Week in Review: The Economy, Chavez, Mexico, Immigration and the Shining Path

According to our news networks, last week's story was all about the controversy surrounding the AIG bonuses. This is a serious scandal and a compelling story. However, there are many other important stories that have been paid less attention to in this country. Here is my take on some of the most important ones affecting Latin America that were showcased last week.

Muddled Forecast: The IMF Predicts Global Recession, Followed By Growth

This week, the IMF predicted a global recession for the first time in sixty years, or, in other words, for the first time since it came into existence. According to the international lending institution, global economic output will decrease by between 0.5% and 1% this year. This recession will be led by developed countries, who according to the IMF will experience a "deep recession," with US Gross Domestic Product falling 2.6%, Japan's GDP falling 5.8% and the EU's GDP falling 3.2%. The US and Japan will face significant deflationary pressures. Meanwhile, Latin America will not escape the downturn, although its losses will be less than in developed nations. Mexico's economy is expected to enter into recession, while Brazil's will decelarate substantially (though maintaining positive growth). According to the IMF, coordinated global policies to address financial and other aspects of the crisis should be adopted as soon as possible to prevent further contraction. Clearly, the G-20 will have its work cut out for it when it meets next month.

Venezuela: Chavez Represses the Opposition and Militarizes the Ports, as the Recession arrives

As has been his custom following election victories, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is once again making headlines for executing reprisals and repressive acts against the opposition to his government. Just last Sunday, on his weekly Alo Presidente talk show, Chavez ordered the military to take over seaports and airports in the states of Zulia, Carabobo, and Nueva Esparta, all run by opposition governors. Today, a prosecutor ordered the detention of Chavez's opponent in the 2006 elections, Mayor Manuel Rosales of Maracaibo, for alleged illicit enrichment. What is amazing is that the order to arrest Rosales takes place at the same time as the Venezuelan government quickly intervenes in disgraced Stanford Bank, in which Venezuelan government officials apparently held millions of dollars. Meanwhile, the government's intervention in the ports was featured by Brazil's Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper as a concrete sign of the Venezuelan government's escalating authoritarianism. Meanwhile, the criminal prosecution of Mayor Rosales falls right into a clear strategy of persecution that the Chavez government has taken with its opponents. In the past, popular opposition mayors from Caracas, including Leopoldo Lopez and Henrique Capriles Radonski, have been prevented from running for office and charged with similar offenses as Rosales, as was former Governor Enrique Mendoza, who led the opposition's unsuccessful effort to unseat Chavez by popular referendum in 2004.

After 10 years of Chavismo in Venezuela, few governments or media outlets are surprised by this dictatorial conduct from the Chavez government. What is absurd is how few Latin American governments criticize these overtly anti-democratic acts. Criminal prosecutions of political opponents is a tactic used by authoritarian leaders across the globe. They are stringently condemned as persecution by all of the major international human rights organizations. Given Chavez's history of prosecuting and imprisoning political opponents, the world and the hemisphere's governments should have been on notice about this latest prosecution of Mr. Rosales. Moreover, as he frequently does, Chavez gave away his plans for Mr. Rosales during last year's municipal elections, calling him a "thief" and a "mafioso" and saying that he would throw him in jail. Meanwhile, Chavez's order that the military occupy state ports is a clear provocation that will lead to protests and likely violence among Venezuela's people. Chavez's rationale for taking over the ports is that "they are controlled by mafias and drug traffickers." What I can't get my head around is how it is that only the opposition states' ports are controlled by these groups and how it is that these groups have taken control in less than 6 months since the opposition governors won in those states in the municipal elections. This is just a power grab, an act of repression against the opposition, and a military action against his own people. The governments of Latin America and the United States should protest these anti-democratic actions by the hemisphere's longest-serving head of state, a man who in February, pushed through a referendum allowing him to run for president for life. Clearly, this man is not interested in democracy, and is interested in attacking all of those who legitimately challenge his authority in a democratic fashion.

However, in criticizing the Venezuelan government, the Obama Administration in particular must be mindful of Chavez's true intentions in creating this political show. I believe Chavez is interested in effectively distracting both international and domestic attention from the deteriorating economic situation inside Venezuela. The fact is that with oil prices plummeting, Venezuela has begun to feel the real effects of the global recession. Chavez himself acknowledges this. His government has already begun to delay payments to international oil companies drilling in Venezuela as well as to the Brazilian company expanding Caracas' metro system. On Saturday, March 21, Chavez announced a series of economic measures limiting budget expenditures. This is the news that Chavez would like to hide from the world, and from his own countrymen. As a smart and machiavellian politician, he knows that authoritarian actions like taking over the ports and repression of the political opposition always create the polarized dynamic in which his leadership thrives. By contrast, economic downturn is not Chavez's specialty. In fact, in times of economic stagnation or downturn over the last 10 years, Chavez's popularity has fallen to around 30% (as it did in 2003 when the opposition successfully collected enough signatures for a recall referendum). It isn't surprising that he wants to clamp down on political freedom and draw attention to other matters rather than the economy, which is not his strong suit.

Obama Increases Focus on Mexico and the Immigration Debate

In my last posting, I discussed the very serious and very violent drug war currently afflicting Mexico, particularly on the US-Mexican border. I indicated that this challenge could be President Obama's first "foreign policy surprise" and that it had the potential to become a major crisis. Clearly, the administration considers Mexico's problems just as grave as I do, as this week, President Obama announced, before the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, that he would now visit Mexico and meet with President Felipe Calderon on April 16-17, just before the Americas Summit in Trinidad & Tobago. Obama has continuously praised President Calderon's fight against drug traffickers in Mexico. In Mexico, Obama will discuss both how the United States can help Mexico in its fight against the traffickers as well as the issue of immigration. Obama also promised the Congressional Hispanic Caucus that he would bring up the issue of comprehensive immigration reform with Congress before the end of the year. I personally am very encouraged by both of these moves. A focus on Mexico right now from our government is essential to reducing the violence in that country and stopping it from spreading further to our country. The violence has already begun to affect crime in some US major cities as well as in border states. According to the U.S. Justice Department, Mexican drug cartels have infiltrated at least 230 American cities. Criminality has spiked in some cities because of the cartels' presence. For example, according to the New York Times, in Tucson, Arizona, more than 3/4 of the over 200 home invasion robberies that occurred over the past year were tied to the cartels.

At the same time, the Obama Administration should prevent this issue from allowing the anti-immigration forces in this country to destroy any chance this country has for comprehensive immigration reform. Against the backdrop of our current economic downturn, this issue already faces substantial opposition from xenophobic and right-wing forces inside and outside of the government. It will take President Obama's powerful political capital to push it through to debate and eventual passage. I should also disclose my own personal interest in comprehensive immigration reform as an immigration attorney. However, as an immigration lawyer, I can also tell you that behind the polarized debate on the virtues of immigration, the legal implications of reform are essential. At this time, the delays and roadblocks inherent to our immigration system rewards illegality. Skilled professionals, business owners, and entrepreneurs who provide a significant benefit to our nation's economy have an very difficult time obtaining residency, while there are few or no avenues available at all to most unskilled workers, skilled workers, and professionals without a master's degree or substantial work experience. Thousands of would-be immigrants are leaving our shores in droves at this time due to the deadly combination of the economic crisis, the housing crisis and oppressive immigration enforcement that targets people rather than employers. We desperately need legislation to give these productive and contributing individuals the ability to remain in this country and contribute to our economic recovery.

