Avoiding the ninjas

I stopped for coffee ten minutes earlier than normal this morning. I also didn't leave clues as to when or where I was going to lunch. By doing these things, I managed to avoid the ninjas in black helicopters who are obviously out to kill me. Or so I would say if I was Fidel Castro.

Cuban President Fidel Castro said his visit to Venezuela for a Caribbean oil summit Wednesday was possibly the first overseas trip he has taken in which foes have not mounted a plot to assassinate him.

Castro told Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and other Caribbean leaders that his last-minute decision to attend the meeting in Venezuela appeared to have thrown off anyone who may have been plotting against him.

Are Castro and Chavez really that paranoid, or do they think that claiming they barely avoided an assassination attempt is a good PR move? I guess in some ways it is a good PR move. The media always cover their statements, no matter how crazy.

This opens up the question: what did you do today to avoid assassination by your enemies?

Jeff Smith for State Senate

Now for a bit of domestic politics. Out in Missouri, my friend Jeff Smith has decided to run for office again, this time for the Missouri State Senate.

Last Summer, Jeff was one of a dozen candidates for Rep. Gephardt's vacated seat. Starting the race with little name recognition, a small political base and a lot of determination, he made a name for himself in the St. Louis area. He unfortunately lost by about 1,000 votes, only about 1% of the vote, to Russ Carnahan in the Democratic primary. To even get that close to Carnahan, whose name is untouchable in St. Louis, was an accoplishment.

Jeff has now decided to run at the state level in a district he won many votes from when he was running last year. He's got more name recognition, a larger base, and that same determination that will make him a great senator in Jefferson City.

Jeff Smith's website is a work in progress, but has a letter from him plus a place to donate. Archpundit has more info as well.

Index of failed states fails

Oppenheimer:

Is this serious, I thought to myself as I was reading the index [of failed states]. How could the magazine place Colombia and the Dominican Republic among what it describes as the world's 20 most "critical" countries? And how could it fail to include Bolivia, where presidents come and go faster than you can learn their names, in its 60-country list?

Funny, I thought the exact same thing when I read the index. Someone at work asked me for the full name of Bolivia's president yesterday, and I answered, "I'll give it to you but that doesn't mean he'll still be president by the time you give your presentation." I also wonder how this list missed Nicaragua, which I'd probably place at #3 for instability in Latin America right now. Continuing on.

In the Americas, there is little question that Haiti is a failed state. That government is incapable of securing order, and there wouldn't be even a semblance of normalcy if U.N. peacekeepers weren't patrolling the streets.

But Colombia is a different matter. While Colombia has a decades-old armed conflict and has long topped the world's rankings of kidnappings for ransom, there is little question that it is a more viable country than it was five years ago. Since December 2000, kidnappings nationwide have been reduced by 74 percent, homicides by 32 percent and terrorist acts by 62 percent, according to government figures. Coca cultivation has dropped by 33 percent, the figures show

...As for the Dominican Republic and Venezuela, they are not failed states either. There are many things that don't work in the Dominican Republic, but placing it alongside violence-torn Burundi and the Central African Republic is an exaggeration.

Writing a blog is so much easier on days when people write things you agree with and you can simply plagiarize them (within fair-use exemptions, of course).

My conclusion: The index of failed states fails the test of common sense.

Probably. Measuring failed states is important for US policy, but this particular index is definitely missing something critical to make the errors that it did.

UPDATE: Update to this post with more links and comments here.

Brazil and drug patents

As long as I mentioned drug patents in an earlier post, it is worth noting that Brazil is planning on breaking the patent for an AIDS drug.

Thomas Barnett, citing WSJ author O'Grady, lists the following five points against breaking the patent:

1) Brazil wants to become a biotech center in the global economy, and companies won't go there if they fear they'll be ripped off

2) Foreign direct investment will suffer

3) Brazil already gets breaks on the drugs that are under patent, and several of the drugs they currently use have no patent protection

4) This is part of Brazil's larger effort within the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to push a "development agenda," and such a push may put them at odds with fellow New Cores India and China, which are making big efforts to strengthen property and intellectual rights in their countries in order to keep the FDI flowing.

5) Brazil ain't exactly poor, seeing that it has a space program and big time aircraft industry.

Drug patents are a funny area where the free-market promoters shout for more regulation and intervention from international organizations (whom they normally laugh at). Meanwhile the normally pro-regulation left questions why poor countries should be regulated in this area.

If Brazil breaks the patent and O'Grady is correct, foreign investment will leave the country. Other countries may also step in a place some sort of economic punishment on Brazil if they believe Brazil's patent breaking is stifling innovation. If either investment leaves or other countries restrict trade with Brazil, then Brazil will take actions to correct their mistakes and promote tighter patent laws. A specific pharmaceutical company will lose money, but the system will self correct as Brazil works to prevent it from happening again.

If O'Grady is wrong, then Brazil will get their cheap drugs and private companies will not be too worried because it was a specific situation in which they wouldn't have made money anyway.

Brazil will weigh the probable costs and benefits in this case, make their decision and then correct for any issues that arise. If they are harshly punished by foreign investors or other countries, they will change their policies.

In the meantime, good for Brazil for being willing to push the limits of the West to try to fix a problem they have. They will lose out if they go too far, but up to this point, the West is making a lot of noise about intellectual property rights but doing very little otherwise to show that we care. If we're not willing to step up and challenge Brazil's actions or come up with innovative solutions, Brazil will continue to move forward on their own to solve their problems.

UPDATE: To give a completely different example on markets and drugs, Canada will move to restrict drug exports to the US because they can't handle the increasing exports of drugs to the US plus Canada's needs. This will be an interesting case to watch as well.

Good luck and God speed

As mentioned by numerous other bloggers, Phil over at Intel Dump is heading to Iraq with the 101st Airborne. I wish him and his family the best. He'll be missed in the blogging community. I look forward to reading his updates from the field and his analysis when he returns.

Some good news for Lula

Members of the PMDB will back Brazilian President Lula da Silva to help him move beyond the recent corruption charges:

A majority of lawmakers from a main Brazilian political party decided on Wednesday to support the government in return for cabinet posts, giving President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva added clout to deal with a bribery scandal.

..."PMDB lawmakers in the national Congress decided by a large majority to support President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's call for a governability pact, including the participation of the party in government and the elaboration of policies," the lawmakers said in a declaration.

The party's head, Michel Temer, and several PMDB state governors did not back the pact. But 19 of its 23 senators and 52 of its 85 deputies in the lower house signed the declaration.

And from the Miami Herald:

A recent corruption scandal in Brazil is unlikely to severely affect that country's economy or the reelection prospects of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, diplomats and political analysts told a gathering in Miami.

...Speaking at a conference Monday sponsored by the Council of the Americas, a Washington-based organization that promotes free trade in the hemisphere, Christopher Garman, an analyst with the international consulting firm Eurasia Group, said he was optimistic about investors' reaction to the scandal.

''Brazil is migrating toward a different category of political risk,'' said Garman. ``In the past such scandals have generated market volatility, but markets have reacted very little to the current political difficulties.''

Brazil has enough things to worry about, from AIDS drugs to protesters on tractors. Plus there's an election next year, which will stall politics as it does in any country. These corruption allegations are simply holding Brazil as a whole back.

Iraq

So what would make me spend half hour deconstructing Bush's speech for specific actions and metrics? I asked myself that today (and others have asked me). My best answer is that it is the first thing I typed once the speech was done.

I want to see the US accomplish its mission in Iraq. I want to see a peaceful, free, democratic Iraq and I want to see it become an example for the region. I understand why we do not have timetables, but we need benchmarks for success and metrics to measure those benchmarks if we are to succeed.

Like others, I'm frustrated by the feeling that this administration isn't being honest or realistic about the situation in Iraq. I don't like that they use the war to divide the country politically. I don't like that they use "support the troops" rhetoric while cutting VA benefits. Against all odds, I was hoping for something different last night.

We're not going to accomplish our mission by pretending everything is going well everyday. I'm not saying things are going poorly; there's a surprising amount of success in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But the insurgency can't be in its "last throes" while we also benefit from attracting more terrorists to the Iraq through the "flypaper theory"; one of those must be wrong. Last year, the Bush administration went through a few months trying to say that rising violence was a sign of success. I would rather see the administration acknowledge that we will experience days of setbacks and failures in Iraq, even as we remain determined to ultimately succeed. Talking honestly about the bad would make us more credible when good news comes along.

My biggest fear is that the administration's cheerleading will allow them to declare victory and run. That's right, my fear isn't that we're stuck in a quagmire but that the administration will retreat too early (proclaiming success all the way), leaving Iraq before the new government is capable of handling their security and government.

We, Democrats, Republicans and Independents, need to make a commitment to stay in Iraq until certain security and political benchmarks are met. President Bush and Congress, and that includes the moderate Democrats in the opposition, still need to define those exact benchmarks and explain them to the American people. That was supposed to be the goal of the speech last night, and I believe on that point the president failed.

Vote for the EZLN???

The Zapatistas gave hints that they might join the political process and the Mexican government nearly fell over itself to welcome them in. Subcommander Marcos' statement was not too surprising given the strange events of the past few weeks.

The quick reaction by the Fox government indicates one of two things. They may be desperate for a win in any area that can be considered security related (although the rescue of the kidnapped Mexicans in Nuevo Laredo is playing well in the Mexican media). Fox's government may also be responding quickly so that no NGO or international organization can accuse them of not trying their hardest to help bring peace and development to southern Mexico. Considering Marcos' ability to charm foreign media, the quick move by the Mexican government may be their only hope of avoiding criticism of their democracy.

Specifics from the Speech

Pulling specifics from this administration is like pulling teeth. From tonight's speech, there was a lot of rhetoric (I would argue rhetoric is somewhat important), a lot of justifying the fight and attempting to show progress so far. There was also an attempt to show why certain opposition arguments are wrong.

In the midst of all this, there were a few specifics about our actions for the future. I tried to pull from the speech specific actions the president promised along with metrics and benchmarks to measure progress on each of those. This was just a brief attempt, but I figured it would be a worthwhile exercise.

Starting with the training of troops

Today Iraqi security forces are at different levels of readiness. Some are capable of taking on the terrorists and insurgents by themselves. A larger number can plan and execute anti-terrorist operations with coalition support. The rest are forming and not yet ready to participate fully in security operations. Our task is to make the Iraqi units fully capable and independent. We are building up Iraqi security forces as quickly as possible, so they can assume the lead in defeating the terrorists and insurgents.

