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.
No comments:
Post a Comment