Peru: The Shining Path rises again

A disturbing story about Peru was published in the New York Times last week that escaped most news reports. According to the March 17 article, the Shining Path, the Maoist guerrilla army that killed tens of thousands in its 20 year war on the Peruvian state, is re-emerging in the mountain jungles of southern Peru. Funding itself almost exclusively on the cocaine trade, the Shining Path seems to be recasting itself in the model of Colombia's 45 year old FARC guerrilla army. According to the Times, though the guerrilla asserts that they are as radical and Maoist as ever, they are now primarily "in the business of protecting drug smugglers, extorting taxes from farmers and operating its own cocaine laboratories." Apparently, they have also learned from the mistakes that led the organization to near extinction in the 1990's. Rather than terrorizing and massacring villagers into submission, it appears that the Shining Path is now taking a "paternalistic approach," much like the FARC did in Colombia. In other words, the guerrillas are providing "security" and jobs in the drug trade to poor Peruvians in exchange for loyalty. The villagers in the jungle region where the Shining Path operates now call the guerrillas "los tios," or the uncles.

The resurgence of the most brutal guerrilla army in Latin American history should concern not just Peru but its neighbors as well as the United States. That the Shining Path could pick up its feet with the help of cocaine after its crushing defeat in the nineties is clear evidence of the utter failure of the "War on Drugs." Hopefully, Washington, under the Obama Administration, is waking up to this reality, being presented to it most forcefully in today's Mexico. If we don't do something about the demand for drugs in this country and stop the arms trade which is fueling these wars in Latin America, we will continue this vicious cycle of drugs feeding violence which feeds political and economic instability. To stop this, we have to say a strong NO to those political forces that have supported our more than 20 year "War on Drugs" while also fervently supporting the 2nd Amendment and opposing any restriction on the sale or trade of arms. Ironically, these same forces often oppose a more liberal immigration policy, which is necessary in part because of their support for a failed war and an immoral policy on arms. Hopefully, the Obama Administration can lead the way in changing these policies that have so hurt both Latin America and the United States.

An Eventful Weekend for US - Latin American Relations

Since President Obama's inauguration, there hasn't been a bigger weekend for the emerging relationship between his government and the governments of Latin America. Friday saw the swearing in of Obama's first and only Latino cabinet member thus far, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis. Her swearing in was overshadowed by conditions on the Mexican border, which are deteriorating rapidly, at least according to news reports. Mexico's increasingly violent and escalating war against the drug cartels may soon become President Obama's first foreign policy "surprise" and most severe foreign policy crisis after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On Saturday, President Obama held his first meeting with a Latin American head of state since his inauguration. By meeting with President Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva of Brazil so soon after his inauguration, Obama provided hints that a new era of US - Latin American relations may be dawning, and that this dawn begins with a stronger partnership between the US and Brazil. The American media didn't seem to appreciate the significance of this meeting. Perhaps they were too busy listening to Republican critics of the President's stimulus package, or maybe they were too focused on the high-profile custody battle of Brazilian-American Sean Goldman, which reminds them and all of us too much of the Elian Gonzalez saga. However, the Brazilian media and the White House certainly noticed the importance of this first meeting between Obama and Lula. Sunday, exit polls from El Salvador's presidential election appeared to indicate that the first candidate in Latin America to overtly connect himself to Obama and his message of change had been elected president. Perhaps this is why the authoritarian and attention-desperate president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, decided to herald in the last bit of Latin American news for the weekend by ordering blockades of ports and airports in states controlled by opposition governors.

Mexico's Ugly and Chaotic Drug War and Its Growing Impact on the US

The weekend began with the disturbing news that Mexican President Felipe Calderon has decided to send 5,000 Mexican army troops to the US - Mexico border to continue fighting the drug cartels that have been controlling and terrorizing cities and states along the border over the past year. The Obama Administration offered military aid to the Calderon government, and several generals, including Admiral Mullen, one of the high commanders in Iraq, have expressed grave concern about the security situation and its impact on the United States.

The facts are scary. The cartels have turned the already dangerous border cities of Ciudad Juarez and Tijuana into war zones where victims of the violence turn up in pieces. The Drug War, as it is being billed, killed thousands last year and has already killed significant numbers this year. Not only that, Mexico's drug cartels have an extensive presence in over 200 cities in the United States and are the most serious organized crime threat in this country. This means that the violence will almost certainly spill over to this country. In some fashion, it already has, as horrible crimes in Atlanta, Chicago and Miami have already been tied to the drug cartels.

Over the past couple of weeks, as thousands of American college students prepared to take their annual Spring Break vacations in Mexico, the American media, led by Fox News and CNN, have been covering the Mexican Drug War extensively. It is perhaps the only Latin American issue receiving extensive coverage in the US media, which is not surprising, given the US' media's love of covering violent episodes in Latin America and its intense pursuit of ratings. Given the historic interest of the American public in organized crime, the classic fear of our neighbors to the South, and the parallels between Mexico's violence and past violence in Latin American countries like Colombia, it is no surprise that these news stations are focusing on this story so intensely.

That being said, the Drug War in Mexico is a very serious problem that impacts the United States on a multitude of levels far more complex than threats to Spring Breakers. It also raises the issue of organized and disorganized violence to the forefront in the Latin American region. Security and violence is a problem for nearly every country in the region, and the notion that it should only be a local or national problem and that the US should only minimally be involved is nonsense. When Obama, as President-Elect, met with Mexican President Calderon in January, I'm not sure he realized that this problem would become so serious so soon. His administration needs to develop a concrete approach and fast, as this problem is a direct threat to our national security not only on our border, but within it as well. Not only that, it has the potential to polarize and radicalize our debates on immigration and foreign policy. It may even substantially affect the economic recovery, at least for those states on the border or with extensive trade with Mexico.

A major problem in fighting the Drug War thus far has been the extensive financial resources that the cartels possess. According to Forbes Magazine, the most wanted man in Mexico, Joaquin "Shorty" Guzman, made the list of World Billionaires with more than $1 billion in the bank. This at a time when the fortunes of the world's billionaires (like Mexico's own Carlos Slim, once the world's richest man, now only third after losing $25 billion in bad investments in 2008) and governments are shrinking. With the cartels resources, they buy police officers, soldiers, military and police commanders, and government officials. They also arm themselves with the best weapons the United States can provide. It is an outrage that more than 90% of the arms possessed by these cartels come from our country.