Actions to be taken (based on this paragraph):

• Bring all Iraqi troops up to the point where they can execute counter-terror operations independent of US and coalition force.
  

Metrics for success:

• The number of Iraqi troops.
• Three levels of training into which we can classify them.

Questions to be asked by Members of Congress and the media:

• We currently have 160,000 Iraqi troops, how many do we believe we need?
• What percentage of the current 160,000 troops are fully trained? What percentages are at the other two levels?
  

The president did lay out three specific actions that the US is taking to help this training.

Actions to be taken:

1. Partnering coalition units with Iraqi units and conduct joint operations in the field.
2. Embed transition teams into Iraqi units to offer advice during battle and during training periods.
3. Work with Iraqi Ministry of Interior and Defense to
   
1. Create command and control structures and
   
2. Provide leadership training both civilians and military within those two ministries.

Metrics for success:

• Not sure on this one, although the questions may help flesh that out.

Questions to be asked by Members of Congress and the media:

• What are the metrics for success for each of these three actions?
• How many transition teams are we currently embedding and how many do we hope to embed in the near future?
• What percentage of our units are participating in joint-operations? How has this affected the success or failure of the operations?
• Who is providing leadership training at the Ministries of Defense and Interior? Are these contractors? What specific actions are they taking in these trainings.
• Beyond the three steps offered by the president in the speech, can the administration provide any others.

Actions for the Iraqis to take

• Create institutions for free society including minority rights and independent judiciary.
  
• Write constitution with the input of all sectors of society.
• Hold a referendum on the constitution.
• Hold a new election for a new government.
• Meet the timetable for these goals.
  

Metrics for success:

• Greater participation in the political process (Higher voter turnout?)
• More confidence in the military (poll numbers?)
• Higher numbers of intelligence tips from Iraqis.
• Are they meeting the timetable and if not how far off are they?
  

Questions for Members of Congress and the media:

• Do we have current measurements on all these metrics to use as a baseline?
• Are we likely to meet the timetable?
• If we do not meet the timetable, how will that affect the president's view of US presence.
  

As I said, those are the forward looking specific actions and benchmarks I could pull from the president's half hour speech. If I'm missing any, send me an e-mail to let me know. I'm also interested to see how Congress and the media follow up on these.

UPDATE: I should have also included our continuing mission to capture or kill terrorists. It was so self-evident, I missed it. However, in needing metrics, sheer numbers probably does not work. In Iraq the question needs to be "Are we capturing or killing more terrorists than are being recruited inside the country or entering by crossing the border?"

Mexico's vote by mail

Mexico's democracy takes one more step forward as the Congress passes an absentee voting law that will allow migrants to vote.

To chants of "Viva Mexico," the lower house of Congress passed an absentee voting proposal by a margin of 455 to 6 with 6 abstentions. The bill was already approved by Mexico's Senate and now only needs to signed by President Vicente Fox to become law_ something he has promised to do.

There are a lot of long term implications for greater political influence crossing the border. Short term, this is eleven million more people who can vote in 2006. It's also a political loss for the PRI, but they'll find a way to bounce back.

To read on Iraq...

With regards to Bush's speech tomorrow, bloggers on both the left and right are calling for something we haven't yet heard from the administration: an honest assessment of the situation in Iraq and the War on Terror.

Democracy Arsenal: "That's because, given the choices, achieving a stable Iraq in the next couple of years, if it's possible, would be a better outcome than withdrawing now, seeing that country descend to chaos, and having America's credibility as a military force undercut. But to succeed, the war will need higher levels of public support. And any PR bounce achieved through a whitewash of the facts will be short-lived and will ultimately boomerang."

Belgravia Dispatch: "My plea to the President tomorrow evening in his speech to the nation. Talk straight and don't pull any punches. Explain the effort could take years yet. Concentrate on the massive stakes at play if we retreat (major instability in the Middle East, perhaps a civil war that drags in neighboring countries, and a safe-haven and rallying point for jihadists the world over, for starters). But, most important, straight talk throughout. So, no, don't mention a "dictionary meaning" or such ludicrousness. This Ahab-like obsession with staying on message is juvenile, transparent, and one of the reasons you are losing support. Rise above it!"

Stygius: "People want results; not platitudes and sanctimony. There's going to have to be some meat on the bones, or his [Bush's] credibility will sink even deeper with no one else standing around to blame."

And the survey says: "Barely one in five Americans -- 22 percent -- say they believe that the insurgency is getting weaker while 24 percent believe it is strengthening. More than half -- 53 percent -- say resistance to U.S. and Iraqi government forces has not changed."

Fox after five years

Kevin Sullivan and Mary Jordan of the Washington Post have a lengthy front page article on President Fox's administration.

After five years, many people are disappointed that Fox did not bring sweeping change to Mexico. Most of his reforms were blocked by the PRI in the Congress. However, if you wanted one sweeping pro-democratic change, it was that a Mexican president actually allowed a Congress to block his initiatives. It's not pretty, but it's democracy. If Fox's legacy is a weakened presidency and strengthened minority rights for the party in opposition, that's not so bad.

Split within the Zapatistas?

What's going on with the Zapatistas (EZLN)? I think everyone who watches Mexico has asked that in the past two weeks.

First, the EZLN's leader Subcommander Marcos issued a statement going on "red alert". Then they said they are not resuming military action but "something else". In the meantime, the Mexican government prepared military forces to take out drug growers and traffickers in the South, then released a strong statement stressing that the action had nothing to do with the EZLN. Now there are rumors that the first statement may not have actually been issued by Marcos but an imposter within the EZLN.

Oppenheimer says some within the Mexican government believe there is a split within the Zapatistas and that Marcos may be ready to lay down his weapons. After eleven years of stalemate in southern Mexico, that would really shake up the situation in Chiapas and would probably increase the political clout of Marcos nationwide.

The truth is nobody is quite sure what is going on with the Zapatistas. In the past eleven years, they have been an organization based more around propaganda than action. However, many analysts carefully watch because they do have weapons, the extent of their organization is unknown and they could possibly create serious disruptions within Mexico if they ever decide to rise up again.

Bolivia: A view from the left

The Nation discusses the various leftist, populist and indigenous movements in Bolivia. Even from the Nation's leftist slant, it is clear that the different movements in Bolivia are not unified and are not quite sure what their agenda is or what they will do if they take power. The author's portrayal of Morales makes him seem disinterested and confused, not the usual portrayal of a populist leader. His interviews with different protesters and protest leaders show just how confusing the situation in Bolivia still is. Nobody knows what they want, but they all feel like the current system isn't treating them right.

Leadership and honesty

Add Peter Beinart to the list of people who understand that Bush's failed leadership is the reason support for the war in Iraq is slipping at home.

But the Out of Iraq Caucus didn't come from nowhere. It's the result of President Bush's ongoing refusal to speak honestly about the war. All but the most die-hard sycophants now acknowledge that before the war the Bush administration exaggerated the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and terrorist ties. And that it lowballed the costs -- in money, troops and time -- of building a stable, liberal government in Baghdad. Yet even today the president keeps playing the same dishonest games. In his June 18 radio address, Bush said, in the context of Iraq, that "we went to war because we were attacked." He's still implying a connection between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11, 2001 -- even now!

A plurality of Americans now believe they were "deliberately misled" before the war. When the president talks to the country about Iraq on Tuesday night, he needs to address that. Otherwise, he'll never have the credibility to tell Americans the harsh truth: that Iraqi troops won't be ready to defend their government for two years or more. And until they can, brave young U.S. soldiers will have to keep doing the job.

...But if Bush wants to stem the rising sentiment for withdrawal, he needs to do something he has avoided for more than two years: He needs to make this a national war, not a partisan one. That means appointing independent figures to key jobs -- people like Richard Lugar or Sam Nunn, who come from outside the conservative cocoon. And it means speaking about Iraq with a humility that this administration has richly earned.

For America to win in Iraq, President Bush first needs to win back America's trust. Let's hope it's not too late.

And as the LA Times notes today, Cheney isn't helping by being dishonest about the insurgency.

Eleven rules for US troops in Iraq

Gen. Casey has given wallet sized cards with the following rules to 170,000 troops.

• Make security and safety your first priorities.
• Help the Iraqis win - don't win it for them.
• Treat the Iraqi people with dignity and respect. Learn and respect Iraqi customs and cultures.
• Maintain strict standards and iron discipline everyday. Risk assess every mission - no complacency!!
• Information saves lives - share it and protect it.
• Maintain your situational awareness at all times - this can be an unforgiving environment.
• Take care of your equipment and it will take care of you.
• Innovate and adapt - situations here don't lend themselves to cookie-cutter solutions.
• Focus on the enemy and be opportunistic.
• Be patient. Don't rush to failure.
• Take care of yourself and take care of each other.

PRI tries to block votes from abroad

The Mexican Congress entered a special session this week, in part to address whether Mexican citizens living abroad (mostly in the US) will be able to absentee vote in the 2006 presidential election. The PRI, while trying very hard not to look obstructionist, has proposed several "killer amendments" to block the initiative.

Many Mexicans abroad dislike the PRI. This is not a left-right-center issue, but truly crosses the political spectrum. The PRI are seen as corrupt and most emigrants believe that corrupt PRI presidential administrations held back the development of Mexico. If absentee voting from the US is allowed, the PRI is likely to lose most of those votes to either the PAN or PRD.

So why doesn't the PRI just outright block the bill?

First, Mexicans abroad still have many family members back home and the PRI do not want emigrants to turn into a non-voting but vocal political force in the election. Second, many Mexicans have a dream of coming to the United States, either to visit or work temporarily or work permanently. The PRI would be hurt if they were portrayed as the party that does not respect Mexicans once they are outside the country, even temporarily.

Finally, the PRI's presidential candidate Madrazo really hopes to portray himself as a moderate alternative to the Creel on the right and AMLO on the left. If the bill passes, he may be able to successfully campaign for moderate votes in the US, even with the PRI's history. This strategy is unlikely to work, however, if the PRI first attempts to block emigrants voting rights.

Lack of leadership

Stygius nails it:

Polling of American disenchantment with Iraq evoke the myth that the American attention span won't permit a long project that involves American casualties. Thus, some -- like the Out of Iraq Caucus -- feel increasingly emboldened to argue for either a drawdown or withdrawal of American forces, often dressing it up in calls for a specific timetable. This is not only strategic lunacy, it is politically short-sighted. Others rail against media manipulation as the source of this perception, urging complicity with administration rhetoric and occasionally outright delusion. Both of these approaches misdiagnose America's public perception, their respective diagnoses based on this same, condescending myth.

