Michael Allison, a political science professor at the University of Scranton, has a new blog called Central American Politics that is well worth checking out for those interested in Central America and Latin America more generally.
-Ever since the War of the Pacific, Bolivia has been without direct access to the ocean, joining Paraguay as the only two landlocked countries in the Americas (out of 44 globally). However, aid may be coming soon, as Uruguay is seriously considering offering access to the sea to Bolivia.
-Are individuals in the FBI contributing directly to the drug violence plaguing Mexico?
-Augusto Montanaro, the Minister of the Interior for over 20 years during the dictatorial regime of Alfredo Stroessner, returned to Paraguay this week after 20 years in exile. This is major news because Montanaro was one of the key figures in the tortures and disappearances during Stroessner's 35-year reign: "as interior minister from 1966 to the end of the Stroessner regime, Montanaro was instrumental in the abduction, torture and mu rder of government opponents and he faces numerous criminal charges in Paraguay." Upon his return, he was medically examined and then sent off to the national prison, where hopefully he will serve his remaining days; however, his "senility" and Parkinson's disease make it seem likely he may end up with house arrest (though I'm not familiar with the particulars of Paraguayan prison law in terms of the ailing).
-For all the talk and mention one hears about UNICEF, it's rare that anybody knows exactly how the organization is effecting change in the world. Well, it would appear that, among other things, it's helping trobuled youths in Guyana get a second chance and seeking genuine reforms that rehabilitate rather than punish juveniles in that country.
-Human rights organizations are asking for the protection of a Chilean journalist after he received death threats from right-wing apologists groups. Francisco Herreros, head of the communist El Siglo, received the threats from right-wing terrorists after the newspaper published "a series of declassified CIA documents that involve Chilean right wing organizations and persons in crimes, fraud and other violations," providing just one more reminder that, while Pinochet and his regime have been largely discredited within Chile and abroad, there are still extremists who feel that those who disagree with them should be killed.
-Also in Chile, around 100 indigenous Mapuches marched on the presidential palace in Santiago, "trying to denounce police repression prevailing in their communities, as well as the implementation of the Anti-terrorist Act," and seeking a meeting with President Michelle Bachelet. Despite the importance of human rights rhetoric and justice in terms of the Pinochet regime, repression and violations of Mapuches' rights continue at a disturbing rate in Chile.
-I'm not quite sure why the South Dakota National Guard might need training in jungle warfare, but the U.S.'s 46th-most populated state has entered into a partnership with Suriname for military training, as well as a "medical readiness exercise."
-Johnny Depp as Pancho Villa? (h/t)
-Apparently, Dominica's Prime Minister has been talking trash about the other islands in the Caribbean. I look forward to responses from Guadeloupe, Martinique, St. Lucia, Montserrat, and others. Could this be the first step in an inter-island war in the Caribbean? The world watches with baited breath...
-Finally, one of my favorite "discoveries" last year was a great album of Garifuna music sung by women. For those who are unfamiliar with Garifuna music (the Garinagu people are descendants of indigenous and African peoples in the Caribbean coast of Central America), it's excellent stuff, and (in addition to the samples at Amazon), you can check out some more music and info about it here.
Ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya and his replacement, Roberto Micheletti, have both agreed to negotiate an end to the presidential crisis since Zelaya's ouster via a military-led coup a few weeks ago. This is really important, simply because things are as ugly as they can be now, between the OAS's decision on Honduras, the growing violence, and the generally-overlooked divisions within the basic functioning organs of the Honduran state that the coup has caused. My skepticism over the outcome (due in no small part to Micheletti's intransigence) is tempered by the fact that Costa Rican president (and Nobel Peace Prize winner) Oscar Arias will do the mediating. Arias won the Peace prize in 1987 for negotiating an end to the conflicts in Central America in the 1980s, and began working towards a negotiation between Zelaya and Micheletti last week. If there's a statesperson who has the legitimacy and the skill to deal with this situation, it's Arias.
In more Honduras-related news, Greg (who has been excellent in his coverage and analysis of this whole thing) has some comments on the Supreme Court's defense of the coup. As he points out once again (and as the Court itself fails to directly address), the vote that would have happened on June 28 would not have convened a Constitutional commission; it was to determine if a vote on whether to convene a commission should appear on the 2010 ballot. This has been one of the biggest weaknesses in the anti-Zelaya camp's defense: he wasn't creating a National Assembly. He was asking the Honduran populace to vote on whether they wanted to vote on convening an Assembly in 2010. There is nothing to guarantee that that 2010 vote would have resulted in a "yes" vote that would then convene the assembly - it could of course go down to failure. This is one of the major reasons why insistence that the Congress/Court/military had no other option than a military coup. Yes, they did: among other things, they could have let the vote go through on the 28th, and then spent the next year and a half mobilizing their resources and the population to work their hardest to bring the vote to a defeat next year. Regardless of whether they felt Zelaya's actions were legal or not, the coup was not the only solution here. (Though, in a possibly related story, the fact that 52.2% of Hondurans polled believe it's OK to break the law when fighting crime may be one cultural indicator as to why the support of the coup in Honduras has been so strong).