The US should rapidly develop a policy to freeze as many of the cartels' assets as they can and to stop the purchase of arms by these cartels in the United States and the shipment of arms to the cartels' representatives in Mexico. I would also recommend that our government undertake a full review of its drug policy, which clearly hasn't worked since Ronald Reagan's declaration of the "War on Drugs" in the 1980's. We have managed to push the drug dealers ever so closer to the United States, from Peru to Colombia to Mexico, while our demand has not diminished sufficiently to reduce the money supply of this transnational illicit industry. Finally, Obama cannot forget his promise to millions of Americans that he would do something positive about our broken immigration system, which, through its inefficiencies and blockades, punishes or throws up serious barriers to those who are already "law-abiding citizens" living here and those who wish to legally immigrate to the United States. Obama has to use his voice as the President to ensure that this security situation does not engender further xenophobia and attacks against hardworking Latino immigrants who merely seek a way to remain in this country legally and help it grow and prosper.

The Lula-Obama Summit

From negative and disturbing news, I want to turn to positive developments that have not received nearly as much attention as they deserve from the US media. On Saturday, Brazil's President Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva became the third foreign leader to visit President Obama since his inauguration. As Obama has only taken a trip to neighboring Canada, Lula is the fourth foreign leader to meet Obama. It is extremely significant that both Lula and Obama took the appropriate steps to make this meeting happen so soon. As I have said since beginning this blog, I strongly believe that Brazil can be one of America's strongest political, economic, and social allies in Latin America, and that President Obama has the ability to make this happen. Lula's decision to visit Obama so soon after the inauguration and Obama's desire to receive him first were clear first steps towards creating a "special relationship." As U.S. diplomat Thomas Shannon made clear, the meeting reflected "Brazil's ascendency in the world" both economically and politically. Lula's willingness to meet Obama so soon also demonstrates the new president's popularity in Latin America vis-a-vis his extremely unpopular predecessor, George W. Bush.

If this were not enough, from their meeting, it seems that the two presidents got along marvelously. According to Folha de Sao Paulo, one of Brazil's premier newspapers, it appears, in fact, that Obama got along better with Lula than with any of the other foreign leaders with whom he has met with thus far. On the White House website, Obama called the summit a "wonderful meeting of the minds," while Lula declared that "Obama has a historic opportunity to improve relations with Latin America and Africa." On Saturday, the presidents held a joint press conference to discuss economic and energy issues with the Brazilian and American press. The two men expressed real respect for one another's countries and work, with Obama calling himself ""a great admirer of the progressive, forward-looking leadership that President Lula has shown" and Lula saying that he prays for Obama's success more than his own. In fact, I'm not sure that I have ever seen an American president express admiration for a Latin American country's policies the way Obama did yesterday. Obama said that the United States has a lot to learn from Brazil in clean energy development, and should follow a similar path. In the past, U.S. presidents lectured Latin American leaders, who generally either took their lead or fervently criticized the U.S. The fact that Obama has taken a similar tone of admiration and respect in his conversations with Mexican President Felipe Calderon shows that this is not conduct reserved for Brazil. Instead, Obama seeks a true paradigm shift in US - Latin American relations. It is a wonder that the US press has not taken more notice.

Substantively and as equal partners, Lula and Obama discussed the economy, the upcoming G-20 summit in London, energy policy, climate change, trade policy and regional foreign policy. On the economy, the presidents pledged that their countries would be partners in seeking to increase the flow of credit, and would work together and with other nations at the G-20 summit. On energy, Obama expressed clear admiration for Brazil's 30 year strategy to develop biofuels, though he did not commit to reducing tariffs on these just yet. He did indicate, however, that he would like to resolve this tension in the bilateral trade relationship. The biggest disagreements emerged on trade policy, where Brazil has been a strong critic of the "Buy American" provision inserted in the US $787 billion economic stimulus package. Personally, I think Lula made a very effective criticism of this as clear protectionism by the US, though I do understand why it is popular politics in these times of severe recession. With regards to US foreign policy towards Latin America, President Lula billed himself as a bridge between the US and governments in the region like those of Hugo Chavez (Venezuela) and Evo Morales (Bolivia) who have expressed clear anti-US sentiments over the past few years. I was pleased to see that President Obama emphasized that the US will now treat all countries in Latin America with "respect." In fact, President Obama's respectful tone surely disarms belligerent and aggressive leaders like Chavez, who will have much more trouble insulting a clearly respectful US president seeking engagement with the region than they did in attacking a polarizing figure like Bush. I believe that Obama's tone and developing relationship with Lula does much more to diminish Chavez's influence in the region than any of Bush's aggressive words ever did. The more Chavez (or Morales) criticize a popular and respectful Obama, the more these leaders are likely to seem even more belligerent and dangerous to their neighbors than they already are.

Meanwhile, the one issue that the American media has taken up as its cause celebre in Brazilian-American relations is one that, while popular with the citizenry of TV viewers, is really a distraction from the real policy matters at hand. The sad and thorny custody battle over Brazilian-American Sean Goldman was covered by Dateline and Larry King Live over the past week. This case reminds many Americans of Elian Gonzalez, except that now, the US is on the other side of the fence. The biological father of the child, David Goldman, seeks custody of his son as the Brazilian mother died six months ago. He is being fought by the Brazilian step-father, Joao Paulo Lins e Silva, who claims custody based on raising the boy over the past four years. Sean Goldman arrived in Brazil to stay with his mother when she took a trip to Brazil four and a half years ago and refused to return to the US, seeking a divorce from her American husband in Brazilian court. Mr. Goldman accused his wife of abducting the child, suing her and her family in a New Jersey court for violation of the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. However, a Brazilian court turned over custody to the mother, and the case remained in limbo until the mother died six months ago in childbirth. Now, the battle is between Sean Goldman's Brazilian stepfather, who has been granted parental rights by Rio de Janeiro state court, and Mr. Goldman, who claims his right to Sean's custody as the biological father and under the Hague Convention.

You don't have to be married to a Brazilian, as I am, or interested in international law to see why this case has sparked the passions of so many, including US congressmen, the media, and our own Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. However, it would be a tragedy if either the US or Brazil let this case, or the issue behind it, stymie the many positive developments that are currently emerging in US-Brazilian relations. President Obama apparently raised the matter privately with President Lula, who said that it was a matter for the justice system, but that it was now in federal court. I think Obama and Lula are thus far handling this marvelously, as Obama said he was encouraged to see that the matter was being handled in federal court but that it should not hamper the major issues at hand in the relationship. It's too bad that the American media doesn't pay more attention to these other issues, which though less instantaneously "sellable," are clearly more important for our nation's welfare.