Ivo Daadler, on the other hand, gets it right while criticizing David Brooks' latest. It's not about defeatism. The anxiety is not about Iraq in and of itself, but rather the Bush Administration's eroding credibility and unwillingness to play it straight. In effect, it's about leadership.

As does former Rep. Martin Frost (D-TX):

The American public is perfectly capable of dealing with the truth. The Bush administration needs to level with the public about the difficulty of the job ahead in Iraq rather than making general statements indicating that all is well. We will stay the course in Iraq if the country is convinced that Bush has a realistic plan for the future. It's time for less myth and more reality.

And conservative blogger/journalist Austin Bay:

The Bush administration has yet to ask the American people -- correction, has yet to demand of the American people -- the sustained, shared sacrifice it takes to win this long, intricate war of bullets, ballots and bricks.

Bullets go bang, and even CBS understands bullets. Ballots make an impression -- in terms of this war's battlespace, the January Iraqi elections were World War II's D-Day and Battle of the Bulge combined. But the bricks -- the building of Iraq, Afghanistan and the other hard corners where this war is and will be fought -- that's a delicate and decades-long challenge.

Given the vicious enemy we face, five years, perhaps 15 years from now, occasional bullets and bombs will disrupt the political and economic building. This is the Bush administration's biggest strategic mistake: failure to tap the American willingness produced by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

More later...

China in the Caribbean

Daniel Erikson writes in today's Miami Herald about the different incentives and pressures China is putting on Caribbean nations to drop their support for Taiwan. Sometimes that includes outright bribes.

• In 1997, the Bahamas and St. Lucia were rewarded with millions of dollars in trade and aid packages for granting diplomatic recognition to China.
• In 1998, China joined the Caribbean Development Bank, taking a 6 percent capital stake and establishing a special $1 million trust fund for Chinese experts to provide regional assistance.
• Most recently, the tiny island countries of Dominica and Grenada were both handsomely compensated by China for revoking longstanding support for Taiwan. Dominica fetched $112 million pledged over six years, while Grenada received support for rebuilding and expanding the national stadium for the 2007 Cricket World Cup, the construction of 2,000 housing units, a $1 million scholarship fund and $6 million in grants.

He also notes their play in the UN Security Council to pressure Haiti by using their veto in the UNSC over the UN peacekeeping mission. I previously wrote about that here and here. Earlier this week, the UN passed a compromise bill that extended the mandate to February 2006. Not quite the one year everyone but China was pushing for, but it means the UN force is in through the elections. Also, the UN increased the mission by 750 yesterday, but no word yet on where those troops will come from.

Global?

The Pew Global Attitudes Project has some new polling data up about how some countries around the world view the US. It's definitely worth reading, or at least glancing at the charts and thinking about what they mean.

One complaint. Is it global? Nothing from Latin America. Nothing from Africa. Over 20% of the world's population, a percentage that is increasing, is ignored by excluding these regions. These regions provide key immigration and energy flows to the US and Europe. There are a number of security issues that will continue to come from both regions over the next decades. And if we want to win a global war on extremism, then we're going to need to focus on helping these countries stabilize and develop as much as we're focusing on the Middle East.

Most days I feel like I'm fighting an uphill battle by focusing on Latin America. Polls like this one confirm that feeling.

Amazon and oil conspiracies

I've heard this before, but I'm always amazed to find out that some Brazilians believe the US is going to come take over the Amazon. On one hand, it shows just how willing some people are to believe a good conspiracy theory. On the other, it shows just how poorly the US has explained its "War on Terror" that people think "First Afghanistan, then Iraq, now Brazil". It seems ridiculous to us, but to them it makes perfect sense. It's a good example of why we need to do a better job with public diplomacy.

Speaking of conspiracy theories, a Chinese company has made a bid for Unocal. As I remember, Michael Moore said a Unocal pipeline was the reason we went into Afghanistan (instead of say... getting the terrorists who caused 9/11). Under his logic, if the Chinese take over, we'll pull out right away and the Chinese will send in the troops. Let's see what happens.

Mugabe's evils

Kudos to the LA Times for covering Zimbabwe in depth yesterday and to the Washington Post for making it their lead editorial. Zimbabwe President Mugabe has destroyed slums throughout Harare, leaving anywhere between 200,000 and one million homeless. This BBC story has some of the before and after satellite photos. I mentioned that my last post wasn't exactly a front page story; well this one from Zimbabwe should be.

Delayed reaction

I'm sure a few people will have some interesting things to write now that this story is on BBC. What I find amazing, however, is that the story that six people were arrested in Ecuador and one in Colombia in connection with using drug trafficking to finance Hezbollah originally came out in the Spanish media on June 15, nearly one week ago. AFP ran the story in English on June 16 (I saw it come across Nexis) and not a single media outlet covered it.

Sometimes I'm amazed by what the media covers and what it doesn't. The reason this came around a second time is that Ecuadorian police held a press conference to release more evidence and Brazil admitted to arresting a few people as well.

This wasn't the biggest or most surprising story, but it was one of the first times that Latin American officials have publicly acknowledged that drug trafficking in their region is financing terrorist groups in the Middle East. It wasn't exactly front page news, but you'd have thought it would have gotten more coverage earlier.

Basic rights vs. Cultural norms

That was the question raised by Secretary Rice's statement to reporters:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday she had no interest in promoting the high-profile cause of giving women in Saudi Arabia the right to drive, saying the administration's push for Middle East democracy needed to respect cultural traditions.

"It's just a line that I have not wanted to cross," Rice told reporters traveling with her as she flew from Riyadh, the Saudi capital, to attend an international conference on Iraq here in the Belgian capital on Wednesday. "I think it is important that we do have some boundaries about what it is we are trying to achieve."

What I find very interesting is that the Bush administration has previously set a lower boundary that governments must allow girls to be educated as a basic human right. So now we have an upper and lower boundary for where the Bush administration stands on promoting women's rights as they push for democracy. Basic education is a human right. The right to drive can be determined by cultural norms.

Now knowing what the boundaries are, some reporter should ask about situations that fall in between. Is it a human right or a cultural norm that women be allowed to own property? Run a business? Have access to higher education? Vote? Write a newspaper? Buy a newspaper? Publish a book? Own a gun? Travel without a male? Shop for food? Change her religion?

Will the answers to these questions change on a case-by-case basis? Are there several rankings of rights, with speech, education and voting being at the most basic level, property and an independent criminal justice system at a slightly less basic level, and driving even less important than that?

I'm not trying to be cynical here. If we're going to work to push democracy we may need to define what we believe to be a basic (God-given?) human right and what we believe should be determined by cultural norms. I may be willing to accept that the right to drive should not be put on the same basic level as freedom of speech, but I've never heard the US government spell out in one document this balance between rights and culture. Are there any reporters out there willing to push the issue with the State Department or the White House?

Ghost Wars

I just finished Ghost Wars by Steve Coll. The book is on the CIA's work in Afghanistan from the late 70's through September 10, 2001. It also deals with US policy (or lack thereof) towards Afghanistan and the threat of Islamic extremism during that time period.

The book is professional, well written, well cited and non-partisan. If Coll has any biases, it is his very sympathetic portrayal of Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance. He also shows some preference to those people who turned out to be right in their predictions or analyses (Richard Clarke, Cofer Black), while those are obvious post-hoc observations.

In terms of modern history, this is one of the better books out there and its lack of a political agenda is welcome after the waves of books that have attempted to blame one leader or one policy for our failure to prevent 9/11. As Coll shows, even as political leaders on both sides often had the best intentions, it was a systemic failure of US policy over several decades.

Populism

Robert Mayer over at Publius Pundit recommended the following article from the US Army War College: "The Strategic Implications of the Rise of Populism in Europe and South America"

It's a good article and worth reading for students of comparative democracy. The author defines populism as a strategic threat to US interests because it represents a backsliding of democratic institutions in areas which we already consider democracies, Europe and South America. He points to four populist movements in the Netherlands, Ukraine, Venezuela and Bolivia.

I wish I had time to write a longer, better review, but lacking that, here's a few good and bad points in bullet form.

Good

• Well defines populism in general (people no longer feel represented by the government, willing to defy democratic institutions to obtain representation, normally led by a charismatic leader).
• Defines the threat of populism to democracy. Also well defines the threat that comes with the speed of populist movements.
• Shows that populism comes from both democratic institutions that are too weak as well as those that are too rigid. I was especially impressed that the author correctly showed that the populism of Chavez in Venezuela (who rallied against a very stable, but corrupt democratic system) is different from the populism of Morales in Bolivia (takes advantage of weak democratic institutions). Stable democracies have strong institutions which are also flexible.
  
• He also notes that populism can undermine political bases in places where the US may need to project military force (and I'll assume diplomatic or economic force as well).
  
• Notes that the US, by seeing democracy as 'inevitable' has a blindspot when it comes to places where democracy may slide backwards.

Bad

• Fails to recognize where populism may be in the US's strategic interest, as in Ukraine, Georgia or Lebanon. In fact, he says we should avoid temporary alliances with populists. I would argue that at times populism may be a strong, non-violent diplomatic tool that the US has encouraged in the past and should continue to consider in the future.
• Overstates the threat of an alliance of regional populism. I know it's a possible threat and a great bogeyman for his article, but populism remains much more an individual state issue and that should be the focus. If we only focus on worst-case scenarios, we'll miss the point.
• Misinterprets Hugo Chavez. He is absolutely right that Chavez should provide a case model for what can happen if a populist leader comes to power (in Chavez's case, mass corruption ensues and he simply becomes part of the corrupt elite he once rallied against, except with the poor population supporting him). However, he interprets Chavez as a pro-indigenous movement person. Chavez is really more of an anti-globalization person. At times the indigenous and anti-globalization movements are unified, at times they are not. The indigenous do not see Chavez as some sort of indigenous leader, nor is Chavez going to lead the continent of South America into a racial civil war as the author actually says is a scenario.
• Does not provide of a solution. The author defines the problem well and argues we should be concerned about populism and prepare our military and diplomatic personnel to deal with populism, but he doesn't say how. This may make for a good follow up article.
  

A note on Bolton

Yesterday, the cloture vote on the nomination of John Bolton was defeated in the Senate. Democrats claimed the White House should release 40 or so pages of documents related to his time at the State Department and promised a vote as soon as those documents are released. The White House is refusing to release the documents.

