Around Latin America

-Copper miners in Chile went on strike earlier this week at the second-biggest copper-complex in the world, demanding better pay. Chile's copper miners have historically been one of the stronger labor forces in the world due to the importance of their work in terms of Chile's GNP (indeed, some have argued that Chile's copper miners are their own style of "privilged" union in comparison to other unions in Chile because of the importance of their work), and this strike was no exception, as copper prices immediately rising globally. Yesterday, Codelco, the mining company, offered a new compensation package for the workers, and they accepted it and ended the strike.

-In Paraguay, allegations of a planned military coup against Fernando Lugo continue to surface, in spite of (or perhaps because of) Lugo's efforts to clean out the military leadership when he took office.

-Prosecutions against military officers who participated in the military dictatorship of 1976-1983 in Argentina continue, as 15 men are now being tried before a tribunal. Another officer, known as the "Angel of Death," is also facing prison for his role in torture and "disappearances," including the murder of two French nuns, during the "Dirty War." And a judge who was involved with torture sessions was just sentenced to prison for 21 years for "misconduct," including a hit-and-run involving a swimmer and the judge's motorboat.

-Clashes erupted in Suriname between locals and Brazilian gold miners after a local was stabbed by a Brazilian. At least 25 were injured, while the Brazilian alleged to have committed the stabbing is in police custody. The case issues both the diaspora of (usually poor) Brazilians from the north seeking wealth in neighboring countries, and the tensions that can and do arise from this dispersion.

-The Brazilian government is finally trying to legally establish who owns what lands in the Amazonian basin. The decision arises out of the ongoing violence against poor landowners and landless individuals, who are often in conflict with major landowners and who are often murdered by the wealthy and their underlings, murders that function in a similar manner as in the murder of Dorothy Strang). Environmentalists hope the new efforts will also provide a state presence in the region and reduce deforestation. I don't have much hope about the environmental effects of this new policy, but certainly, a stronger state presence is needed in the region, and if the policy reduces the number of murders over land claims in the North, then that alone will be a noteworthy accomplishment.

-A new map has mapped the Guarani territory in the tri-border area between Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay. In addition to defining the exact geographic region the Guarani claim as their homeland, the map also reveals the sources of threat to Guarani land and culture, including expanding soy farming, dams, and deforestation.

-In spite of the ever-classy efforts of Republican Senators Jim DeMint and George LeMieux to block (with damaging economic consequences) Barack Obama's nominee for U.S. ambassador to Brazil, the U.S. Senate finally was able to approve both Thomas Shannon as ambassador to Brazil and David Nelson as ambassador to Uruguay. It's really inexcusable that it has taken this long to get an ambassador to one of the largest countries politically, economically, and geographically, but the stupidity of Republican tantrum-throwing in the name of "opposition" knows no bounds.

U.S. to FINALLY Get Ambassador to Brazil?

I'd been wanting to blog about this for awhile. The ever-classy Jim DeMint, friend to coup-mongers, had been stalling Obama's appointment for the U.S. Ambassador to Brazil for months. DeMint claimed it was because of Obama's position in the Honduras crisis, which began on June 28. Still, as Brazil had (of yet) anything to do with Honduras, DeMint's position really just came off as a bunch of hollow and useless grandstanding. DeMint's position was indefensible, and it was absurd that the U.S. still did not have an ambassador to Brazil, one of the top ten largest economies in the world and an increasingly important global power in economic, political, and diplomatic issues. DeMint's attention-grabbing measures were stupid and damaging to developing relations with Brazil. I was all ready this weekend to go into great detail on the possible consequences of DeMint's actions.

However, it seems that post is not necessary, as apparently, Obama's policy towards Honduras has "shifted" enough that he now is willing to unblock Thomas Shannon's nomination to the post of ambassador to Brazil. DeMint claims he's had a change of heart because Obama's administration has now said it will recognize Honduras's elections this year whether Zelaya is in office or not, a shift from its previous stance. If that's what DeMint wants to use as his window dressing, then I guess that's fine, but I'm still not buying it, especially since Obama's administration only announced that it would not recognize the elections back in September, which again doesn't really serve as an explanation as to the need to block the nominee from July (when Shannon was nominated) to September. Still, I guess if Jim DeMint wants to wage his battles on useless battlefields that are uninteresting to most of the electorate, that's his prerogative. Still, part of me deeply hopes that the Obama administration gets Shannon to his position, and then reverses its stance and doesn't acknowledge the elections of Honduras as legitimate due to their occurring during an illegal administration. Though I guess that would give DeMint another opportunity to grandstand and feel important, so maybe it's better the administration deny him that opportunity, and let him continue to be the little man Jim DeMint truly is.

This might belong in "Crisis of Masculinity Blogging"

I read this article this morning in the Mail & Guardian about Vladimir Putin and it made me giggle. At first, I thought that it was just worth a drive-by snarking on Twitter, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized I should go back and write about it.

At first, of course, you get the usual masculinity-fetish. The title of the article is "That Shrinking Feeling," which is just too obvious. Further down, a sentence reads, "Not that Putin is a spent force."