El Salvador's Presidential Elections

On Sunday, El Salvador held presidential elections and it appears that the leftist FMLN party has won for the first time in history. Late Sunday night, the FMLN candidate, Mauricio Funes, declared victory after 90% of the votes showed him to be the winner by 51.2% to 48.7%. While many analysts will declare Funes' victory to be a continuation of the leftward trend that has dominated Latin America over the past decade, I believe that it is more complex than this. In fact, Funes won by distancing himself from Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and his "21st century socialism" and by tying himself to both Brazil's President Lula and our President, Barack Obama. He is the first candidate in Latin America to use images of Obama in campaign ads, even appropriating his "Yes We Can" slogan, a move which received protests from the US State Department. Funes' connection with these two moderate and popular leaders and his subsequent victory, particularly in the context of the country's last elections, shows that the schism in regional politics is now not between the right and the left, but between the moderate, or pragmatic, left and the radical, authoritarian left. The former has clearly embraced Obama as "one of us" while the radical left is still determining how to react to the victory of a charismatic, black, and child of immigrant candidate in the United States.

Once a violent guerrilla organization overtly opposed by U.S. military force in the 1980's, the FMLN has become the major left wing party in El Salvador since the 1993 peace accords which ended the country's civil war. Until the last election, their platform was pretty much hardline unreformed socialism/communism and their closest ally was Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Fidel Castro. This may be about to change with the election of Mauricio Funes. A former radio host known as a moderate in the country, Funes won his election in part by running commercials with images of President Obama on the campaign trail and connecting his message with that of "Yes We Can!." When asked which Latin American president he identified with the most, Funes mentioned Lula da Silva rather than Chavez. Interestingly, Funes is married to a Brazilian Workers' Party politician. He is the first moderate candidate that the FMLN has run, and this is probably why they have won the presidency today. Despite the constant attempts by the ARENA (right wing) party to paint Funes as a friend and ally of Chavez, the FMLN has succeeded in convincing the Salvadoran people to trust it in governing by using the imagery of Barack Obama and Lula da Silva.

For some analysts, Funes' election demonstrates the continued strength of the Left in Latin America. This is certainly true. However, as I said before, the real schism now is what kind of left, radical or moderate. Clearly, this is a victory for the moderate left and a setback for both the right and the radical left. His victory showcases another trend as well, namely the renewed popularity of the US in the region in the form of President Obama. ]In El Salvador's last election, painting the FMLN candidate as a Chavez ally worked marvelously for ARENA and current President Tony Saca. Moreover, the last FMLN presidential candidate made every effort to tie himself to Chavez, which is probably why he only won 35% of the vote. Yesterday, as a candidate on the left tying himself to Barack Obama, not Hugo Chavez, Mauricio Funes became El Salvador's president. Moreover, ARENA nearly won the election by attempting to tie Funes to Hugo Chavez. What a change this is in the perception among Latin America's populous of the United States government under our new president. While Chavez clearly (and unfortunately) remains popular in Venezuela, as evidenced by his referendum win last month, in the Latin American region, his popularity is likely trumped by the new U.S. president.

Greetings After A Long Hiatus!

Hello everybody,

First of all, I'm sorry to have left you all hanging after starting up this blog back in November. As may be true with many of your lives, my life has taken quite a few turns over the past few months. From New York, I have relocated to South Florida, where I will now be practicing personal injury law, immigration law, and civil litigation with the firm of Gonzalez, Porcher, Albear & Garcia, of West Palm Beach. Our firm caters extensively to South Florida's Latin American community through our program of Abogados Hispanos USA, in which we offer personalized, multilingual attention and representation in diverse fields of law. I hope you will visit our website at http://www.palmbeachinjurylawyers.com to learn more about our firm.

Due to confidentiality and other ethical requirements, that is probably all that I will be discussing as to our firm on this blog. Other than, of course, to explain my absence over the past few months. Unfortunately, it's nothing that exciting like a trip to a faraway land or an engrossing case. Nope, instead, because each state in the U.S. has its own bar and bar exam requirement, I was studying for the Florida Bar, which I took at the end of February. It's an experience I went through once already in New York, and let me tell you, it is no picnic. It does give you a wealth of useful information, though, unlike many other exams, so I will be peppering my new posts with some recently regained legal knowledge.

A little more than six weeks have passed since President Obama's inauguration and predictably, the economy dominates his domestic agenda. Because of our serious and ongoing economic downturn, the President has been unable to take many foreign trips, and has yet to visit a Latin American country. In March, he will receive his first visit from a Latin American head of state, from President Lula of Brazil. Many of the same issues that I discussed regarding Brazil in my November posting about the country remain front and center. I still continue to strongly believe that it is in the interest of both the United States and Brazil to cooperate closely in the economic negotiations that will take place at the G-20 next month. The surprise issue in the first Obama-Lula meeting, however, is an ugly custody battle that brings up memories of the Elian Gonzalez controversy between the U.S. and Cuba. I will address the David Goldman case in my posting on Brazil in the next couple of weeks.

Perhaps the most alarming and significant change in the relationship between the US and Latin America that has emerged since I last wrote has been the escalating Drug War in Mexico. The horrible violence in our neighbor to the south and its multiple effects on the US have become a major topic of the cable news networks in the past couple of weeks. To those of us who have studied Latin America over the past 10 years, such violence is not surprising and not new. Mexico today resembles Colombia of the early 1990's and Peru of the early 1980's, and could be the future for other nations in the region where drug cartels are embedded and hold significant political and armed power. Organized and unorganized violence is one of the region's most severe, most persistent and most widespread problems. It is intricately tied to so many issues affecting the region, including poverty, skewed income distribution, corruption, the privatization of security and the economic force of the informal sector. What is more disturbing to the US about the drug war in Mexico is the significant impact that it will have on this country on multiple levels far and beyond the effect of Colombia's drug war. Both the escalating violence and its negative impact on Mexico's economy will most certainly fuel increased migration northward. This has the potential to skew an already thorny, polarized and discriminatory debate on immigration policy and law. Not only that, the violence of the drug cartels has already risen its ugly head in this country. As Anderson Cooper said tonight on his CNN program, the Mexican drug cartels operate in over 200 American cities, and are already the most serious organized crime threat to this country. People have been brutally assassinated by these cartels not just in Mexico but in cities like Atlanta, Chicago and Miami. Not only that, over 90% of the arms possessed by these cartels and used to brutally murder their victims were bought in the United States. This is clearly a problem for both nations, and I would argue, for the Americas as a whole. The Obama Administration is still developing a policy to deal with this new challenge. The response must be multifaceted, in the tradition of his approach so far, because it really is a complex situation involving many areas. I hope the Administration acts forcefully to counter this new challenge, and it truly is a serious crisis, but also, like the other crises it faces, an opportunity to change the face of U.S. - Mexican and U.S. - Latin American relations. I plan to write much more about this problem in the weeks and months to come.

And of course, I couldn't finish this reintroduction to my blog without talking about the developments in Venezuela last month. A trend was reversed in that all-important political country when President Hugo Chavez won his arguably illegal referendum to continue to run for office for life. Basically, when President Chavez lost the referendum back in December 2007, his response was to shove it down the throats of Venezuelans again with the hopes that his political machine and fear could turn the tide in his favor. As Chavez has always done, he did what he, in his "infinite wisdom," thought was best for his people, rather than governing in a democratic fashion prioritizing the demands of his people. He succeeded and Venezuela and the region lost, in my opinion. What this means is that Chavez will continue to be a political force in Latin America for years to come. The Obama Administration, focused at home, has yet to develop a clear policy on Venezuela. It is interesting and encouraging that they are not taking the same useless confrontational approach that the Bush Administration took. However, they should note the impact of this victory and the challenge that Chavez will continuously pose to US leadership and to democracy in the region. I hope to continue to write about Venezuela in the weeks to come.

