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.