Greg also points out the hilarity of the Court's instruction to the military "to detain Zelaya because he was a threat to flee." Getting beyond the absurdity of the notion that Zelaya was about to abandon his post (because clearly, ever since the coup, he's shown he definitely does not want to be in Honduras), it's beyond ridiculous and risible to suggest that the only way to deter a president who wants to flee the country is to force him out of the country at gunpoint. That's some sound logic and problem-solving, there.
Finally, whatever one thinks of Zelaya, you have to admire the man's sense of humor:
“What have Latin American presidents learned from Honduras?” [Zelaya] asked Mrs. Clinton.
As the secretary shook her head, Mr. Zelaya smiled and said, “To sleep with our clothes on and our bags packed.”
The Summit of the Americas wrapped up yesterday, and I have just a few preliminary thoughts on it right now.
-The meeting seems like a huge success (in the best sense of the word) for U.S. foreign policy and for creating a new form of U.S.-Latin American relations that we haven't ever really seen in our diplomatic history. As of yet, there isn't much talk about policy issues that were accomplished, but in many regards, whatever policy was or wasn't formed is irrelevant. The fact that Obama was pretty much able to talk to everybody and establish excellent, cordial, intelligent, and respectful links with the other leaders is seemingly mundane but amazingly important. After 8 years of non-relations and alienation under Bush, it seems to me that the U.S. is in its best position for Latin America ever; from the Latin American standpoint, it seems that the U.S. under Obama finally gets that the region is to be treated respectfully and equally, and not as some inferior region that the U.S. can impose policy on at will. What is more, Obama seems respectful and understanding of differences between countries, knowing that only one way ("my way") is not the only solution. And Obama's openness to listen to all leaders, be it Alvaro Uribe or Raul Castro, now and down the line, marks a major shift in the U.S.'s vision of Latin America, in which we aren't dividing leaders by "ours" or "not ours," but rather acknowledging that each nation has its own leaders, and even if they disagree with us or we with them, their and our legitimacy as potential collaborators is not diminished. Again, this was all talk this weekend, and policy could derail a lot of things, but U.S.-Latin American relations are in the best position I think they've ever been in. And that alone renders the Summit an unqualified success.
-That said, there's not much to say about the policy. I haven't read the Statement yet, but if Boz's analysis is fair, it's a massive failure (albeit one that can't take too much away from the successes of the weekend).
-The one specific area I've read some about is environmental issues. In dealing with energy issues this year, reports are that Obama listened more than offered his own suggestions, taking in what the regions leaders had to say, whether it was Lula discussing biofuels, or Mexico's Calderon continuing to push for a regional "energy market."
-Republicans still just don't get it, having begun to come out already in condemning Obama for his brief-but-congenial encounter with Chavez and his efforts to thaw relations with Cuba. For over 50 years, from the Cold War to the "war on 'terror'," a "with us or against us" mentality has been destructive diplomatically, economically, socially, and politically, and has often led to the deaths of thousands or hundreds of thousands throug the U.S's positions. While both Democrats and Republicans were guilty in the past, given the previous 8 years, Republicans have absolutely no pot to piss in when it comes to telling Obama how he should be running foreign policy, in Latin America or elsewhere. Until Republicans can prove they can come up with constructive policies (foreign or domestic) that actually take a stance other than "if Obama does it, it's wrong," then they have absolutely no political, moral, or ideological ground to stand on. [Although I didn't see it until after I wrote my own post, it turns out that Randy and I are in virtually complete agreement here.]
-If/As the details of individual meetings and discussions between become more available, I may have more. That said, again, even if the actual declaration was a dud, the Summit was great for the region, and one of the brightest beacons of hope for U.S. foreign policy in some time.