Again, welcome back to my blog and I hope you enjoy this and my future postings!

Last Week's Events: Elections and More Conferences continue to emphasize Latin America's importance

Hello again after a week's absence. I've been quite busy recently and have not had the chance to dedicate the time to this blog that it deserves. But hopefully I will be able to catch up with you all this week.

We had quite a week in the United States and Latin America. In the United States, the economic and financial crisis got worse, as the Big 3 automakers went to Capitol Hill to ask for a bailout for the auto industry and the stock market crashed to its lowest level in 6 years. Today it appears that Citigroup, once the world's largest financial institution and largest financial employer, will receive a $20 billion bailout from the government. The company's stock has dropped 87% in the last year and today, it is in serious danger of failing. The pressure is clearly mounting on President-Elect Obama to take action on the economy, despite the fact he is not President yet. As Bush showed no leadership on the economy last week and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's strategy of bailouts is increasingly under fire, it is no wonder that the country is looking to Obama for direction.

A Tale of Two Conferences

Since I wrote on the G-20 Conference, there have been two others that showcase Latin America's pivotal importance to the global economy and to the issues of the future like energy independence and climate change. First, California Governor Arnold Schwarrzneggar hosted the very impressive Governor's Global Climate Summit last Tuesday and Wednesday. President-Elect Obama addressed the conference by video and announced that the U.S. will embrace and lead the international fight against climate change. Obama promised that all those who seek to reduce carbon emissions and create alternative energy sources in this country and the world will have the White House and the United States as a strong ally. It was inspiring to hear these words from our President-Elect. Watching the dedication of other national leaders like Governor Schwarzneggar to this cause and the participation of the international community was also very encouraging. This represents a radical change from the antiquated, backwards policies on the issue of our current administration. To those who may be criticizing our President-Elect for some of his cabinet choices this week, I believe this is clear evidence that Obama is already working to fulfill his promise of change to our country.

The reason I mentioned this Conference on the Blog though is it included speeches and panel participation by representatives of the governments of Brazil, Mexico and Chile. These important Latin American nations played a pivotal role among the 19 countries that participated in the Conference, and showed that they seek a leadership role in this international campaign.

The other Conference that drew everyone's attention last week was this weekend's Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum in Lima, Peru. The APEC is quickly becoming a forum that showcases increasing economic cooperation among emerging economies, on the one hand, and increasing competition between the United States on one side and China and Russia on the other. In this environment, Latin America's diversifying Pacific Rim economies, Peru, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico, are increasingly playing a major role. The story for the last couple of years at this Forum has been closer relations between China and these countries. Once a basket case of economic development, Peru's economy has grown remarkably in recent years and is withstanding the global credit crunch better than its neighbors. It and other Pacific Rim South American nations are creating strong economic ties to China, Russia and other Asian nations. In this APEC conference, the members showed an increased willingness to create free trade links between them and also serve as a forum for the solution to the world's economic troubles. The Lima Declaration, presented by APEC members at the Conference's end, mirrored the Washington Declaration of the G-20 Conference and committed the APEC as a forum for resolving the crisis.

I think what the incoming Obama Administration can learn from Latin American protagonism in these global conferences is that creating a new relationship with these countries can have an impact not only on how the U.S. is viewed in the region but also its image around the world. It can also see how much our relationship has already changed with these countries over the last eight years. In both the APEC and Climate Summits, the efforts of Latin American governments to act on the international stage in support of their positions on crucial issues is clear. These governments are not looking for the world's traditional powers to lead the way anymore. They have used the past eight years and its wrongheaded policies to move away from the United States and towards China, Russia and Asia economically. This should not worry us so much as it should challenge us to rise to the moment. Our country has many reasons to have deep and lasting economic and political ties to these countries, not least of which is our significant Latino population. The way to strengthen these ties, I believe, is not just to focus on trade policy and political disagreements, but rather to emphasize our ability to engage and cooperate with Latin America on a whole host of issues. We should also place Latinos in positions of power in government where they can lead our policy towards the region.

Elections on the Left of Latin America

Meanwhile, in Latin America, two left-leaning countries (Venezuela and Nicaragua) held state and municipal elections which indirectly measured the popularity of their leaders while the country's major economies participated in two global conferences, one on climate change and the other on economic cooperation. Research studies confirmed the rising economic and political power of Brazil on the world stage and illustrated that the full force of the global financial and economic crisis is beginning to envelop the region, particularly Brazil, Mexico and Central America. All of this foreshadows shifts in the political dynamic in the region in the short and long term.

Yesterday's gubernatorial and mayoral elections in Venezuela represented increased power for the political opposition, though continued dominance of the country's left-wing president, Hugo Chavez. The preliminary results released by Venezuela's National Electoral Council indicate that President Chavez's party won 17 of 22 governorships, yet suffered significant defeats to his political opposition in the country's major population centers. The opposition to Chavez won governorships in five of Venezuela's most populous states (Zulia, Miranda, Carabobo, Tachira, Nueva Esparta) and the country's capital, Caracas. Opposition figures also won all of the mayoral races in Caracas. As according to the election authorities, Chavez's party won the popular vote (52.4% to 41.4%), the elections demonstrated that Chavez, despite his authoritarian tactics, erosion of human rights, and ties to Colombian guerrillas, remains his country's most popular and powerful figure. However, the country is clearly divided between urban and rural voters, and cracks are appearing in Chavez's cocoon of absolute legislative, executive and judicial power. The victories of leading opposition figures in these gubernatorial and mayoral races represents the consolidation of a trend towards more plurality that began in Chavez's loss in a 2006 referendum that would have granted him the presidency for life and other trappings of absolute power. Today, voters in Venezuela are increasingly concerned with high inflation, an impending economic downturn, and the continuing spiral of violent crime. The increased visability of opposition leaders, combined with dramatically low oil prices and a severe economic crisis projected to hit Venezuela as a result in 2009, will likely augment the level of political and social conflict in the country. However, as I said, Chavez remains the single most powerful figure in Venezuela and has thus far retained popularity among rural and poor voters, which means that his influence will continue to be felt across Latin America.

Meanwhile, the aftermath of Nicaragua's mayoral elections, held on November 9th, has been fraught with violence after accusations of fraud in the mayor's race in Managua (the capital) and other cities led to protests and confrontations between pro-government and opposition protestors. The Sandinista government of Daniel Ortega has been accused of helping to rig the vote in the elections in favor of Sandinista candidates, and its response to the protests has been to counter them with fervent and violent counterprotests. President Ortega has been strongly criticized internationally for limiting access of outside election observers and ordering underlings to tamper with ballots. Former members of his own movement now decry the authoritarian and personalistic character that his government has adopted in recent months.

