1970s and 80s, military regimes ruled large parts of South America (Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay) while Paraguay was under the iron fist of Alfredo Stroessner. Bolivia's "palace coups" were all too frequent, and Mexico was effectively a one-party state.

In the 1980s, civil wars were raging in Central America, Cuba was seen as a real military threat to much of the region and Peru was rocked by terrorist violence, while Colombia was being torn apart by guerrillas, drug barons and paramilitaries. Then there was the US invasion of Panama, and in the 1990s came the Zapatista "uprising" in Mexico's Chiapas.

And while the recent crisis has hit the region hard, especially Mexico and those countries more dependent on manufacturing and US markets, things need to be put into perspective. In the 1980s, we had hyperinflation in many countries in the region, the infamous debt crisis and banking meltdown after meltdown, and that's not to mention the Tequila and Asian crises that followed.

Today, with the one obvious exception of Cuba and the less obvious one of Honduras given the recent elections and the prospect that the "civil coup" will simply peter out after Porfirio Lobo takes office, democracy in some form or another prevails universally throughout the region, as witnessed most recently by Sunday's elections in Chile. In the meantime, there are plenty of signs that the region and the world are emerging from the recent economic crisis.

So, reasons to be cheerful there are indeed, although as Latinobarómetro says, the positive results of this year's survey provide no motive to celebrate just yet given the problems in the region and the potential to return to instability.


bnamericas

Bahamas Blog International

The ALBA and Copenhagen

Reflections of Fidel

(Taken from CubaDebate)

THE festivities at the 7th ALBA Summit, held in the historic Bolivian region of Cochabamba, demonstrated the rich culture of the Latin American peoples and the joy elicited in children, young people and adults of all ages through the singing, dancing, costumes and expressive faces of the individuals representing all ethnic groups, colors and shades: indigenous, black, white and mixed race people. Thousands of years of human history and treasured culture were on display there, which explains the decision of the leaders of several Caribbean, Central and South America peoples to convene that summit.

The meeting was a great success. It was held in Bolivia. A few days ago, I wrote about the excellent prospects of that country, the heir to the Aymara-Quechua culture. A small group of peoples from that area are striving to show that a better world is possible. The ALBA – created by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Cuba, inspired by the ideas of Bolívar and Martí, as an unprecedented example of revolutionary solidarity – has demonstrated what can be done in just five years of peaceful cooperation. This began shortly after the political and democratic triumph of Hugo Chávez. Imperialism underestimated him; it blatantly attempted to oust him and eliminate him. The fact that for a good part of the 20th century Venezuela had been the world’s largest oil-producer, practically owned by the yanki multinationals, meant that the course they embarked on was particularly difficult.

The powerful adversary had neoliberalism and the FTAA, two instruments of domination with which it crushed any form of resistance in the hemisphere after the triumph of the Revolution in Cuba.

It is outrageous to think of the shameless and disrespectful way in which the US administration imposed the government of millionaire Pedro Carmona and tried to have the elected President Hugo Chavez removed, at a time when the USSR had disappeared and the People’s Republic of China was a few years away from becoming the economic and commercial power it is today, after two decades of growth over 10%. The Venezuelan people, like that of Cuba, resisted the brutal onslaught. The Sandinistas recovered, and the struggle for sovereignty, independence and socialism gained ground in Bolivia and Ecuador. Honduras, which had joined the ALBA, was the victim of a brutal coup d’état inspired by the yanki ambassador and boosted by the US military base in Palmerola.

Today, there are four Latin American countries that have completely eradicated illiteracy: Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua. The fifth country, Ecuador, is rapidly advancing towards that goal. Comprehensive healthcare programs are underway in the five countries at an unprecedented pace for the peoples of the Third World. Economic development plans combined with social justice have become real programs in the five different states, which already enjoy great prestige throughout the world for their courageous position in the face of the economic, military and media power of the empire. Three English-speaking Caribbean countries have also joined the ALBA, in a determined fight for their development.

This alone would be a great political merit if, in today’s world, that were the only major problem in the history of humankind.