Sexual metaphors and obsession with Putin's bare chest are hardly rare--comic artist Becky Cloonan has a whole range of Putin-fantasy webcomics that are totally hilarious. I admit to a bit of a Putin obsession myself--he's such a caricature.

As was Bush, of course. A caricature of a certain type of American masculinity (just like Reagan before him) the same way Putin is a caricature of a certain type of Russian masculinity. He has judo videos! He shoots tigers! He's so BUFF!

Only a few months ago, we were scared of Putin "rearing his head," (oh, Palin, will you ever get old?) but now we hear little to nothing about him. And this article, masculinity fetish aside, makes a decent point about why, even if it buries it beneath layers of alternately fawning and poking at him.

Analysts add that United States President Barack Obama's emollient approach on Nato enlargement and missile defence is not helping.

As Russian president, Putin was a natural when it came to attacking former president George Bush, for example over Iraq.

But fast-forward one year and he looked far less comfortable, barely speaking above a whisper, as he made a conciliatory speech praising the new Iraqi order in front of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki at a recent Moscow meeting.

As the public questions whether everything is really the United States' fault, a change of tone is needed that Putin may struggle with, says political commentator Arkady Dubnov of the newspaper Vremya Novostei.

(OK, they did say "enlargement.")

Does Obama's conciliatory approach to foreign policy make the former bluff and bluster between Bush and Putin look...well...juvenile? Does Obama's refusal to give leaders like Putin (and Chavez, and and and) a target effectively work where threats and yes, swagger didn't?

Of course it's far too early to tell. But during the campaign, especially the primaries, I wrote about Obama's demeanor and tone about foreign policy contrasted with his rivals, and how Hillary Clinton and Obama seemed to have switched gender stereotypes.

I'm disappointed with many of Obama's moves so far, but I wonder if just the tonal shift in public diplomacy is having an effect worldwide. It's definitely not calming the Right inside the U.S., but they sure do look silly. So there's that.

Eloquence, Performatives, and the Presidency

So I have 8000000000000 things to do right now, but I'm going to take just a moment to comment on something because I think it's important to note.

The New Yorker's Obama endorsement makes many excellent points. You should read it. But to my mind, the most important point it made was this one:

Although his opponents have tried to attack him as a man of “mere” words, Obama has returned eloquence to its essential place in American politics. The choice between experience and eloquence is a false one––something that Lincoln, out of office after a single term in Congress, proved in his own campaign of political and national renewal. Obama’s “mere” speeches on everything from the economy and foreign affairs to race have been at the center of his campaign and its success; if he wins, his eloquence will be central to his ability to govern.

See, the presidency is largely a symbolic office. Congress is the body that's going to have to actually make and pass these tax cuts and health care policies--all the president can do is encourage and sign. One of the reasons I was an early Obama supporter was that he seemed to have a much better grasp of and less warmongering slant on foreign relations. And foreign relations are carried out by, yes, talking. Words. Speeches.

There's a huge place for performative language in all of this. Timothy Cook outlines this whole process expertly in Governing With the News. The president makes a speech, and policy changes. Need an example? Remember the "Axis of Evil" comment, and how suddenly after that we seem to be dealing with North Korea and Iran increasing their nuclear capacities?

Every time the president makes a speech, it is news. Even now, when the candidates make a speech, it is news. That news gets carried not just to voters, but to other countries and other governments. The reason McCain keeps harping not on Obama's willingness to go into Pakistan in search of Bin Laden, but his willingness to talk about it, is that he knows that by making a statement the president has to back it up.

A popular president's speeches could buoy Wall Street just by pledging support; it is a measure of Bush's lame duckitude that he can't. Any president can screw foreign policy up majorly just by mistaking the names of countries or leaders; just ask Richard Nixon about Mauritius and Mauritania.

The president has to know when to speak and when to shut up, what to say and what not to say, and yes, be willing to talk to other leaders. Talk doesn't prevent action, or require some sort of soul-selling to Ahmadinejad like McCain seems to think it does. But it does indeed have an effect on what happens.

So having a president who is a man of "mere" words, as opposed to one who regularly mistakes one country for another (or one Supreme Court Justice for another--ask Justice Breyer if he's slightly insulted at being confused with Alito this morning) is actually rather important when you think about it.

And after watching those debates, which candidate do YOU think is more likely to shoot himself in the foot while attempting diplomacy, whether it's face to face or through the press?

Lula as a Broker between Cuba and the U.S.?

One of Brazil's better newspapers, Folha de São Paulo, has recently reported that, on his last trip to Cuba, Lula met with Raul Castro. Folha reported this past Wednesday that, during their meeting, among the other items Raul mentioned were the possibility of entering an agreement with Brazil that would send more sugar-based ethanol to Cuba, as well as the possibility of Lula brokering a dialogue between the U.S. and Cuba that could potentially open relations between the two and end the embargo.

