Latin America

Turn out the lights, the party’s over… and tomorrow start the same old thing again.

by Anthony Atchison on August 3, 2009

in International, Personal Liberty

Cuba has become more and more destitute since the revolution and has fallen on hard times since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a period also known as the “Special Period”. ( Efrén Córdova)

A recent Economist article entitled “Flickering lights” describes how the current economic slump has forced the Cuban government to ration electricity in a new austerity program for businesses. One cause of the Cuban budget deficit is falling price of nickel. The price of this important Cuban export has fallen from about US$23.00 in May 2007 to around US$7.15 in late June 2009 (Kitcometals.com), which in a state controlled economy means that Cuba is facing a budget shortfall. The brownouts occurring are caused directly by Cuba’s inability to pay for government programs enacted by President Raul Castro.

I had written earlier, in the blog post, ¿Can We Be Amigos?, that there will be no meaningful change in Cuba’s attitude towards the U.S. until real democratic progress is made in that country. President Obama extended the olive branch at the Summit of the Americas, and more recently the Organization of American States  voted to lift Cuba’s 47-year suspension from the regional bloc, with the U.S. requiring Democratic reform. The economist article stated that,

Fidel Castro, reiterated his country’s long-held line that it did not want to be in what it calls an imperialist grouping.

This confirms that the Castro brothers are not interested in promoting Cuba in the Latin American community, but instead their own ideology. I would like to think that the Cuban people would want to participate in the OAS meetings and discussing, making progress, and promoting causes for all of Latin America. Until the Cuban government allows its people’s voices to be heard each summer and each economic downturn they will unfortunately have these same shortages.

UnderMining Prosperity

by Richard Morrison on July 3, 2009 · 1 comment

in Environment, Natural Resources, Video, Zeitgeist

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p691OaOKUE8 285 234]

Whither Hemispheric Trade?

by Ivan Osorio on April 19, 2009

in Economy, International, Trade

In his post-Summit of the Americas remarks in Trinidad and Tobago today, President Obama stated his administration’s commitment to improving relations with countries around the hemisphere. He rightly noted how unhelpful it is when other countries’ main interaction with the U.S. is either though military or drug interdiction efforts.

However, he failed to mention an immediate policy to improve both hemispheric relations and economic growth in the region: Commitment to win ratification of pending free trade agreements between the United States and other countries in the region. To date, ratification of trade agreements with Colombia and Panama — two strong U.S. allies — remains stalled on Capitol Hill.

For more on the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement see here.

U.S. and Latin America need closer ties

by Fran Smith on December 12, 2008 · 1 comment

in International, Trade

Four former presidents of Latin American countries and the former president of Spain joined in an ardent plea for the U.S. to strengthen its ties with those countries that share the values of freedom, democracy, and economic progress. In their editorial today in the Wall Street Journal, José Maria Aznar (Spain), Vicente Fox (Mexico), Andrés Pastrana (Colombia), Julio Maria Sanguinetti (Uruguay), and Franciso Flores (El Salvador) also pointed out that “Free trade is one way to help prevent the resurgence of autocracy in the region.”

Poverty is a painful reality in many countries. Millions of people do not have access to health care or education. This is unacceptable. We strongly believe that the benefits of globalization should be available to everybody. We have found in our own countries that strengthening democratic institutions, providing good governance, and opening up our borders to trade is the best way to improve social conditions and economic welfare.

Latin America has much to gain from free trade. Successfully negotiating free-trade agreements will help bring progress and prosperity to Latin American countries, as well as around the globe.

The former leaders called on President-elect Obama to support their efforts in realizing a common dream based on democratic values and principles. That plea is especially apt when these few Latin American countries are surrounded by or adjacent to leftist governments increasingly hostile to the U.S.

Last-minute push for Colombia trade pact

by Fran Smith on November 12, 2008

in International, Trade

Major newspapers around the country including the Washington Post, the LA Times, and the Wall Street Journal are urging President-elect Barack Obama to pass the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement in the lame duck session. The Los Angeles Times said it bluntly, “It’s time to stop playing games with a trade pact whose economic and political benefits are good for both nations.”

Some reports of the meeting between the president-elect and President Bush said that the president had pushed for the trade agreement in exchange for support of the auto loan package, but that was denied.

CEI has strongly supported the passage of this agreement based on its own merits — it provides surety for continued liberalized trade for Colombia, it opens up Colombian markets to U.S. goods without high tariffs, and it helps cement the close relationship with a Latin American ally besieged by leftist neighboring governments.

Oil Prices Plunge Hits Ecuador

by Silvia Santacruz on November 4, 2008 · 4 comments

in Energy, International

Today’s Washington Times features an article on Ecuador “Economic Crisis Starts to Show up in Ecuador”, in which author John Zarocostas writes:

“The global economic crisis that began in the United States has spread to several nations in Latin America – and Ecuador, an Andean nation dependent on oil exports, is among the hardest hit.”