The economic and political system that in a short historical period has led to the existence of more than one billion hungry people, and many more hundreds of millions whose lives are barely longer than half the average of those in the wealthy and privileged countries, was until now the main problem for humanity.

But, a new and extremely serious problem was extensively discussed at the ALBA Summit: climate change. At no other point in history, has a danger of such magnitude arisen.

As Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and Daniel Ortega bade farewell to the people in the streets of Cochabamba yesterday, Sunday, that same day, according to a report by BBC World, Gordon Brown was chairing a session of the Major Economies Forum in London, mostly made up of the most-developed capitalist countries, the main culprits for carbon dioxide emissions, that is, the gas causing the greenhouse effect.

The significance of Brown’s words is that they were not uttered by a representative of the ALBA or one of the 150 emerging or underdeveloped countries on the planet, but Britain, the country where industrial development began and one of those that has released the most carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The British prime minister warned that if an agreement is not reached at the UN Summit in Copenhagen, the consequences will be "disastrous".

Floods, droughts, and killer heat waves are just some of the "catastrophic" consequences, according to the World Wildlife Fund ecological group, referring to Brown’s statement. "Climate change will spiral out of control over the next five to ten years if CO2 emissions are not drastically cut. There will be no Plan B if Copenhagen fails."

The same news source claims that: "BBC expert James Landale has explained that not everything is turning out as expected."

Newsweek reported that every day it seems more unlikely that states will commit to something in Copenhagen.

According to reports from a major American news outlet, the chairman of the session, Gordon Brown, said that ""If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice. He continued by listing conflicts such as "climate-induced migration" and "an extra 1.8 billion people living and dying without enough water."

In reality, as the Cuban delegation in Bangkok reported, the United States led the industrialized nations most opposed to the necessary reduction in emissions.

At the Cochabamba meeting, a new ALBA Summit was convened. The timetable will be: December 6, elections in Bolivia; December 13, ALBA summit in Havana; December 16, participation in the UN Copenhagen Summit. The small group of ALBA nations will be there. The issue is no longer "Homeland or Death"; it is truly and without exaggeration a matter of "Life or Death" for the human race.

The capitalist system is not only oppressing and pillaging our nations. The wealthiest industrialized countries wish to impose on the rest of the world the major responsibility in the fight against climate change. Who are they trying to fool? In Copenhagen, the ALBA and the countries of the Third World will be fighting for the survival of the species.


Fidel Castro Ruz
October 19, 2009
6:05 PM

granma.cu

Bahamas Blog Bahamas

Region´s lowest paid: Afro-descendents, indigenous and women

Latin America´s steady economic growth over the past nine years has not been enough to end income disparities for women, indigenous groups and Afro-descendants, according to a new study by the Inter-American Development Bank.

In the paper, “New Century, Old Disparities: Gender and Ethnic Wage Gaps in Latin America,” economists evaluated household data from 18 Latin American countries – Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela – and found “women and ethnic minorities are clearly at a disadvantage.”

“Females in the region earn less than their male counterparts even though they are more educated,” the study said. “A simple comparison of average wages indicates that men earn 10 percent more than women. But once economists compare males and females with the same age and level of education, the wage gap between men and women is 17 percent.”.

In the seven countries that had data based on ethnicity — Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Paraguay and Peru — research showed that the indigenous and Afro-descendant population earned on average, 28 percent less than the white population.

“Polices aimed at reducing these inequalities are still lacking. This is more than just a moral necessity. It is an essential strategy to reduce poverty in the region,” said economist Hugo Ñopo, the lead author of the study.

In the seminar “Afro-descendant women and Latin American Culture: Identity and Development” held in Montevideo, Uruguay in late September, found that extreme poverty in indigenous and Afro-descendent populations in the region is double that of the rest of the population.

Rebeca Grynspan, Latin America director for the United Nations Development Program said that statistics on the Afro-descendant population “hide more than they show” because they are pure averages. She said inequality is also the result of present-day discrimination, not only past discrimination.

Latinamerica Press

Bahamas Caribbean Blog International