The Fifth Summit of the Americas begins today in Trinidad and Tobago, and heading into it, Obama had an editorial that several newspapers ran yesterday (though not that bastion of liberal bias, the New York Times, which instead opted today for an ok-if-general analysis of how Obama's popularity may mark a radical shift compared to Bush's last meeting in 2005 in what can only be called a nadir in his diplomacy with Latin America). In his editorial, Obama outlines the general issues he feels are facing the countries in the hemisphere: U.S.-Cuba relations (which almost all Latin American leaders, left or right, want to see improve, feeling it would be the most concrete evidence that U.S. policy in the region as a whole was shifting); security issues; energy; and, of course, the economy. While it's just talk in an editorial, I do like Obama's comment that "we don't need a debate about whether to blame right-wing paramilitaries or left-wing insurgents - we need practical cooperation to expand our common security." Of course, who is defining "common security" and how they're defining it will be a major issue (especially from Colombia's and Mexico's representatives), but the simple fact that he's acknowledging that there is violence from paramilitaries is much better than anything his predecessor did, particularly in dealing with Colombia; and mentioning "left-wing insurgents" helps alleviate sectors from the right, too.
Despite its seemingly casual inclusion in the editorial, I think energy, and not the economy, may very well end up being the key issue for Obama at the Americas. After 8 years of Bush, we have a new outlook on the importance of energy efficiency and the environment. I suspect that Obama will want to act quickly on this, and given how much Latin America has criticized the U.S.'s environmental policy under Bush, this could be the most fertile area in which they could come to agreements about limiting emissions, using alternate fuels and renewable energy sources, and outline specific plans for the present and future.
Obama's call for collective action is interesting, as well - it seems rather mundane, but as Boz points out, Chavez may throw a wrench into the works. While I don't fully agree with every detail of Boz's analysis of Chavez, I think he's right in his suggestion that this weekend has the potential to say a lot about Chavez's power in the region. As I argued awhile back, Lula and Brazil are definitely the ascendant power in South America, and Obama is the most popular U.S. president in Latin America in some time (I don't have stats dating back, but I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers were the highest since at least Kennedy). Watching how this dynamic between the U.S., Brazil, Venezuela, and other countries plays out this weekend will be interesting to watch, as will the rest of the Summit, and I'll have more as the event takes place and wraps up.
The Fifth Summit of the Americas is coming up, and in anticipation of this, Latin American scholar Greg Grandin has an absolutely outstanding article up on how FDR could be a model for Obama in his Latin American foriegn policy, as well as the obstacles Obama is facing and the interest groups that may undermine real change. There are some absolutely fascinating bits in there in terms of little-known policy decisions (like how the anti-imperialist stance of Ernest Gruening, who would eventually be one of only two senators to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964, came to play a major role in American diplomacy under Roosevelt and beyond), as well as depressing current news, including the role of American private interest groups (like the NRA) in Latin America and the efforts to use failed models like Plan Colombia (whose "success," as the article points out, is dependent upon the use of death squads) in Afghanistan, and even the impact immigration may have on the Summit of the America's.
Obama's behavior, statements, and agreements at the Summit will be of major importance to understanding America's direction - it's his first major (planned) diplomatic mission in terms of policy-making (this weekend's pirate-incident notwithstanding), and will really give us a sense of how much of a change Obama will bring in terms of international relations and foreign policy. What's more, it's his first and only chance to make a "first impression" with many leaders from Latin America, and he has a lot to overcome from the Bush administration, so the Summit is of tantamount importance not just to Latin America, but to Obama's administration and American foreign policy over at least the next four years and beyond.
I hope to have more up on the Summit of the Americas as time allows, but for now, go read Grandin's article - it's just wonderful stuff, and highly informative.
In another example of the extremely depressing violent history of Central America, check out this story from the Guatemala Solidarity Network. 3 Salvadoran politicians were recently murdered in Guatemala. There was no attempt to cover this up. Interestingly, 4 Guatemalan police officers were arrested for the crime. They were then murdered in their jail cells. Interestingly, one of the murdered Salvadorans was the son of the vile Roberto D'Aubuisson, who organized the death squads of the 1980s.
Information on the case is sketchy. Was there a cover up? Were the Guatemalan officers killed because they did this so stupidly, i.e. in a vehicle tracked by GPS? Don't know. But in any case, wow. These were prominent Salvadoran leaders. Guatemala, not a good place.
I'd like to think that Central America is continuing on its long, slow road to stability. But with things like this, I just don't know.
Good times.
Check out this post from gjohnsit, a diarist a Daily Kos. His discussion of William Walker is quite thorough and interesting. I'm not sure if warlord is quite the right word for Walker, but I'm prepared to be convinced. He certainly was one of the great bastards of American history.
Incidentally, I wonder about the diarists over there. Do they get more or less readers than independent bloggers? My guess is less unless they get picked up at the main site. But I really have no idea.
Anyway, check the post out. It's very good.