The White House is now considering a recess appointment.

Recess appointments are not meant for high-profile candidates who continue to be debated in the Senate. At most, they should be used to appoint low level, uncontroversial nominees along with nominees who must begin their jobs in an emergency. The recess appointment should not be used to maneuver around our system of checks and balances.

President Bush claims his top priority internationally is the spread of freedom and democracy, and I quite sincerely believe him most days. With democracy, however, comes the need for strong democratic institutions and minority representation. Appointing John Bolton by going around Congress and avoiding the system of checks and balances will send the wrong message to the world community about how the US respects democracy at home.

Kidnappings in Haiti

Today's Haiti is a complete mess story has been brought to you in part by the Miami Herald and the Associated Press.

An average of four people are kidnapped each day by politically aligned street gangs, drug traffickers, crooked police and criminal deportees from the United States, officials say.

...The kidnappings are the latest trend in relentless violence that one U.N. official called "an urban war" to destabilize Haiti ahead of fall elections aimed at filling a power vacuum after a revolt toppled President Jean-Bertrand Aristide last year.

At least 130 people were kidnapped in the capital of Port-au-Prince in April, a big jump over previous months, U.N. officials have said. Precise statistics were not available for the previous months, or for May and June.

The victims range from wealthy business owners pulled out of luxury vehicles on busy streets to working-class Haitians snatched from poor neighborhoods and held for a few hundred dollars.

Foreigners also are targets.

Three good opinions

Some days, the Washington Post editorial page gets it right. Three articles worth the read today. I tried to copy the 1-2 paragraphs of each that I think are the meat of the argument.

Editorial: The Donors and Darfur

Unfortunately, the United Nations can't count on collecting the money that it's about to ask for. At the start of this year it appealed for $693 million, nearly all of which it said it needed by June because of the time it takes to turn dollars into help on the ground. But as of June 1, only $358 million had come in from donors -- just over half what was hoped for. The United States has been by far the most generous donor, giving $252 million for Darfur plus another $100 million or so for relief efforts elsewhere in Sudan, according to figures compiled by the United Nations; Britain comes in second with $36 million, plus slightly more than $50 million for the rest of Sudan.

...Humanitarian relief is not going to solve Darfur's crisis; it's a way of keeping people alive until the genocidal policies of the Sudanese government are changed... The key to reversing this displacement is to have foreign troops provide security, so that it's safe to go back to the villages, and at the same time to pressure Sudan's government into reining in its local militia allies. The United States is doing some of this, but it hasn't yet mounted the sort of all-out effort that could really solve the crisis. And so the dying carries on.

Mallaby: Pills for the Poor

The idea would cost nothing: It merely involves drug companies giving up patent protection for heart pills and similar medicines in the poor world. Since poor countries buy almost none of these medicines anyway, giving up patent rights in those markets doesn't hurt the drug firms. But it would mean that cheap generic versions of these medicines could be distributed to poor consumers.

...Who could possibly object to this? The drug companies apparently fear that, if Indians are allowed to get cheap heart pills, these would find their way back onto the U.S. market. But the drug companies already accept the principle that AIDS drugs should cost less in Botswana than in Boston -- and there aren't too many reports of contraband African AIDS medicines flooding the U.S. market. Indeed, for all the fuss about seniors getting cheap drugs from Canada, these purchases represent a fraction of the U.S. drug market. Does anyone really think that Americans are going to buy masses of medicine from distant and possibly unsafe suppliers based in Mombassa or Mumbai?

Diehl: Align with Democrats in Central Asia

All of which raises the question: Why should the Bush administration not begin to focus on Kyrgyzstan as a military and political partner, while conspicuously leaving Uzbekistan, and Karimov, in the cold? It's possible logistically: In fact, some Air Force operations have already been shifted from Uzbekistan to Kyrgyzstan at the impetus of Karimov, who has curtailed flights from Kashi Khanabad out of pique over the State Department's demands for an investigation of the Andijan massacre. It would give a large boost to Kyrgyzstan's democrats, who could argue to their countrymen that democracy brings vital rewards, in the form of a privileged partnership with the world's superpower. And it would send a clear message to the Muslim nations of Central Asia: The United States will not support dictatorship, even in exchange for a landing strip.

Central America gangs

Catching up on some reading. This article from the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs is a good background on the Central American gang problem. Not saying I agree with everything in it, but it is one of the better backgrounds to read on the gang problem in Central America and some of the policies attempted both in Central America and in US cities.

In the past few years, as Washington has focused its attention on the Middle East, it has virtually ignored a dangerous phenomenon close to home. Ultraviolent youth gangs, spawned in the ghettos of Los Angeles and other U.S. cities, have slowly migrated south to Central America, where they have transformed themselves into powerful, cross-border crime networks. With the United States preoccupied elsewhere, the gangs have grown in power and numbers; today, local officials estimate their size at 70,000-100,000 members. The marabuntas, or maras, as they are known (after a deadly species of local ants), now pose the most serious challenge to peace in the region since the end of Central America's civil wars.

Nor is the danger limited to the region. Fed by an explosive growth in the area's youth population and by a host of social problems such as poverty and unemployment, the gangs are spreading, spilling into Mexico and beyond -- even back into the United States itself. With them, the maras are bringing rampant crime, committing thousands of murders, and contributing to a flourishing drug trade. Central America's governments, meanwhile, seem utterly unable to meet the challenge, lacking the skills, know-how, and money necessary to fight these supergangs. The solutions attempted so far -- largely confined to military and police operations -- have only aggravated the problem; prisons act as gangland finishing schools, and military operations have only dispersed the gangs' leadership, making bosses harder than ever to track and capture.

If Central America is going to make a stand, it must do so quickly. And it must take a new approach, one that is multilateral, combines police work with prevention, and attacks the region's underlying ills. Only such a multipronged approach has a chance of stemming the growth of the maras. Fortunately, the necessary expertise already exists: in the United States, cities such as Boston and San Jose have managed highly successful antigang campaigns that could be emulated south of the border. The problem for Central America is one of political will, funding, and timing. Washington can help with all three, and should do so. Not only does the problem threaten the United States, but it started there, too.

The author is right that the solutions up to now have focused too hard on police and military solutions. However, this is not an argument to decrease money for security, because security is absolutely necessary in these countries. It's an argument to increase money for both development aid and targeted security issues (i.e. prison reform to keep gangs from recruiting and training inside prisons, reforms and training for judicial systems, cleaning up corruption within security forces).

A reply from an anti-Castro activist

Ann Louise Bardach writes an absolutely ridiculous op-ed in today's LA Times. She tries to criticize the Bush administration's Cuba policy, without recognizing that Castro is far worse than Bush.

Let's look at some of her arguments.

She mentions Luis Posada Carriles, who was likely behind the bombing of an airplane that killed 73 people and several other terrorist actions. The Bush administration failed to arrest Posada Carriles for five weeks after he illegally entered the country on a false passport. We're still holding him on immigration rather than terrorism charges.

Doesn't Bardach realize that Castro allows dozens or even hundreds of terrorists to run free in Cuba. Bardach didn't mention that Castro is far worse at allowing terrorists to run free than the US government. Her argument has been defeated.

She then mentions Alberto Coll. Coll's father was a political prisoner and Coll escaped Cuba as a teenager. Coll was once a hero, a hardliner against Castro who was awarded a medal of service by Defense Secretary Cheney. Then he changed some of his views. He called for an end to the 40 year embargo, somehow claiming that it wasn't working. After Coll's daughter died, he then went and visited Cuba on a visa and failed to note he visited an old girlfriend. The administration has spent $1 million to prosecute Coll for his criminal actions and tried to put him in jail for five years.

Bardach claims this is a persecution for Coll's political views. But Castro holds dozens if not hundreds of political prisoners. Bardach didn't tell you that Castro is far worse at political persecutions than the US. Thus, her argument has been defeated.

Her third argument is that we denied a visa for national security reasons to Ibrahim Ferrer, the 78-year-old Afro Cuban Grammy Award-winning sonero from the Buena Vista Social Club.

Bardach claims that denying the visa was for political reasons, because this 78 year old musician is not a national security threat. Sure, we may restrict the movement of Cuban citizens, not to mention US citizens trying to travel to Cuba. But Castro restricts the movements of many people within Cuba. It's a police state. She failed to mention that Castro is worse than us, thus, her argument has been defeated.

Bardach ends her article by saying:

All of which raises a few sobering questions: Is the administration capable of assessing authentic security risks in its war on terrorism? Can it distinguish between actual threats and political enemies? And finally, can it devise a policy toward Latin America that doesn't serve up frothy propaganda for the strongmen of Cuba and Venezuela?

Because with enemies like us, Castro really doesn't need any friends.

Bardach of course fails to mention that in Castro's Cuba, she would not even have the freedom to write such an article criticizing the government's policy. How dare she write something criticizing US policy without repeatedly noting that Castro's Cuba is an awful, evil dictatorial regime. By failing to hold the US to Cuba's standards, her arguments have failed without even needing to address them on their merits.

Aung San Suu Kyi

Today, as she reaches here 60th birthday, Aung San Suu Kyi remains the only Nobel Prize Laureate currently under arrest. Suu Kyi is entering her third straight year under house arrest in Burma, where she has been a prisoner for 9 of the last 16 years. Her only crime is having the courage to peacefully promote democracy in a military dictatorship.

Within a system which denies the existence of basic human rights, fear tends to be the order of the day. Fear of imprisonment, fear of torture, fear of death, fear of losing friends, family, property or means of livelihood, fear of poverty, fear of isolation, fear of failure. A most insidious form of fear is that which masquerades as common sense or even wisdom, condemning as foolish, reckless, insignificant or futile the small, daily acts of courage which help to preserve man's self-respect and inherent human dignity. It is not easy for a people conditioned by fear under the iron rule of the principle that might is right to free themselves from the enervating miasma of fear. Yet even under the most crushing state machinery courage rises up again and again, for fear is not the natural state of civilized man.

The wellspring of courage and endurance in the face of unbridled power is generally a firm belief in the sanctity of ethical principles combined with a historical sense that despite all setbacks the condition of man is set on an ultimate course for both spiritual and material advancement. It is his capacity for self-improvement and self-redemption which most distinguishes man from the mere brute. At the root of human responsibility is the concept of perfection, the urge to achieve it, the intelligence to find a path towards it, and the will to follow that path if not to the end at least the distance needed to rise above individual limitations and environmental impediments. It is man's vision of a world fit for rational, civilized humanity which leads him to dare and to suffer to build societies free from want and fear. Concepts such as truth, justice and compassion cannot be dismissed as trite when these are often the only bulwarks which stand against ruthless power.