Despite Nicaragua's small size and relative economic weakness, it is a symbolic country politically because of its history of revolution and tense relationship with the United States. Its struggle today is also symbolic of the polarization that exists in much of the region around populist, left-wing presidents who have been democratically-elected yet who have exercised power in an autocratic and controversial fashion. These leaders have both high approval and disapproval ratings. They have also enjoyed tense relations with the United States under the Bush Administration. Populist, left-wing leaders have come to power in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua. While except for Venezuela, these countries do not represent the most economically powerful nations in Latin America, the political influence of these leaders, when taken together, is substantial. Together with Cuba, they have appeared intent over the past couple of years to create an economic and political bloc positioned against the United States. However, these leaders, particularly Chavez and Morales, are waiting to see what position to take with the new administration. They are astute and understand that dealing with Obama, today the world's most popular political figure, requires a significantly different strategy than dealing with Bush, who they could lambast at will because of his worldwide unpopularity. I believe that, except for Ortega and Raul Castro, who came of age in an earlier generation of communist-capitalist conflict, these leaders will wait for Obama to act first before positioning themselves against his government.

Personally, I believe our president would be well-served in designing an intelligent policy that made it clear that the United States desires engagement and cooperation. We should make it clear that we seek to find common ground on the issues that we can work together on, such as trade, economic development, energy, climate change, and social welfare. In demonstrating our commitment to social welfare in our own country and in the region, we can diffuse much of the attacks directed against us by these leaders. Once engaged, I believe that we should not hesitate to use our bully pulpit to publically disagree with these leaders on issues of democracy, human rights, and freedom of expression. We should also express our concern with the failures of these leaders in the areas of violent crime and the drug trade, while radically changing our policy on arms exports to the region. However, we should not allow these issues to overwhelm our interest in working together.

Because of his international background, his message of change, and his worldwide popularity, President Obama will have the opportunity and ability to influence these leaders. He should do so, but should also work hard to obtain support for our positions in the region from our main allies, especially Brazil and Mexico. Going it alone has led us nowhere so many times in Latin America, and will be the surest way to destroy our new President's valuable political capital.

Issue # 1: The World Economic Crisis, President Obama, the G-20, and Latin America

After a paradigm-shifting election, a paradigm-shifting conference?

This weekend, for the first time, the Heads of State of the G-20 countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America) met in Washington to coordinate solutions to the global economic and financial crisis. Called by lame duck President Bush, the meeting was lampooned by pundits all week as doomed to irrelevance due to the lack of leadership and gridlock present. President-Elect Obama wisely declined to participate while sending representatives to observe it all. I say this is wise even though the crisis is severe and demands immediate attention, because America only has 1 president at a time and infighting between the outgoing Bush team and the incoming Obama team, which have starkly different views on many of the issues discussed, would only weaken the conference further. Moreover, this approach enables our President-Elect to remain separate from our discredited current President and continue to receive earnest goodwill and overtures of cooperation from the rest of the world. I believe it is much more crucial, regardless of how much worse the situation is in January, that President Obama continue to receive this goodwill and cooperation deep into next year, so that we can actually create a solution, and not temporary fixes, to this grave crisis.

While the Conference, as expected, has largely been devoid of agreement on a coordinated global policy response, I would argue that its symbolism has been very significant. In and of itself, the protagonism in this meeting of emerging markets such as Brazil, China and India evidences that the Bretton Woods financial and economic order created by the U.S. and Europe after World War II is obsolete. Despite his many faults and increasing irrelevance, President Bush should be applauded for recognizing this and expanding the invitation list to this global summit. We are the doorstep of a new multilateral economic order where the United States will be one of many important actors. Don't be fooled by the pundits and newspapers in this country who make light of this event. One only needs to look to the international media to see its significance for the rest of the world. For example, Folha de Sao Paulo, perhaps Brazil's most respected newspaper, spoke enthusiastically about the importance of the Conference and Brazil's leadership. According to columnist Kennedy Alencar, "this meeting in Washington was a goal scored" for the world community, and an indication that it is time for Brazil to "think big" about its influence.

Luckily, we will have a President at the helm who not only represents the best of America, but the best of the entire world. The relatively muted criticism of the U.S. from other countries about a crisis that was born here and facilitated by our government shows the incredible amount of goodwill and hope that the world has towards this man and our new government. Many of the policies espoused by the incoming Administration, such as additional economic stimulus and an overhaul of the global regulatory system, are echoed by other major powers. Clearly, President-Elect Obama and his Administration face enormous expectations and a significant challenge.

Our Future Latin American Partners

In developing a coordinated global policy response, in addition to our traditional European and Asian allies, President Obama should look for common ground with our partners in Latin America. Brazil, Mexico and Argentina are all part of the G-20, and all have reasons to support the U.S. They are all democracies that have embraced one form or another of market capitalism over the past 20 years. They all have had strong trade relationships with the United States for many years. There are obvious partnerships which can be built in this Adminstration and the years that follow with these countries on issues affecting the economy such as energy, the environment, food, poverty, trade and investment. Their wealthiest citizens and corporations have invested heavily in the United States over the past decade, and their citizens make up a substantial portion of this country's immigrant population. Most of all, they can even offer advice from their own relatively recent experiences with financial and economic crisis. This is a perspective that our European allies cannot provide. Meanwhile, neither China, India nor Russia, three other crucial players, have the same incentive to bandwagon with the United States, even under Barack Obama. It will be up to President Obama to exercise clear leadership at the next summit and convince these countries that they should join the U.S. in taking action, not because it will help us, but because we need them on board so that we can remake the world economy and benefit all of us, including them.

The Pivotal Role of Brazil

Brazil will be particularly important because of rising economic clout, its presidency of the G-20, its political leadership and clout among developing and non-aligned countries, and the popularity of its president, Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva, who this month led the Economist's public opinion poll Latinobarometer as the Latin World's "most outstanding leader." In the region, and particularly in vitally important South America, Brazil is widely viewed as a leader, conciliator and lynchpin between right-wing and left-wing leaders and countries. Under Lula's presidency, the government has worked hard to strengthen its ties and influence in South America, maintaining good relations with both Colombia's Uribe, a strong U.S. ally, and Venezuela's Chavez, a strong U.S. critic. Because of this, Brazil's position holds significant clout in Latin America, particularly when the electoral fortunes of Venezuela's ambitious president Chavez are suffering.

Meanwhile, Brazil's economy and financial markets were the Cinderella story of 2007 and much of 2008. Until October, the country seemed to be removed from the financial turmoil affecting the U.S. and much of the world, and the international community was noticing. In July, the third largest stock exchange in the world, the BM&F Bovespa, was created in Brazil, an event which was followed by the country's rise to investment grade among two of the three major ratings agencies in the world, Standard & Poor's and Moody's. It is no wonder that the downward slide currently affecting the country has its government angry at the United States for creating this crisis.

