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!