Aung San Suu Kyi, July 10, 1990

Withholding support

The United Nations has voted to block its support of the US Congress until it reforms the bureaucracy, gets ahold of its budget and does a better job of handling ethics issues.

Oh wait... I got that backwards. But it was an easy mistake to make.

Meanwhile John Ikenberry over at TPMCafe has two posts worth reading about US policy and the international system.

The economics of coffee

Today's Washington Post article about people wasting money on coffee will hit a lot of people personally. As a regular at Starbucks (although I just drink straight black coffee, nothing special), I probably spend just under $1,000 per year on my habit. And now all these "financial planners" are harassing people like me because we're in debt (college loans) and shouldn't be spending money on a luxury like coffee.

Screw them. It's my money and I don't work so I can pay back my loans and plan a good retirement like the experts want. I work so I can go see baseball games, drink beer, travel occasionally and enjoy a daily cup of coffee at Starbucks.

And by the way, you can use the "coffee calculator" in the article to enter in the financial stats for buying copies of the Washington Post in print vs. reading it for free online. I've saved several hundred dollars over the course of my time in DC by not buying the damn paper.

So as I said, screw them. Now where's my coffee?

Lula's government takes a beating

Lula's Chief of Staff Jose Dirceu was forced to step down yesterday. This was one of Lula's closest advisors and would be the political equivalent of Karl Rove resigning over corruption issues.

These allegations are clearly politically motivated, but there has been enough legitimate evidence to keep the investigations moving forward and to cause a key resignation like this one. The steady trickle of corruption issues have really hurt his government and are taking the focus off of some of Lula's bigger agenda both domestically and globally.

OAS to Nicaragua

OAS Secretary General Insulza will be in Nicaragua today to discuss the continuing political crisis.

The Bolaños administration has requested the OAS intervention as it battles opponents in both the leftist Sandinista Front and conservative Liberal Constitutionalist party over the control of courts and executive branch offices.

Shortly before leaving for Managua, Insulza told reporters he would ''not pass judgement'' on what was happening there but would work to promote more dialogue between the two sides.

''They elected me secretary general. They have not elected me the county sheriff,'' he said.

Bolaños requested the OAS assistance under the Inter-American Democratic Charter, a document that pledges member countries to protect each other's democracies but has largely failed to avert institutional crises.

I understand why Insulza is reluctant to get involved in the middle of this political dispute. However, hopefully he sees the opportunity here to strengthen the Inter-American Democratic Charter. This will be a precedent setting mission, and while he should obviously focus on Nicaragua first, he should realize that his actions here could affect the Secretary-General's powers for his entire term.

Democrats and Iraq

And as long as I'm discussing Democrats and security, I made the following comment over at TPMCafe regarding James Lindsay's suggestion that Democrats support "staying the course" in Iraq:

If you're going to talk about "staying the course", then you should define what exactly that entails. I don't even think the Bush administration is sure, and most days it seems they are wandering through the fog while blaming the Democrats for not following them. It's a blind leading the blind mentality.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but before we talk about more or less troops or even staying the course, we need clearer priorities, a better set of measurements for success or failure and greater public access to information about what's going on. Those are fairly concrete things the Democrats can push for today, even from the minority party position.

Fortunately, Rep. Pelosi put forward a very similar suggestion and will try to attach an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill that calls for the administration to define its measurements for success and report on their status. I'm obviously very supportive of this. It's an honest request from Congress and it's a positive policy movement from Democrats. This of course means the Republicans will try to block it from reaching a vote.

Today's Washington Post notes that President Bush will need to begin talking about Iraq again due to his falling poll numbers. I was especially pleased by this paragraph:

Even some Democrats say Bush could turn things around if he spoke frankly about what has been done and the obstacles to finishing the job.

Sure, it's hard not the feel the occasional schadenfreude, but Democrats should want to American people to push Republicans towards a successful solution to Iraq, not simply give up on it. Falling poll numbers are only a short term political gain. Keeping the American people supportive of US efforts around the world and engaged in the policy is a long term necessity. Once that public support for US foreign policy is lost, it can take a long time to regain, even with a change of administrations and policy. Some day the Democrats will be back in power and will need that same support of American people in order to move forward with a smart foreign and national security policy.

In a sense, I think the Democrats argument for US policy in Iraq is "mend it, don't end it". They should not see these poll numbers as an electoral gain, but rather a chance to push the Bush administration to make some serious needed reforms to our policies on the ground.

UPDATE: Now corrected thanks to the spelling police.

Democrats and security

Lots of debate recently about Democratic security policy. Here's my two cents on the basic principles for all Democrats without going into policy details.

Stygius offers possibly the smartest advice to the Democrats trying to define a position on national security: "Dead terrorists can't kill Americans." That's not a policy, but a phrase Democrats should internalize as they think about whatever policy they want to promote. Killing terrorists does provide some level of security plus adds to the security image.

One quote that is complementary, not contradictory, comes from President Clinton: "...if you come from a wealthy country with open borders, unless you seriously believe you can kill, imprison, or occupy all of your enemies, you have to make a world with more friends and fewer enemies, with more partners and fewer terrorists."

So while I agree Democrats must accept that the US will need to kill terrorists in order to keep America safe, the long term goal needs to be stopping terrorism in the first place.

There are many policy discussions on national security surrounding immediate threats (preemptive action, self-defense, work within the international framework, etc.). There are also a lot of philosophies on how to deter terrorists long term, from the neo-con/Truman Democrat theory of promoting democracy to other views that place higher priorities on economic development or human rights.

But I'm not asking for a specific party-wide policy on Iraq or an agreement on philosophy. Rather there must simply be a recognition that long term the US must have some pro-active policy to deter America's enemies including terrorists. Even if there are disagreements on specific actions or philosophies, there must be a consensus within the party that sitting back and doing nothing about America's enemies is not an option.

Short version for Democrats: Be tough to keep America safe in the short term, be smart to find long term security solutions, and for God sakes do something because doing nothing is not an alternative.

Mexico violence

While violence from drug traffickers has been a regular story out of Mexico over the past few years, the number of stories have really increased in the past few weeks. Tomorrow's Washington Post has one of the more comprehensive summaries of the recent violence.

The human cost of Mexico's aggressive war on drug trafficking is skyrocketing as the country suffers through the worst barrage of drug-related violence in years. More than 600 people have been killed this year, often in remarkably bold and bloody executions, according to national press tallies and state-by-state crime reports.

Nuevo Laredo is just one hot spot in a grisly conflict that has spread across the country. In recent months, a farmer in the Pacific coast state of Sinaloa was gunned down as he visited his parents' grave, and a father in Monterrey, in northern Mexico, was shot dead in front of his son in a video arcade. Authorities have found corpses with limbs chopped off and drums of acid they believe traffickers used to dissolve the bodies of their victims.

...Mexican authorities this week disclosed for the first time that 90 soldiers have been killed in drug-related violence since President Vicente Fox took office in December 2000, vowing a "war without mercy" on Mexico's drug cartels. In addition, at least 65 agents of the Federal Investigative Agency have been killed since it was formed in 2002.

Having just returned from one of the safer regions of Mexico, I can say that this violence was a daily front page story in the media. I don't know whether any candidate can promise more than what President Fox has already done, but I'm sure no political leader in Mexico can appear weak on this issue and manage to win office.

In the meantime, the US should really provide all the assistance it can. Mexico cannot possibly hope to defend against terrorists, detect WMD's or improve border security if they are barely able to handle the drug trafficking violence. Mexico's government is going to work to protect its citizens before they worry about US priorities and rightly so. A more secure Mexico means a more secure America. There's no reason for any US official to oppose greater security cooperation with our neighbors to the south.

Who are you and what have you done with Paul Wolfowitz?

While touring Africa:

Wealthy nations must reduce their agricultural subsidies to help African producers enter new markets, World Bank chief Paul Wolfowitz has argued...

...During a visit to a cotton-processing company in Bobo Dioulasso in Burkina Faso, Mr Wolfowitz said his agency would press for reform of agricultural subsidies to be high on the agenda at the WTO's summit in Hong Kong later this year.

"I think the key to tackling the problem of cotton subsidies which obviously hurts poor farmers in Burkina Faso and other poor countries is tackling agricultural subsidies across the board," Mr Wolfowitz said.

"We will be having a strong voice in favour of reducing subsidies worldwide."

Obviously, Wolfowitz has been kidnapped and replaced with some imposter pinko commie U2 singer. I think Congress should investigate immediately.

A focus group of one

On the taxi ride to the airport in Guadalajara, I spoke with the driver on a number of issues including how he views the upcoming presidential election. I think his views are representative of a significant portion of the country outside of Mexico City. He feels none of the candidates represent him.

He doesn't hate President Fox, but he also doesn't feel that Fox has done a great job for the country. He sees him as an average president, similar to other politicians in the country. He has no reason to vote for Creel or the PAN, because he doesn't see their policies as improving his daily life.

The driver didn't trust the PRI. While he said he might be willing to give them another chance, their corrupt rule in the past made him dislike the thought of them retaking power. He couldn't name the PRI candidate (Madrazo) but he seemed incredibly distrustful of any PRI candidate.

He didn't think AMLO represented him. No, this doesn't fall into the right-left debate and for all the Chavez-bashers out there, my driver could care less about Latin American regional politics. The fact is, AMLO is the mayor of Mexico City and the residents of Guadalajara and other major Mexican cities aren't quite sure they want someone from the DF to be their president.

This is the paradox that the Mexican presidential candidates face. Each has his base: Creel among the upper class, businessmen and ranchers; Madrazo among the PRI loyalists, and AMLO among the poor in the DF and Tabasco. However, a large percentage of the Mexican population simply "doesn't trust any of them" as my cab driver put it.

My cab driver had lived in Guadalajara his entire life. He had four daughters, three of whom were married and all of them still living in the city. He worked ten hours a day driving a taxi, glad to get a dozen passengers, and he lived above the poverty line but certainly didn't qualify as middle class. He was a fan of Chivas and looking forward to drinking a beer and watching the game tonight. He was proud to tell me that he once traveled to Los Angeles and saw a baseball game.