Ecuador, is in fact, an oil-dependent economy. Over 60 percent of its $13.7 billion in exports consist of crude oil, according to the Ecuadorian Central Bank. Oil revenues finance about 40 percent the country’s budget. And according to a J.P. Morgan study, every $10 drop in the oil price would lead to an increase in the current account deficit equivalent to 2 percent of the country’s GDP, and an increase in the fiscal deficit equivalent to 1.3 percent of GDP.

[click to continue…]

Latin America Should be on Washington’s Agenda

by Silvia Santacruz on October 9, 2008 · 2 comments

in International, Politics as Usual

Yesterday, Nelson Cunningham, one of the panelists at a Hudson Institute conference on Latin America’s “Radical Populism Challenge” commented that it is better that the presidential campaign and debates don’t even mention the region. He said that speaking of Latin America would only bring bad news: illegal immigration and drug-trafficking.

As a Latin American myself, I could not disagree more. The region is one of the United States’ most important commercial partners, with U.S. exports valued at more than $150 billion a year, almost as much as its exports to the European Union, as Inter American Dialogue President Peter Hakim notes.

A more balanced argument was delivered by Jaime Daremblum, director of Hudson’s Center for Latin American Studies, who moderated the panel, but didn’t argue with the speaker. In his article, “What Will the Election Mean for Latin America?,” he shows how the 9/11 terrorist attacks pushed Latin America to the background of the U.S. foreign policy discussion. Meanwhile, Russia is gaining ground exploring oil fields in Venezuela.

The same controversial panelist also commented that Senator Barack Obama, if he becomes President, would probably enjoy future good relationship with Latin America—because of his Indonesian background. It is not clear how his Indonesian experience can increase his interest in a region he didn’t consider visiting during his international campaign.

[click to continue…]

Neither carrots nor sticks II

by Ivan Osorio on October 6, 2008

in International

Further to my earlier post on Latin America, The Wall Street Journal‘s Mary O’Grady points to a good way for the U.S. to deal with loudmouth thugs like Hugo Chavez:

Hugo Chávez provoked nary a peep from the Bush administration when he recently welcomed Russian fighter jets to an air base in the state of Aragua. For a man desperate to prove his importance, nothing could have been more insulting than the yawn in Washington when the Russians touched down in Venezuela.

Indeed, which makes the American politicians who choose to pal around with Chavez’s lackeys all the more pathetic.

Neither carrots nor sticks

by Ivan Osorio on October 6, 2008 · 1 comment

in International

Few things are as exasperating as watching two sides argue — and neither rise above being half-right, at best. Still, the resulting exchange in this case is thought-provoking.

Today, the left-liberal Center for American Progress responded to a Washington Post editorial calling for a tougher stance on the part of Washington against Latin American autocrats like Hugo Chavez and his cronies in Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Ecuador. While the Post editorial is right on more counts than is the CAP piece, they both seem to buy into the notion that the internal policies of Latin American countries are any of American policy makers’ business.

Yes, the United States wields enormous influence in the region as the biggest economic and political player, but the biggest contributions it can make to the well-being of Latin America  countries are — and should be — limited to maintaining open trade and immigration policies (I know, easier said and done) and changing America’s Sisyphean drug policy.

CAP author Stephanie Miller rightly mentions “drug consumption” in the U.S. as an important factor affecting Latin America, but she fails to develop even this important point. Moreover, she doesn’t even identify it properly — it is drug prohibition that is driving Latin America’s rising crime wave. No amount of drug laws can ever kill off demand itself. Moreover, drug prohibition is causing great damage in Latin America, but the enormous damage it is already causing in the U.S. is enough reason to change policy, independently of any foreign policy implications.

Regarding the Post editorial, it rightly emphasizes the importance of trade. However it seems to imply that trade preferences for countries with hostile regimes somehow constitute “subsidies,” even though trade preferences usually entail the removal of trade barriers (however selectively).

Meanwhile, CAP’s Miller argues that, “Trade is important, but it is clearly not the magic bullet that promoters of the Washington consensus of the 1990s believed it would be.” Magic bullet? This is clearly a straw man. It’s a big jump to go from saying that trade is crucial — which it is — to it being a panacea to societies’ ills — which it is clearly not. Many development factors are necessary; none are sufficient on their own.

Finally, regarding what American policy should be, both the Post and CAP argue for interventions of different sorts. Miller argues that, “the United States must very proactively engage with civil societies in all of these countries at the grassroots level.” The Post contends that, “Sooner or later [Latin Americans] must be forced to choose between Mr. Chávez’s half-baked socialism and the democracy of the 21st century.”

What about just stepping back and let Latin American countries solve their own problems — and deal with the consequences of their own decisions? Contra Miller, development in foreign countries is not something the American government is well suited to promote. And contra the Post, the U.S. cannot save people in other countries from themselves, no matter how bad their choices.