Around Latin America

-Many are aware that Colombia has been in a civil war for 40+ years, but the ongoing process of electoral processes sometimes obscures just how violent Colombia still is. In the last 8 years (2002-2010), 20,915 people in Colombia have died as a direct result of its ongoing war. Stop and think about that: 20,915 people. That's nearly 18,000 more than those the Pinochet regime killed in 17 years; that's 10,000 more than the number of people killed in Brazil's favelas in twelve years. That's a depressing but important reminder that the war in Colombia is ongoing, it is real, and is still extremely violent.
-In Uruguay, former foreign minister Juan Carlos Blanco (who served during Uruguay's dictatorship in the 1970s and 1980s) was sentenced to twenty years in prison for his role in the disappearance of a Venezuelan teacher in 1976, marking yet another victory against dictatorship-era officials in Uruguay.

-In neighboring Paraguay, the government has imposed a 30-day state of emergency to combat an armed leftist group operating out of the country's north. The group, Ejército del Pueblo Paraguayo, has launched attacks on government buildings and police stations, and a recent attack left four people dead. Among other things, the 30-day state of emergency will allow the Paraguayan government todetain suspects and ban public meetings in the five provinces affected.

-Paraguay is not alone in facing a governmental crisis. In Nicaragua, a showdown between the judiciary and Daniel Ortega is intensifying, after two judges refused to resign in the face of Daniel Ortega's questionable use of an allegedly-expired law, leading to an increasingly uncertain situation in Nicaragua. As Greg points out, it's not a question of leftism; many view Ortega's move as an increasing tendency towards dictatorship, with one critic going so far as to declare that Nicaragua had gone "From Somocismo without Somoza to Somocismo with Ortega."

-Honduras has established a truth commission to look into the coup of last June. However, the commission is already off to a rocky start, with criticisms coming from all sides (including the suggestion of an "alternative truth commission" from non-pro-government individuals). Among the more problematic aspects of the commission: a leading member of the commission's formation declared the report would be archived for 10 years upon completion, meaning nobody would see the commission's findings for ten years. As the good folks over at Honduras Culture and Politics put it, this is effectively an effort to "hide the truth for ten years."

-Evo Morales has offended Brazilian farmers after the Bolivian president declared that eating chicken reduced masculinity and could lead to homosexuality. The claims are silly but fairly unimportant in terms of evaluating Morales's political agenda (though it does say something about societal views of homosexuality and homophobia in Bolivia). Still, given how much agriculture Brazil produces and supplies to the rest of Latin America, including Bolivia, I wouldn't really want to actively alienate any major food producer in Brazil.

-Finally, in doubly-depressing daily news out of Brazil: a 24-year-old housewife was lynched in Rio de Janeiro state yesterday after she ran over a pregnant woman while driving drunk. While the pregnant woman survived, the baby was lost, and in anger, a crowd gathered and shot the housewife. Certainly, drunk driving is not acceptable, but the crowd's response is far more unacceptable.

Brazil and Spain Express Concern over Increase of U.S. Troops in Colombia

Brazil and Spain Express Concern Over Increase of U.S. Troops in Colombia
The recent agreement to put more U.S. troops in Colombia is raising concerns beyond just Venezuela:

Spain’s Miguel Angel Moratinos and Brazilian counterpart Celso Amorim expressed their reservations about the effects the military program could have at a press conference within the framework of the Spanish official’s visit to Brazil.

The two ministers also called for dialogue between Venezuela and Colombia and agreed to work “to avoid a spiral of misunderstandings” between those two countries.

This is a good diplomatic move that gives greater weight to regional concerns than Chavez's opposition alone could ever achieve. However, I don't know how much it will actually accomplish.

To be clear, I think the U.S.'s decision is a bad one, for a number of reasons. The "war on drugs" is pretty ineffective in its focus on the supply side rather than the demand side, and basing more troops in Colombia isn't going to solve this problem. What is more, it is clear that this will add to regional suspicion and tension in South America. While Obama's diplomatic efforts in the hemisphere thus far have been admirable in comparison to past administrations (dating to about, oh, 1848), the presence of more U.S. troops on any country's soil is a legitimate cause for concern, regardless of who is president of the United States. For these reasons, I think it's important that Brazil and Spain, who are far from antagonistic towards the U.S., raise these concerns. Again, I'm not sure it will result in any real change in the decision to move troops to Colombia when the Ecuadoran bases close (rather than, you know, having the troops actually come back to the U.S. when the bases close). But Brazil's and Spain's questions and objections should at least make the U.S. stop and take notice, and give the opposition to such a move much greater legitimacy than Chavez's opposition alone could accomplish.

And, on a side note, can we please stop referring to Daniel Ortega as part of some "leftist" "alliance?" Firstly, as I've noted before, these notions in the American media of "leftist alliances" in Latin America are false and lazy. Just because countries are friendly with each other, or from relatively similar political ideologies, does not mean they are some new axis, and American journalists' inability to look at Latin America with a view that is more complex than "leftist" is just shameful. Secondly, and more directly related to Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega has hardly been "leftist." If you want to refer to the Sandinistas as leftist, fine - it's still probably a lazy categorization on the part of the media, but at least it's fairly accurate. But when the actual major "leftist" political group in a country disowns the president as not representing leftist goals, ideals, and missions, could we at least respect that country's political spectrum, and agree that just because a leader isn't as "conservative" as America would like does not mean he/she's some radical "leftist" political force?