There are thousands if not millions of Mexicans who have similar stories. What's missing from that story is they simply don't see politics as relative to their lives. One year out from the election, each presidential candidate should be asking himself how they can connect with the taxi driver or the waiter or the saleswoman. Each candidate may have the opportunity to win a bare plurality or win because they are the "least-worst"” option, but it is the candidate and the party that aims higher that will have a chance to accomplish something real for the Mexican population.

In order to do this, AMLO may find a way by speaking to all Mexicans from all regions. Creel may find a way by proposing some social legislation that will blunt the impact of globalization. Madrazo may try to show a new PRI, one that is transparent and democratic. But for each of these candidates, it's an uphill battle against their reputations and their parties' histories.

Bolivia in one paragraph

Here's William Ratliff on Bolivia:

The Indians' first objective is positive and crucial for the future of Bolivia and nations far beyond it. They are demanding far greater and effective participation for the majority of the people in their country's affairs. The other objective, calling for such policies as resource nationalization, is largely negative, a sort of reflexive anti-globalization that would reduce the chances of improving living conditions for all Bolivians.

It's a good article overall on the problems of selling capitalism, which is necessary for prosperity, to a region that has been screwed time and again by the capitalists.

Puerto Vallarta

After two days in Sayulita, Mexico, we're now in Puerto Vallarta. Very relaxing weekend, but I feel out of the loop on the news (other than the one piece of news I did check: the Nats have won 10 straight and went 12-1 on their recent homestand)

Sayulita is a nice little town that north of PV that basically survives off tourists, specifically surfers. It has a number of little bays that create perfect waves for amateur surfers (not me). In spite of the number of gringo tourists, the town has a particularly Mexican flavor to it. There's not a single chain restaurant, the streets aren't paved, there are no high rise hotels.

Puerto Vallarta is the opposite of Sayulita. It's a giant tourist resort. Most of the staff at the hotel speaks fluent English and several have refused to speak Spanish to me. And the prices are definitely higher than average in Mexico (Corona in Sayulita is $1.00-$1.50, Corona in PV is $4.00). It's like being back in the US, but I guess to understand Mexico, I need to see this side of it as well. It plays an important role in the economy and the culture.

Out to dinner tonight, back to Guadalajara tomorrow (about a four hour drive), back in DC on Tuesday.

Good Morning from Guadalajara

New President in Bolivia. Congress chose the head of the Supreme Court, not the leader of the Senate. There will be elections soon. Barrio Flores and MABB, as always, have more.

Democracy Arsenal defends the ideology of Truman Democrats almost better than the Truman Democrats do on their webpage.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, blogging over at TPMcafe, quotes me on Venezuela. I find it funny that I try to convince liberals that Chavez is bad for Venezuelan democracy while I work to convince the other side that Chavez is not the source of all evil in Latin America (for more, read the comments here). I haven't quite reached the point Randy Paul is at about Venezuela, but it is very frustrating to find both sides so entrenched in their views.

As a public service announcement, I'll remind people of who's in first in the National League East standings.

Anyway, more fun later, but I'm supposed to be on vacation. Driving to the coast just north of Puerto Vallarta this morning where I'll spend two days possibly without internet connection. Assuming I don't enter some sort of rehab facility for the withdrawl symptoms, I'll be back online on Sunday night, but still on vacation through Tuesday.

OAS Meeting: Success or Failure for the US?

A little bit of everything actually.

Where we succeeded:

• The issue of democracy was one of the top agenda items on the table.
• Democracy will remain a top point at the next meeting.
  
• Nearly every country understands the need to reform the OAS.
• The need for reform was emphasized by Bolivia's collapse (a Pyrrhic victory)
  
• The importance of civil society was recognized, even if no greater access was granted.
• Secretary Rice, on message.
  
• The OAS Secretary-General now has slightly expanded powers to bring issues to the floor.

Where we failed:

• The US proposal for an "early warning" committee at which civil society groups can testify was defeated.
• The media portrayed the meeting as a huge defeat of the US, and worse, a victory for Chavez. I would say it was a draw, but that's not how any media outside of the Miami Herald and a few conservative Latin American papers portrayed it.
  
• Bolivia collapsed politically. While it showed the OAS was impotent, it wasn't worth the price being paid by Bolivians.
• Venezuela dragged the US off message on Bolivia. Our little scuffle did nothing but strengthen Chavez.
  
• Nicaragua's internal political problems received little attention in spite of a request by the president (however, Insulza will be headed there soon).
• Virtually no movement on Haiti. (within the OAS framework, some movement on the US side).
  

The unknowns:

• How did the meetings behind the scenes go?
• Will the OAS be able to handle the responsibility if China forces the UN out of Haiti?
• Free trade and economics? Lots of talk, but no movement in any direction from what I've seen.
• President Bush's speech? It was a good speech and I think most Latin Americans saw it as better than expected. However, he only gave a 13 minute speech when a 50 minute speech was scheduled. That's actually a perfect metaphor for the US's entire Latin America policy.

Impossible immigration reform

If you haven't heard already about the Canadian entering the US after having his bloody chainsaw and other weapons taken away, the BBC version is here. It's almost so ridiculous it's unbelievable. I think Laura Rosen is right on this story. No amount of funding or training or immigration policies would have changed this. It was a case of pure human stupidity that will happen from time to time. Whoever let this guy in should be fired.

Human Spackle

There's no reason for our troops to be treated like this. If I was only allowed to fault the current administration with one issue, it'd be their failure to plan for anything but the best of scenarios. It hurts our troops and it's no way to successfully fight a war.

Other random foreign policy news

TPM cafe's James Lindsay and Democracy Arsenal have some good thoughts on our inaction in Darfur ("good" describing the quality of thoughts, not the level of inaction).

A Miami Herald editorial backs the idea of troops to Haiti and the OAS representative to Haiti said the country would accept American troops. And here's the almost daily article on why Haiti is a mess. I see way too many of those.

The US dropped its opposition to Mohamed ElBaradei leading the IAEA for a third term. It's nice to read that we'll support the guy who actually got the analysis of the Iraqi nuclear program correct. We never did give a good reason for our opposition other than petty politics.

Finally, former Secretary of State and current NDI chairwoman Madeleine Albright and NED Chairman Vin Weber have an op-ed in the post on bringing democracy to the Middle East that includes this radical idea:

Arab leaders should know that progress toward democracy will have favorable consequences for their relations with the United States and that the reverse is also true. Countries moving toward democracy should receive special consideration on such matters as trade and aid, while Washington should distance itself from governments that refuse over time to recognize the rights of their citizens.

Some may see this as common sense, but it isn't US policy yet and it should be.

UPDATE: The Onion reports that the lack of news on Darfur means we must have stopped the genocide and saved lots of innocent lives. Powerful satire.

Compromise

As predicted by some, the OAS came to a compromise that allowed everyone to claim victory but nothing to actually be done. What's surprising about the resolution, which was sponsored by Chile, is that it grants Secretary-General Insulza a surprising increase in power (surprising increase for the OAS, that is). It apparently allows him personally to bring issues to the attention of the OAS if he feels democracies are in danger. There's still nothing the OAS can do about the issue, but it's a step forward that the Sec-Gen can act without unanimous approval. The draft also encourages participation of civil-society groups, but I didn't read how it intends to do that.

Watching the OAS meet for a week and fail to do anything substantive to help Bolivia was a case study in why the rules need to be changed. They passed a very nicely worded resolution encouraging people to dialogue, but could not go any further than that. As it stands now, the OAS leadership can't even call Bolivia to talk without unanimous consent and Bolivia's invitation (ok, that's not quite true, but almost).

Slightly off topic, but Robert Steinbeck also has an op-ed on economic justice in the Western Hemisphere.

What's democracy?

Rice defines governing democratically in an interview with Latin American journalists:

This is the question of what does it mean to govern democratically after having been elected democratically, and to me and I think most people would agree it means that the opposition has an opportunity to organize, the opposition has an opportunity to be on television, to be on the radio, to be in the newspapers with their platform; it means they have the ability to associate freely; it means that no one intimidates the opposition, tries to threaten the opposition in some way; it means that there are civil society groups that can freely associate and can freely take their cases to the people; it means that there are independent trade unions, for instance, that can protect the rights of workers. The government can say everything that it wants to about protecting the rights of workers, but trade unions are also an important part of protecting the rights of workers.

And so I don't believe that there are different kinds of democracy. I've heard this argument. Now, it may be that I'm suspicious of this because I was a Soviet specialist and the word ''democracy'' was used cynically. The German Democratic Republic. Who ever thought that East Germany was democratic? It was not. And so when people talk about different kinds of democracy, I say let's go back to the basics of democracy. That means people can say what they think, people can educate their children freely, boys and girls; it means that they can worship as they please; it means that they can be free from the arbitrary knock of the secret police at night because the justice system is independent; and it means that they can organize themselves politically to oppose the existing government.

What do I like about this answer? It's not taking an obvious swipe at any particular regime. Too often US officials are asked questions and they use the chance to go after their enemy of the moment. Throughout her entire interview, Secretary Rice carefully walks around attacking US opponents, only giving two small statements of criticism against Cuba, and instead gives a positive agenda for the hemisphere and a more universal agenda for democracy.

I know, I know. Watch the deeds not the words. But these words are on message and keeping our agenda on track, which is important.

Two cases of dangerous blogging

Iran sentenced Mojtaba Saminejad to two years in prison for blogging. He still faces charges of "insulting the prophets" which could carry a possible death sentence.

China moved to restrict bloggers, requiring private citizens with blogs to register with the state. If they are found to have not registered, they face an outrageous fine.

Too much heavy news

Way too much heavy news and analysis coming out of Latin America this week. So time for some articles not about riots, scandals and violence (although not as ridiculous as the Mexican Dwarf Bullfighter article I linked to on the sidebar).

BBC covers Paraguay's soybean industry and Tim points out a Guardian article about coffee growth in El Salvador. I know I'm a geek, but these are both interesting articles about how poor farmers try to compete in the global market.

El Tiempo has offered to host blogs for all of Colombia's Presidential candidates. They have not created an easy link yet, but you can find them by going to El Tiempo's website, clicking on the "politica" section and looking at the bottom right. So far only Antoino Navarro Wolf (former M-19 guerrilla) and Rodrigo Rivera Salazar have taken up the offer.

Argentina plays Brazil in soccer (football, whatever) tonight tomorrow night as part of the World Cup qualifiers. Lots of other good matches going on this week. Also, Pele will be playing a charity match for the victims of last December's Tsunami.

And in some good news, Peru's mermaid baby is doing well. I don't understand the fascination with this story, but her story has really captivated the media and has a happy ending so I'll go ahead and link to it.