I've commented before on how important I think Lula's international relations approach has been. Instead of trying to kowtow to Europe and the United States in order to improve Brazil's economic standing, he has not been afraid to enter into any trade agreement that might help Brazil down the road, be it in Africa, Asia, Europe, South America, or North America. Cuba is no exception, and Lula has periodically visited there. Clearly, if this report is accurate, Cuba's efforts to switch to sugar-based fuel sources would be useful for Brazil from an economic standpoint, and would also help Cuba move away from oil dependency.

However, what really stands out to me here is Raul's suggestion that Lula broker an end to the embargo and an opening of relations between the United States and Cuba. This would be a great opportunity for Lula, and for Brazil, in several ways. Brazil, undeniably a growing power in the world, would be able to extend some of its influence into the Caribbean, providing a potential (but not antagonistic) second option to the U.S. for Caribbean countries. And lets play with what are simply hypotheticals, now. Let's say Obama should reach the White House next January, and he sticks to his promise to open relations with Cuba. Lula is called in to broker the talks, and after 48 years, the embargo falls, and the political landscape between the United States fundamentally changes (since anytime you start having diplomatic relations with a neighbor after shutting them off for 48 years constitutes quite a "change"). The entire world would probably be rather impressed by all members' participation in the talks, but Lula I think would particularly benefit, simply because it would give Brazil a political standing in the world it hasn't really achieved yet. Sure, it's greatly improving its economic participation and influence in the world, but Brazil hasn't really been considered a major diplomatic influence in the world. Brokering an agreement between the U.S. and Cuba would certainly help change that. And given his relations with Africa, China, the United States, and the European Union, Lula and, perhaps by extension, Brazil, would certainly have a strong claim on being a capable broker for international deals, economic and political.

Now of course, there is plenty of possibility that the above doesn't happen, or that it does, but Lula leaves office in 2010, and the new president doesn't continue Lula's efforts to increase Brazil's influence economically and diplomatically. I still think that the report (and again, this is if it's true) is still great news for Brazil - again, if nothing else holds, it's clear that Brazil is starting to have more influence in the Caribbean than it did. For all of the criticism Lula gets for being from the working class, for starting off as a metalworker, for being from the Northeast, etc. (none of which have any bearing on Lula's ability, but are totally revelatory of the classism and racism of parts of Brazil's middle class and the media here), no president in recent memory (including the presidents during the dictatorship) has done so much to increase Brazil's role in the international community as Lula has.

(via Boz).

Thoughts on Brazil and Cotton (yes, Cotton)

There will be plenty coming from me soon about the airport situation in Brazil (lots has happened in the two weeks I was in Brasília), but first, the exciting world of cotton subsidies (yes, cotton subsidies). Boz points us to a blurb on how Brazil has successfully demonstrated to the World Trade Organization that the U.S. failed to overhaul subsidies by overproducing cotton in an effort to drive down global cotton prices, hurting other cotton producing countries. Even to me, this is generally extremely boring stuff (I just don't care that much about international economies at that level), but what Randy points out gives the story a lot more merit beyond the international economics framework. Brazil didn't just represent itself in this complaint - it also represented Mali, Burkina Faso, and other cotton-producing African nations that may not have had the resources to ably contest the U.S.'s excesses.

All of this matters for one very simple reason: Brazil has spent the last 5 years building alliances with the "developed" and the "developing" world. Whereas the previous administration of Fernando Henrique Cardoso was basically interested in increasing dependency on nations like France and the United States by privatizing anything and everything he could in Brazil, Lula has had a more open approach that has looked as much to relations with developing nations for economic growth and global reputation as it has to the U.S. and Europe. He has had no problem trying to set up trade deals with states like Saudi Arabia, China, and many nations in Africa. In short, Lula has talked to anybody and everybody, from Bush to Chavez, from King Faud to Hu Jintao.

The importance of this cannot be overstated. Certainly, some of the efforts to trade relations and friendship-formation between Brazil and other countries may not play out, but that doesn't ultimately matter. By simply branching out and extending Brazil's relations to other developing countries, Brazil has managed to lay the foundation for a future as a global leader within the international community in ways it has never achieved thus far while increasing its economic growth via trade agreements with non-traditional (but still completely useful) trade partners.

The narrative in the United States by and large emphasizes that Venezuela's Chavez is the only leader challenging the U.S.'s hegemony and building alliances with non-European/non-North American governments. Certainly it may seem that way - without question, Chavez is more boisterous, louder, adn more confrontational. But while he launches all his rhetoric and has his photo taken with leaders of Iran or Zimbabwe, Lula has been quietly moving around the world, talking as much with Bush (see the recent talks between Lula and Bush in the area of ethanol development) as with leaders of Africa, Latin America, and Europe, even while taking on the U.S. where it hurts Brazil's own growth (as in the case of the cotton subsidies or in Lula's current insistence that, this time, Brazil will not back down in the global trade talks in Doha) and the growth of other countries in the developing world, as the filing of the cotton-subsidies case against the U.S. on behalf of African countries demonstrates. By quietly building such relationships, downplaying bombast and quietly negotiating, Lula has spent the last five years building very fruitful international relations that will only improve over time, and while the middle-class in Brazil may hate him now, there can be no question that, in this arena, Lula has done better than any president in recent memory in helping Brazil to truly grow.