Discussing Latin America (II): Which Way Is Nicaragua Headed?

Last week, the Latin Americanist put up two conflicting articles on Nicaragua. On the one hand, Foreign Policy suggested that Nicaragua was one of five countries that could be "the next Iceland" (i.e., go bankrupt), saying remittances from the to Nicaragua, which play a major role in the Nicaraguan economy, will probably drop, perhaps drastically. This drop would accompany a drop in coffee exports, one of Nicaragua's major sources of income in the international market, as prices drop off in the face of a global depression (this is nothing new - Brazil was similarly hit in the 1930s, and Costa Rica and others were ravaged in the 1970s and early 1980s. Incidentally, in the case of Costa Rica, the collapse in the coffee economy actually played a major role in the development of eco-tourism as an alternate source of national income, a hugely successful policy that is still keeping that country stable even today). Finally, Foreign Policy argues that Ortega's increasingly authoritarian rule is isolating foreign partners, leading to reduced international aid for and investment in Nicaragua under Ortega.

On the other hand, World Focus foresees Nicaragua on the verge of great economic success. In the video, it reports that anti-Americanism has declined, leading to a growth in tourism. It also suggests that Ortega has taken a pro-business stance that has helped the economy to grow, and that while there is political opposition, the economy is ready to boom because of the increased business opportunities for foreign investment and a rise in tourism.

Clearly, these are two diametrically opposed stances. I asked Yann about this, and he will have more to say later, but I wanted to comment on a few things (though I will defer to his expertise on Nicaragua, which is much greater than mine). I suspect it falls somewhere between the two. I really don't see any evidence that Nicaragua's government is about to go bankrupt, for a couple of reasons. First, from what I can see, there's just no evidence that it's on a major economic precipice. Secondly, it goes without saying that Iceland's particular conditions and contexts are different from Nicaragua's. I can't see any current or historical reasons or evidence to believe that, if Nicaragua were to really flounder economically, organizations like the IMF or the World Bank wouldn't be ready to swoop in with more loans that Ortega very well may take. After all, the U.S. has had economic interests in Nicaragua for well over one hundred and fifty years. Yes, the U.S. has withdrawn aid due to Ortega's actions, but we've never had a problem looking the other way in the past when it was to our financial or political interests.

That said, I don't think Nicaragua's really ready to boom, either. Ortega can make all of the pro-business pitches he wants, but the fact that the U.S. and the European Union are witholding aid are important. Businesses may be investing in Nicaragua, and that could set off some of the aid withdrawal, but not all. What is more, the World Press article seems to put a lot of faith on the importance of tourism and ex-pats, which would be fine if we weren't in the midst of a global recession with no sign of exiting anytime soon. But we are, and one of the first things that goes when recessions hit globally is tourism. Certainly, some people who would have like to go to Asia or Africa or some expensive vacation may opt for Nicaragua instead, but I don't think that would be a very significant number of people. And the evidence for an inexpensive lifestyle seems deceptive, as the report only cites an American ex-pat who comments, "I can afford it. I can live the good life on a postal pension." That's fine, but that says more about borderline colonialist and exploitative mentalities than it does about the general cost of living for Nicaraguans themselves, many of whom remain in poverty despite government programs designed to finally help Nicaragua's poor.

In short, it will be interesting to see where Nicaragua goes, but it's as interesting to see how two respected journalistic sources could come to opposite conclusions on this issue. Again, I think it's somewhere in the middle - Nicaragua is neither about to experience a full-blown collapse, nor is it about to enter a new golden age. Political repression under Ortega is a real problem. And while he may be making strides to help the poor, his human rights record is far from good, and claims that he wants "equality for all" are hard to swallow when one considershis stance towards women's rights). If push came to shove, I'd probably have to say Nicaragua is facing an uphill climb, simply because there are few countries in the global economy right now that aren't facing an uphill climb, but I could be wrong. I look forward to Yann's comments on this.

Nicaragua

I am interested in this story of Daniel Ortega's Citizen Power Councils. The Nicaraguan opposition claims that he is creating a dictatorship through the CPCs, which are funded by Venezuela. There is really no accountability for the money and it's pretty clear that Ortega is building the Sandinista movement through this funding.

I'm less interested in the fear mongering over Ortega. On one level, I'm pretty uncomfortable with Ortega generally and the potential for corruption and for skirting the apparatus for government is obvious. It's clear that Nicaragua is still deeply affected by the Cold War civil wars. Both sides seem to operate through this framework.

What's more interesting to me though is the fact that Ortega is using this money to help the poor. And his opponents have never had any plan to help the poor and still apparently don't. Much of this money is going for microloans and food supplies. It is legitimate that the conservative opposition doesn't like Ortega's methods. Less acceptable is their clear indifference to helping the people. For all the criticisms leveled at Ortega and Hugo Chavez, I think the opposition must come up with a real plan to help the poor. If they don't like the CPCs, how are they going to pave roads? How are they going to provide food? How are they going to give and administer microloans? The conservatives had 15 years after the fall of the Sandinistas to fix some of their issues with poverty and they did virtually nothing. They didn't even really try to. So I have a hard time taking their opposition seriously, even if they aren't all wrong.