Finally, there are many opportunities for collaboration and exchange of ideas in alternative energy policy between Brazil and the U.S. Brazil is already a world leader in sugarcane ethanol production and is quickly advancing its production of other biofuels like biodiesel. The country has spent the past 30 years developing a highly advanced ethanol industry, and the United States could benefit much from their experience. Heightened cooperation on alternative energy could also have an additional benefit of establishing a new, more secure source of oil, as Brazil's reserves are among the largest in the world and the country could become almost as big of an oil producer as Venezuela in the coming years.

President Lula called the Conference a "historic day" where "the political geography of the world gained a new dimension." He said that the G-8 will become just a "club of friends." However, in the past, President Lula has placed much of the responsibility for fixing the world economic crisis on the United States and Europe, saying that they created the crisis and therefore should fix it and the effects on developing and emerging nations. It will be up to President Obama to show President Lula and other important leaders that no matter where this crisis started, the solution is one for the world community and requires their participation and leadership. Of course, President-Elect Obama, true to fashion, has already shown remarkable foresight in this relationship. In a phone call to Lula on November 11th, President-Elect Obama extended his support to Brazil's leadership of the G-20, recognized it as the proper forum to solve the global financial crisis, and indicated his willingness to discuss collaboration with Brazil on economic growth, alternative energy, and social programs. He told Lula essentially that he would support Brazilian participation in a future reform of the U.N. Security Council, and promised to visit the country at his earliest convenience.

If President Obama continues to give Brazil the attention it deserves early on, there is good reason to believe that the country will support the U.S. position in these crucial financial negotiations. First of all, Brazil and the United States share great historical, geographic and cultural similarities. As Professor Kenneth Maxwell put it in his 2005 article in The Harvard Review of Latin America,

"both the United States and Brazil are continent-sized nations. Each has a vibrant national culture. Each of their societies is composed of the descendents of large migrations with populations that are part of overlapping global diasporas. Both countries must deal with the deep-rooted heritage and lingering injustices of centuries of African slavery. Both were influenced by frontier cultures in which settlers often clashed with indigenous populations. Each created a domestic market large enough to create the illusion that they do not need to compete internationally or worry too much about international trade. Both have had an ambiguous relationship with the outside world, at times heavily involved but at other moments in their history retreating into isolationism. Both have domestic politics that are excessively local in which parochial interests prevail. Each has complex regional, federal and state interests that require conciliation."

These similarities are part of the reason that President-Elect Obama is extremely popular in Brazil. Last month, eight Brazilian candidates in municipal elections adopted his name as their own (a uniquely Brazilian practice) in an effort to increase their electability. Obama's presidential victory was celebrated across Brazil much as it was in the United States. This popularity puts pressure on Brazil's government to seek a closer relationship with the U.S.

Secondly, Brazil's financial and commercial sectors are more heavily invested in the U.S. now than they were at the beginning of the decade. These groups will push the government to support the U.S. position. Thirdly, Brazil knows that cooperation with the new Administration in this crucial first test will increase collaboration on energy and trade policy. Finally, U.S. support would bolster Brazil's chances of success in its efforts to obtain a U.N. Security Council seat and increased participation in the IMF and World Bank.

The crucial role of our closest Southern neighbor

Though not as economically significant to the world economy as Brazil, Mexico is also crucial to these global economic negotiations. The Mexican economy is intimately tied to the U.S. economy historically, through NAFTA, and through the millions of Mexican workers that have come to the United States and contributed to this economy. Obviously, the immigration issue is a crucial one in this relationship, as are the possible renegotiation of NAFTA and drug and arms control. Despite the fact that these will be controversial issues within our borders and will be challenges for the Obama Administration, we should not let them overlap our interest in having Mexico by our side in these financial negotiations. It is just as important to have Mexico by us as it is to have Brazil or Canada. After all, 90% of Mexican exports and 50% of Mexican imports come from trade with the United States and Canada. Mexico's economy is the 10th to 12th largest in the world, and exports to the United States represent around a quarter of the country's GDP. Despite this interconnection, before the current global slide, Mexico's financial markets were doing well and the country seemed resilient against the backdrop of the U.S. housing and credit crises. Like Brazil, the country has implemented unprecedented macroeconomic stability over the past 10 years, reducing the public debt and increasing the size of the private sector economy. The U.S. is heavily invested in Mexico, and in past years, Mexican private and public investors have increased their participation in the U.S. economy. Finally, Mexico's large oil and gas reserves, and its relation as the third largest oil exporter and eighth largest crude exporter to the U.S. means that it should be included in the Obama Administration's design of a new energy policy.

All of these economic linkages mean not only that it is in Mexico's interest to support the U.S. position in these negotiations, but also that Mexico's concerns are important to the United States. Recently, President-Elect Obama indicated that he would not visit Mexico in his first year in office, due to his focus on this financial crisis and probably due to the fact that he may not be able to focus on immigration, NAFTA and drugs/arms in his first year. While this may be necessary, I believe that President Obama should make sure that Mexico is included among the big players in the global financial negotiations. If he cannot go to Mexico, he would likely benefit from inviting President Calderon to the White House as soon as possible. I believe if we give Mexico the role it deserves in these global talks, it will make it all the more easier to discuss issues like immigration, NAFTA and drugs/arms. Moreover, Mexican-Americans represent the largest portion of the U.S. Latino population. Their issues therefore should be paramount for this Administration, who received so much of their support. If Obama takes meaningful action on immigration, NAFTA, drug and arms control, he will ensure a large portion of Latino support for his re-election and for the Democratic party for years to come. One strong step he can take in this direction is to make Mexico a major player in the global financial negotiations.

We should not underestimate the importance of Argentina

Argentina could be considered by many observers to be the "black sheep" of the G-20. The country continues to owe international investors billions of dollars in unpaid debt seven years after its financial collapse and has been hit hard by the current crisis. The country just nationalized its private pension fund system in an effort to stave off a new default. Under its new president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Argentina's six years of strong economic growth have vanished and the country's fortunes and politics have been tied more firmly to those of Venezuela and its anti-U.S. president, Hugo Chavez.

Because of these realities, to some, it would seem to some that Argentina is relatively irrelevant on the G-20 and that we need not seek out their support. I would argue that Argentina's economic standing is not its only value in the region. Because of Argentina's political importance in Latin America, particularly among left-wing governments, obtaining their support would gain the support of the entire region, even countries traditionally opposed to us. Because Ms. Fernandez de Kirchner has a more ambivalent relationship with the United States than Venezuela's Chavez or Bolivia's Evo Morales, there is a greater potential for collaboration on the global financial situation. As neither of these polarizing leaders are actors in the G-20, if we can convince Ms. Fernandez de Kirchner to support our position, we can indirectly encourage their support of our position or at least make them seem like marginal actors in the region.

This weekend, President Fernandez de Kirchner met with Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT), the President of the Subcommittee for the Western Hemisphere, Representative Ellio Engles, and Dan Restrepo, Obama's Principal Advisor for Latin America. According to Mr. Restrepo, who gave an interview to Argentina's Clarin newspaper after the meeting, the Obama Administration anticipates a positive relationship but "where Argentina goes will determine this relationship." I think this is a wise position, as long as we keep in mind Argentina's political influence in the rest of South America.