Who wants to be the next ex-president of Bolivia?

Lots of good posts out there on Bolivia. Publius Pundit has a brief roundup and Eduardo has the text of Mesa's resignation speech.

I just want to throw in a quick thought about voting preferences. If most Bolivian politicians believe the situation in the country is relatively unstable in the short term, then they may believe that the next president won't last very long. We've seen several politicians say they don't want to be president. If they think the next president won't last, and the presence of their opponent in power strengthens their hand, why not force their opponent to take the presidency?

It seems cynical, but if politicians' short term goals are to mobilize their base, wouldn't Evo Morales benefit from having a pro-Santa Cruz autonomy person in power? And wouldn't those pushing Santa Cruz autonomy or independence benefit if they could rail against a leftist presidency?

There's lots of reasons for this not to occur, including the fear that their opponent will hold onto power through force or that they will do something really stupid that harms the country. But there must be politicians in Bolivia who are sitting there thinking that they'd love to see their worst enemy fail at being president. It'll be interesting to watch if any of that comes up in the vote in Congress.

US and Africa

President Bush will meet with Prime Minister Blair today and promise $350 million for Africa. While it may sound like a lot of money, it's far short of what PM Blair requested and far short of what Africa needs. Today's Washington Post suggests $6 billion, which would help fund Blair's total push for $25 billion.

Nick Kristof ups his rhetoric on Darfur today: "Mr. Bush values a frozen embryo. But he hasn't mustered much compassion for an entire population of terrorized widows and orphans. And he is cementing in place the very hopelessness he dreads, by continuing to avert his eyes from the first genocide of the 21st century."

Normally, that sort of statement would be over the top, but there is a genocide going on and the US has not stepped up to offer a significant contribution to stop it. Of course, neither have European or Arab states.

For those looking for more, lots of good information coming from BBC's Africa page and AllAfrica.com.

Mesa resigns, sort of

Bolivian President Mesa announced his resignation, but also said he will remain president until the Congress can decide who will follow him. I'm sure Eduardo and Miguel will have more.

Canada's government holds on by a vote

A Canadian Liberal defected, but then a Canadian Conservative has refused to show up to vote, saying that he needs a break from the stress. Canada's government is only holding on by one vote, so little events like this continue to make a big difference.

More protests in Bolivia

Mesa's gambits have not worked to settle the protests yet.

Tens of thousands of demonstrators have rallied in Bolivia's main city, La Paz, in one of the biggest protests in weeks of unrest. Riot police used tear gas in clashes near the presidential palace, while a strike brought traffic to a standstill...

...Two weeks of road blocks have begun affecting the supply of fuel and food into the city, but the protesters have vowed to carry on.

Hopefully he has more tricks up his sleeve. Some have suggested early elections, but is there a candidate who can unite the country? I don't see one on the horizon, so elections may just continue the divide.

Bush at the OAS

President Bush spoke at the OAS today. I think he spent too much focus on CAFTA, which only affects part of the region and was really aimed back home. The part on democracy was pretty good. He didn't snipe on the left-right divide but stressed that democracy must include bettering people's lives. He didn't back any specific reforms, but talked about larger themes. I pulled those paragraphs and copied them below.

This love of liberty has long roots in our own hemisphere. Not long after the United States won its independence from Britain, patriots throughout the Americas were inspired to take their own stand. One of them was an Argentine general named Jose de San Martin. During the struggle for independence from Spain, the general declared, "In the last corner of the earth that I might find myself, I will be ready to sacrifice my existence for liberty."

San Martin's dream of liberty has found a home in the Organization of American States. This organization's founding documents calls the Americas to its "historic mission to offer to man a land of liberty, and a favorable environment for the realization of his just aspirations." That mission was given its clear direction in the Inter-American Democratic Charter declaring that "the peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy and their governments have an obligation to promote it and defend it." And today what was once a distant dream is now within our reach: an Americas wholly free and democratic and at peace with ourselves and our neighbors.

In the new Americas of the 21st century, democracy is now the rule, rather than the exception. Think of the dramatic changes we have seen in our lifetime. In 1974, the last time the OAS General Assembly met in the United States, fewer than half its members had democratically elected governments. Today, all 34 countries participating in this General Assembly have democratic, constitutional governments. Only one country in this hemisphere sits outside this society of democratic nations -- and one day the tide of freedom will reach Cuba's shores, as well. (Applause.) The great Cuban patriot Jose Marti said it best: La libertad no es negociable.

The dramatic gains for democracy we have witnessed in our hemisphere must not be taken for granted. Democratic change and free elections are exhilarating events. Yet we know from experience they can be followed by moments of uncertainty. When people risk everything to vote, it can raise expectations that their lives will improve immediately -- but history teaches us that the path to a free and prosperous society is long and not always smooth. Each nation must follow its own course, according to its own history. Yet the old and new democracies of the Americas share a common interest in showing every citizen of our hemisphere that freedom brings not just peace -- it brings a better life for themselves and their families.

In the new Americas of the 21st century, bringing a better life to our people requires choosing between two competing visions. One offers a vision of hope -- it is founded on representative government, integration into the world markets, and a faith in the transformative power of freedom in individual lives. The other seeks to roll back the democratic progress of the past two decades by playing to fear, pitting neighbor against neighbor, and blaming others for their own failures to provide for their people. The choices we make will determine which vision will define the Americas our children inherit -- we must make tough decisions today to ensure a better tomorrow.

To give our children a better tomorrow, our citizens must see that democracy delivers more than promises. They need to see in their daily lives that their hard work and enterprises are rewarded. They need to see that in a democratic society, people can walk in the streets in safety, corruption is punished, and all citizens are equal before the law. And when the people of the Americas see that opportunity and social mobility are real, they will know that in a free and democratic society, the only limit to how far they can go is the size of their dreams.

And even more OAS...

The New York Times once again notes that the US proposal for an "early warning" system for democracy breakdowns is likely to be shot down. The countries are still negotiating, however, and hopefully some sort of compromise can be reached.

I disagree with much of Jackson Diehl's column today, if only because he spends way too much time on Chavez and not enough time on the other problems within the hemisphere. Venezuela's faltering democracy is just one of many problems, and I would argue that other issues in the hemisphere should take precedence. However, Diehl does get this paragraph correct:

Bush, meanwhile, finds himself confounded by a familiar Latin conundrum: Direct U.S. intervention, however benign, risks regional rejection as Yanqui imperialism. But even the governments that secretly share Bush's anxieties resist standing up on their own -- partly out of deference to the region's tradition of nonintervention, partly because of their disgruntlement with Bush's first-term policies and partly because they covet a slice of Chavez's growing pile of petrodollars.

I think the "covet a slice of Chavez's growing pile of petrodollars" is a bit cynical, but otherwise it's correct.

More OAS stuff and some sad news

Michael Shifter in today's Miami Herald captures both the possibilities of success and failure at the OAS this week:

As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saw when she visited Latin America a month ago, the schism between the region's capitals and Washington is greater than at any other time since the end of the Cold War. U.S. policymakers must now build on the goodwill generated by Rice's visit. In this sense, the Fort Lauderdale meeting is a welcome coincidence and offers an excellent opportunity for the Bush administration to promote a multilateral approach to issues of utmost concern in Latin America.

The sense of opportunity is further heightened by the fact that the meeting will be led by the recently inaugurated OAS secretary general, Jose Miguel Insulza. A Chilean former foreign and interior minister, Insulza is a highly respected political figure with a reputation as a consummate pragmatist. He will need to summon all his political skill to steer an organization whose credibility and effectiveness are being seriously questioned. He will not only have to manage the wide gulf between the U.S. and Latin American agendas. He will also have to manage an organization that is financially strapped and whose member governments are divided even over what its main purpose should be.

But such organizational and financial problems dwarf the political problems that the OAS confronts...

...A reinvigorated OAS is vital to repairing inter-American affairs and strengthening democracy and will advance U.S. interests in the region. Insulza is the right man to turn that vision into reality. But however talented, he can't do it alone. About that, Insulza, ever the pragmatist, has no illusions.

It's a good op-ed, convincing of the need for a stronger OAS (of which I needed no convincing). However, some more specific policy proposals from Shifter would be very welcome as well.

After reading this I went over the Inter-American Dialogue, where Shifter is vice-president for policy, and was saddened to learn that its founder Sol M. Linowitz had died. Inter-American Dialogue is one of the best thinktanks in the hemisphere and Linowitz played a key early role in bringing together its all-star cast.

Troops to Haiti

Today's Washington Post endorses the idea of sending American troops to Haiti. I agree. The security situation in Haiti has degraded. While the UN mission has performed well, the limited number of peacekeepers and the limited scope of mission has kept them from stabilizing the country. The security situation needs to improve before the elections, or else violent elements will be able to disrupt the elections and prolong the political problems.

The introduction of US troops should not be a large force, and should have its focus on police operations, stability, and some limited security for reconstruction projects. While US forces would not be under the UN (US forces never are), they should respect and work in full coordination with the UN mission. We should also work in coordination with Brazil to recruit more peacekeepers from other nations in the hemisphere. If we can buy private contractors from Central and South America to go to Iraq, we can find some incentives for governments to send more troops in blue helmets to Haiti.

OAS stuff

Secretary Rice gave an excellent interview to the Miami Herald on the OAS and issues within the hemisphere. If in the past four years we had been as measured in our rhetoric as she was in this interview, we would have more credibility and fewer problems in the hemisphere. Of course, we need to actually act on what we say, but it's still encouraging to read. Bush speaks at the OAS tomorrow. Everyone is expecting a whole bunch of "democracy" and "free trade", but it's what he says beyond those words that will be judged.

Oppenheimer today predicted nothing great or awful will be decided at this meeting and we should be happy just to keep the issue of democracy promotion on the table.

I don't want to be as pessimistic as Oppenheimer, but I haven't seen any significant actions come out of this meeting yet. If the OAS wants to be relevant, it needs to be more than an organization for talking. It actually needs some teeth to back up its policies. I understand why so many Latin American nations are hesitant to give power to an organization once dominated by the US. However, Latin American governments need to realize that without some sort mechanism for action, either through the OAS or elsewhere, the region will never be able to take care of its own problems.