Latin America's Experience with Financial Crisis

Finally, one last benefit of strengthening our relationships with Latin America during this global financial crisis is the lessons that these countries and their leaders can impart to us on surviving serious financial crises. In the past, our country has not shown much willingness to learn from our southern neighbors. More often, we have been used to imparting advice and, particularly in the area of economics, dictating policy. However, the current severe crisis was engendered within our borders, and should give us all reason to pause and wonder what we can learn from the rest of the world. We hear the politicians and pundits all talk about the Great Depression. But why not also talk about more recent crises that occurred in the current system of globalization we are in. The Asian Financial Crisis is one example, but certainly not the only one. Both Mexico in 1994 and Brazil in 1998 suffered severe financial crises. Argentina, of course, suffered a historic economic collapse in 2001 whose effects continue to be felt in the country. Brazil and Mexico both bounced back from their financial messes, and created sustainable, growing economies that have lifted many out of poverty in these countries over the last 10 years. Because of the financial panics both suffered in the 1990's, both countries have solid and conservatively run banking sectors. Surely we can learn from these countries recent, successful experiences dealing with such economic calamities. It is time for our country to shed our developed world prejudices. I'm almost certain that President-Elect Obama sees it this way as well.

Upcoming Posts

I wanted to let all readers know about my upcoming posts, so you can comment on them as you wish. I have been very busy over the last few days, and in our 24 hour digital speed era, there is so much news to report on and so much I would like to write about. I decided to focus on the death of Marcello Lucero in my last posting because it struck a deep emotional chord in me just one week after Obama's victory. In my next three posts, I hope to discuss (1) the reaction of ordinary Latin Americans to Obama's victory and the multiplier effect of "yes we can" in the U.S. and Latin America, (2) the world financial crisis and one reason why Obama should forge a strong relationship with Brazil and its President, Lula, and (3) Obama, Hugo Chavez and the coming fight for Latin American public opinion and grassroots politics. These will be general posts focusing on news articles and opinions of the day. After this, I hope to begin a series of discussions on issues central to the relationship between the U.S. and Latin America, the Obama position on these issues, and recommendations. This will be followed by a series of postings on different countries in the region discussing the specific issues in our bilateral relationship, Obama's position, and Obama's potential relationship with that country and its leader. Of course, in this lightning speed world, I may interrupt this sequence to comment on events of the day. But my goal will be to discuss all of these issues and countries before Obama is inaugurated on January 20, 2009. After that, we will have real policy to debate and discuss. Until then, everything is speculation, and I think the discussion of the challenges and opportunities he faces in issues and countries will be infinately more interesting. Let me know what you think.

Letter to President-Elect Obama about Hate Crimes against Latinos

Dear President-Elect Obama,

For the past two years, you have inspired Americans, myself included, to believe we can change. Your inspiring personal story and triumphs have shown us that with hard work, determination and a positive spirit, in America, anything is possible. Many of us feel particularly connected to your mixed racial and immigrant background, and see in you the America of the future, the America we know, where being of the world and being of America are one and the same. Most of all, you have reminded us of all of the challenges that Americans have faced throughout our history, and that if we just remember that "yes we can" change our lives, our communities and our countries for the better, we have the power to do so.

I celebrated your victory last week dancing in the streets of Times Square with Americans and citizens of the world of all shades and stripes who, once again, were proud of this nation. A week later, having heard the inspirational stories of Americans who have followed your lead and begun to change their lives and communities, as well as the hope for your leadership around the world, I am extremely optimistic about the promise of this country under your direction. In my own life, they have already had a personal impact. Your victory and your words last Tuesday night inspired me to start this Blog and draw attention to Latin America and Latinos among my social network.

While your victory may represent the beginning of a new era in this country, events even this week remind us of the challenges we face in so many areas, from the economy to foreign policy. I wanted to focus on just one of these events today, one that reminded me that even after your election, racism remains a problem for our nation. The tragic death of Marcello Lucero, an Ecuadorian immigrant stabbed and beaten to death by seven teenagers in Long Island, shows us that the scourge of hate crimes remains a plague on our people. Mr. Lucero came legally to the United States 16 years ago in search of the American Dream. By all accounts, he was a quiet and thoughtful man who avoided arguments and went out of his way to help others. A hard worker and an athlete who called his mother in Ecuador every week, Mr. Lucero was well-liked by those that knew him. Just last week, he was elated by your election, seeing it as "a chance for people with brown skin to be seen as equals." Instead, he was killed Saturday by seven teenagers "looking to kill a Hispanic - any Hispanic."

Marcello Lucero is hardly the only victim of a hate crime against Latinos. In fact, according to the FBI, hate crimes against Latinos represent 61% of the total hate crimes committed in the United States. The number of hate crimes against Latinos has risen dramatically over the last five years. According to the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, the real annual level of hate crimes in the United States averaged some 191,000 incidents, about 20 to 30 times above the reported number of these crimes.

Over the years, I have met so many Latino brothers and sisters like Marcello Lucero all over this country. No matter how we arrive in America, the vast majority of Latinos come to this country for a better life. We work hard, often voluntarily placing ourselves at the back of the line and at the bottom of the pyramid so that we can achieve what we could not in our mother countries. Latinos are proud of both the United States and our mother countries. Though we may suffer humiliation or setbacks in working towards our dreams, we believe in the transformative power of this country. Even during the Bush years, with draconian immigration policies, increased xenophobia, and difficult economic times, we continue to come to the United States legally in large numbers. Every day, more of us become citizens. We are the largest minority in this country and soon will be 25% of the population.

Latinos like me voted for you, President-Elect Obama, because you inspired us to believe in the power of change and ideas once again. So many of us, including myself and the late Marcello Lucero, believe that your election means a new time for race relations in America. We hope it also means a progressive immigration policy, a new engagement with Latin America and a zero tolerence policy on racism and hate crimes like the one that ended the life of Mr. Lucero. Given the ugly and overtly racist rhetoric routinely spouted against Latinos by the opponents of immigration reform over the past several years, it is no surprise that hate crimes against us have risen so dramatically. Gays and lesbians have suffered a similar fate because of the equally dispicable language used by many opponents of gay marriage.

I write this letter in the hope that as President-Elect and as President, you will continue to set a civil and elevated tone to the immigration debate and any other that has the potential to encite hatred in this country. I hope you will work together with all parties to provide progressive solutions to our countries continuing problems with discrimination and hatred, and will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to chastise those who use the public forum to rail against any racial, ethnic, religious, gender, sexual orientation or other group. Finally, I hope that you will pass federal hate crimes legislation and comprehensive immigration reform shortly after you become President. Because I strongly believe in your leadership and the ideas behind your campaign and Presidency, I know that you will do this. I remain your citizen and servant in the effort to remake this country.

Sincerely,


David A. Rondon, Esq.