Update: From Democracy Arsenal:

Its worrisome that the U.S. can come off as tone-deaf relative to its backyard of South America as it can in the Middle East. The state of democracy in the hemisphere is a legitimate concern. An American foreign policy focused on democracy promotion needs to address democracies that have stagnated or are sliding backwards as a result of economic and social pressures. But when it comes to working with a group of democracies on how to fortify democracy within their own ranks, the U.S. may have to be a little more democratic in its own methods.

That was pretty much my point in the last paragraph of this post:

Make this debate public, put our idea on the table, and invite every country in the region to put forward their own proposal. Instead of ramming through the US backed bill, let's debate multiple proposals and come to a consensus. Don't make this debate about Venezuela, make this debate about how we handle democracies that have broken down. Our only goal should be to keep the agenda of democracy reform on the table to make sure some sort of reform is passed. Long term, a proposal written by Chile or Brazil or Mexico that passes with the backing of nearly every country in the region will have greater legitimacy and effectiveness than a proposal the US begs, bribes and coerces its way through the system.

If you read one article today...

Lots of other people linking to this one. Front page of today's Washington Post discusses the two versions of Iraq, the positive spin coming out of the White House and the reality that most people believe.

Malaria and DDT

An op-ed in tomorrow's Washington Post argues against using DDT as a solution to malaria. The author says DDT causes too much environmental damage and there are already too many mosquitos that are resistant to the chemicals. I go back and forth on this issue, but this is one of the better arguments against.

Human trafficking and the Gulag defense

The State Department released its annual report on human trafficking today. The link goes to the introduction to the report. Every year, this report is successful at pointing out the problem of human trafficking in countries around the world. To its credit, this is an issue that the Bush administration has made a top priority.

What will now occur is several of the countries in Tier 3 or the Tier 2 watch list will complain that the list is politically motivated. They'll claim the US favors some political allies with higher ranks and punishes some international political opponents (i.e. Venezuela) by ranking them lower.

This complaint ranks as low as the "Gulag defense" currently being used by this administration to defend its detention centers.

The US should not be able to dodge its obligations towards a transparent justice system by complaining about the word choice of Amnesty. Other countries should not dodge their own human rights obligations by blaming the US.

UPDATE: Two things. First from today's Miami Herald:

The Venezuelan Embassy dismissed the report in a statement, calling it "a sad demonstration of how the [Bush] administration has politicized its work on human rights.''

Second, Robert Mayer has a good post on why Amnesty should not criticize all governments equally. I would note that the point of my post here was not to equate the abuses at Gitmo to human trafficking, it was to equate the responses by those trying to dodge any allegations.

The curse of gold

From the BBC:

In the town of Mongbwalu in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Richard is all smiles as he shows me a small flake of gold balanced on the tip of his finger.

He has just found it after sieving mud and sand for the whole morning. The gold, which he wraps up in the metal foil from a cigarette packet, is worth less than $10 (£5.50) but it will provide food for his family.

The BBC story is based on a new report from Human Rights Watch linking the gold industry in the DRC to dangerous labor, child labor, border issues, violence, corruption and even poverty. It's worth your time to at least read the BBC story, if nothing else.

Elections and compromise in Bolivia

After allowing Congress to fail for a few days, Bolivian President Mesa used his decree authority to call for elections. Not just one election. That's plural. There will be two elections on October 16th of this year, one for the constituent assembly wanted by the East and one for the autonomy referendum wanted by the West.

I haven't seen what the Bolivian public's reaction will be to this yet. What are they going to do, complain that Mesa is giving them elections to decide their own future?

Venezuela's oil

There's been lots of good articles on the anti-Chavez blogs about the mismanagement of Pdvsa's oil. Today, that story made it into the Miami Herald. The best information confirming the case is the fact that Pdvsa is hiding its accounting from investors:

But the doubts about the real production figures and the money issues already may have created a credibility gap on Wall Street, where traders say the uncertainty could soon affect foreign investments in the oil sector.

For reasons that are not clear, PDVSA has not filed any financial statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission since 2003 and no longer posts financial statements on its own website.

''There's no information whatsoever,'' said Alberto Ramos, a senior Latin America analyst for Goldman Sachs. ``We don't really have a good idea of what's going on.''

If they have nothing to hide, why not disclose their information to investors? It's not like the Venezuelan economy can manage without foreign investment, and Pdvsa is losing investor confidence at an fast rate.

Congratulate Brazil

From Reuters:

Brazilian police said they had broken up the biggest illegal logging operation in the Amazon on Thursday in a move environmentalists saw as a sign the government was serious about beating the corruption that hampers the fight to save the rain forest.

A total of 89 people were arrested in the crackdown, nearly half of them from the government agency charged with protecting the forests from a gang that had illegally cut down an estimated $370 million of Amazon timber since 1990.

Got little to say other than I hope to see more articles like these.

I've been meme'd

I blame peer pressure.

Who passed it to me: Eduardo over at Barrio Flores.

Total volume of music files in my PC: Surprisingly, less than 2GB. I had a computer crash and haven't had time to recover more music.

Last CD I bought: Dream Theater's "Live at Budokan"

Which song I'm currently listening to: A friend sent me a copy of the new Audioslave CD, so I'm listening to that.

Five songs I listen to regularly: This list is changing constantly:

• Cool #9 from Joe Satriani
• Life by the Drop from Stevie Ray Vaughan
• Disposable Heroes from Metallica
  
• Right where it belongs from NIN (obscure final song on new CD)
• Touche from Godsmack

Pass this task to: NOBODY!!! I'm ending this blog style, chain letter, pyramid scam here and now. Or at least until someone sends me a new one. :)

US policy in Africa

Almost spit out my coffee reading this one:

President Bush refused on Wednesday to budge on his administration's opposition to doubling aid for Africa, a major proposal on the agenda for a summit meeting of industrial nations next month in Scotland.

The long-simmering dispute could culminate next week when Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, who has advocated the plan, visits Washington in advance of the July session, a meeting of the Group of 8. As host of the meeting, Mr. Blair set the agenda, and he argued during his successful campaign for a third term in office that the world's richest nations had to make a $25 billion increase in support for Africa. But Mr. Bush has been cool to the idea from the start and has resisted making new aid commitments.

Asked Wednesday about the issue, Mr. Bush said, "It doesn't fit our budgetary process."

and later:

"It might be fine for some in the United States to make all kinds of statements," he [Bush] said later. "If you denounce Sudan as genocidal, what next? Don't you have to arrest the president? The solution doesn't lie in making radical solutions - not for us in Africa."

Doubling our Africa aid "doesn't fit our budgetary process." Going into Iraq made sense, but stopping actual genocide in Sudan is a "radical solution." I'm depressed.

UPDATE: The quote about Sudan above does not appear in the White House transcript of the event. I don't know why.

More Canadian fun

Just when you thought the scandal was over, taped recordings appear that seem to indicate vote buying:

Ottawa reverberated this week with allegations that Canada's minority Liberal government tried to bribe an opposition politician to defect, as it came within a whisker of losing a confidence vote in Parliament.

Prime Minister Martin denies any wrongdoing and the government argues that secret recordings of conversations submitted by Conservative Member of Parliament Gurmant Grewal have been doctored or translated inaccurately from Punjabi.

But opposition parties, accusing Martin of lying, say his chief of staff should step aside or police or Parliament's ethics commissioner should investigate the tapes.

Either one side engaged in outright vote buying or the other in doctored tapes? Or maybe it's just one giant Canadian conspiracy trying to convince the world of their new PR campaign "Canada, it's interesting!" After all, even the Netherlands gets more coverage for simply following the French than Canada gets for this scandal.

OAS meeting

The OAS meeting in Ft. Lauderdale starts today and the Miami Herald has great coverage, as they do every year. In particular, read their main article on the challenges the US face in the OAS and Oppenheimer's article on the OAS fight against irrelevance. Hopefully some good will come out of this meeting.

Bolivian mobs win one

The opposition managed to shut down enough of the capital to keep Congress from meeting.

Thousands of demonstrators prevented Bolivian legislators from reaching the congressional building Tuesday, forcing the suspension of their first session after a weeklong recess caused by continued street protests.

Some 65 senators and congressmen protected by police made it through the crowd, but a quorum of 79 was needed for the joint session.

Can the protesters keep this up for longer than a few days? Also, how many Congressmen are not showing up because they fear violence and how many are not showing up because they want to see the president look ineffective?

And one more question: Reuters reports that the Congressional President did not show up, and then quotes Evo Morales as criticizing him. However, La Razon says he arrived at 7:30, met with all the opposition except Morales's party, and then shut down the session for the day due to the lack of quorum. Is Reuters relying on a single source of Morales and will they do it a second time now that he's lied to them?

I know that's inside baseball to people who don't really care about Bolivia, but how the international media covers the events there does matter to how the US and others view the problem.

Ya, what they said

Heather Hurlburt over at Democracy Arsenal has a four step agenda for the GWOT/GWOE that includes:
1. Diplomatic: Redefine the fight against Islamic Extremism so that allies feel comfortable getting on board.
2. Programmatic: Fund what we're doing.
3. Domestic: Get our country involved, so citizens understand and participate.
4. Military: Be honest about our capabilities and confront the gap.

Go read when you get a chance. Lots of good stuff over there for a tough and progressive foreign policy.

Juan Forero and propaganda

Read Forero's article on Hugo Chavez and then ask yourself how the New York Times' editorial standards have dropped so low that they accepted this as news. I'm not a regular NYT basher, (I actually like the newspaper some days), nor am I a fan of the radical anti-Chavez movement, but this was really bad. This article is a bunch of pro-Chavez propaganda with nearly no criticism. It could have come straight off the Chavez propaganda sites.

If they had wanted to avoid the anti-Chavistas, they could have quoted Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, or even John Kerry. No, not a single quote of criticism made it into the story. Nothing about the fact Venezuela's economy tanked several years ago and that poverty is worse under Chavez. Nothing about how he took over the judicial branch and has replaced military officers who disagreed with him. Nothing about Bush's meeting yesterday with the Venezuelan opposition, which was a pretty damn significant news event that made it to the front pages of every major Venezuelan newspaper.

And how the hell does Forero write an article about Chavez this week without noting that he disappeared this weekend? They fronted the pictures of Monday's rally when people we're clamoring to see him to make sure he wasn't dead. Did they really take the pictures and forget to tell Forero what the people were protesting about?

Anyway, the story is that Hugo Chavez just walked a piece of propaganda straight onto the pages of the New York Times and managed to avoid a single bit of criticism. If Bush had done the same thing, I'd be equally pissed off. It's simply not responsible journalism.

UPDATE: Title changed, now that I've calmed down a bit.