Bloggings by boz

From the AP:

Venezuela will not renew the license of an opposition-aligned TV station when it expires next year, President Hugo Chávez said Thursday, accusing the broadcaster of backing plots to topple him....

...''No media outlet will be tolerated here that is at the service of coup-ism, against the people, against the nation, against national independence, against the dignity of the republic,'' said Chávez, wearing a red beret and fatigues in his year-end speech to troops.

It's easy to find reason after reason to justify small sacrifices of freedom in the name of national defense. It doesn't change the fact that freedom is being lost.

As Randy noted, President Oscar Arias hit the nail on the head in his comparison of Castro and Pinochet:

"Fidel Castro began with the (execution) wall, killing people those who opposed him," Arias said in radio interview. "There is no difference. The ideology is different but both were savage, brutal and bloody."

Apparently, the Cuban government didn't appreciate that very much:

Cuba blasted Costa Rican President Oscar Arias on Wednesday for comparing ailing leader Fidel Castro to the late Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, calling Arias an ''opportunistic clown'' who does the bidding of the U.S. government.

In a statement published in the Communist Party daily Granma, the Cuban Foreign Ministry said it reacted with ''profound indignation'' to President Oscar Arias' comments likening Castro to his ideological foe.

The Cuban government is desperate to spin Castro's legacy, and Arias' words had a wide impact across the hemisphere. The Castro defenders know that Arias is not an American puppet. In fact, few people in this hemisphere have more credit than Costa Rica's president, so his words must have stung a great deal.

Both Pinochet and Castro's defenders are deluded in their attempts to rewrite the legacies of the brutal dictators. Normally, it would be bad karma to pile on the dead and dying. But for the sake of their victims, we need to make sure history understands the damage these two men did to their countries. Arias did the right thing, and I hope he does it again.

Merry Christmas from rural New Jersey, where I'm visiting the girlfriend's family. Hope everyone is having a safe, relaxing and happy holiday.

Good Morning! Some numbers from Latin America.

In Colombia, a new Gallup poll shows Uribe's popularity remains at 70% in spite of recent scandals.

In Peru, a poll in Lima suggests nearly a third of people have been victim of a robbery or assault in the past year.

In Bolivia, Apoyo says Evo Morales' approval rate is at 62%. The divide in the country is significant with around 80% supporting him in La Paz and El Alto while only 35% support him in Santa Cruz. As Miguel notes, there is also an interesting gender divide, with men significantly more likely to support Morales than women.

In Paraguay, some interesting polls are coming out about the 2008 election. Over half the population opposes the president's reelection. Bishop Fernando Lugo has a small lead in the opinion polls, but 2008 is still far away.

In Chile, La Nacion has some reaction to Pinochet's death. 68% supported giving Pinochet military honors while 63% supported Bachelet's decision to deny him a state funeral, showing that Bachelet's middle ground on the issue may have been a good move. When asked how history will view Pinochet, 17% said he "saved the country from communism," 46% said he was "a dictator who violated human rights," 18% said "a nationalist who reformed Chile's economy" and 19% said "a dictator who used his position for personal gain."

The Economist on Argentina's economy:

The question, as it has been for the past four years, is how long the growth can continue. The debate has an ideological edge. Supporters of the fixed exchange-rate that brought growth and then collapse in the 1990s have poured scorn on the sustainability of the recovery. Fans of Néstor Kirchner, the president since 2003, like to claim that Argentina will continue to grow apace because it shrugged off the IMF's advice and is following “heterodox” policies.

Many economists in Argentina are now coming round to the view that the country can continue growing at a reasonable rate—partly because some of the policies are less “heterodox” than is claimed.

Growth will be around 7% this year and the bank is predicting that same amount for next year. Inflation is hovering just below the 10% mark, although that is held artificially low by price controls. While many Argentines would prefer a better economy, they also realize that it could be far worse and has greatly improved over the past few years.

Economists have been predicting doom for Argentina's new economic model since before Kirchner came to power, but the economy seems to be moving along quite well. At least over the short term, investors are seeing a country in which big profits can be made. They are aware of the risks of investing in a country that is not following traditional economic advice, but have determined the rewards that can be made balance those risks well.

Can it continue? There are some bad signs for Argentina's economic future (rising inflation, deficit spending), but there is no reason to start panicking yet. Those who have bet against Argentina these past few years have lost. Even if their economic model looks unorthodox, there are enough fundamentals to keep it running strong for a while.

However, if high inflation, price controls and deficit spending aren't signs of an immediate problem, then what indicators should we expect to see before Argentina hits its next economic down-swing? Is there a tipping point in those indicators or is there another indicator that we should be watching? While still a few years off, it would be good to know what the warning signs will be for Argentina and whether those warning signs will give enough time for the government to reform its policies.

Earlier this week I mentioned the possible terrorism financing occurring in the tri-border region. Yesterday's Guardian had a report on another dark trade going on in that region: human trafficking.

Everything from fake branded clothing to Class A drugs are ferried back and forth along these clandestine routes. The list of contraband goods now also extends to human beings.

The human-trafficking business is estimated to be worth over £10bn a year, making it the world's third most profitable criminal activity after drug-smuggling and gun-running.

Many of those trafficked through the triple frontier are destined for the illegal labour market in Brazil or Argentina. The trade in babies for adoption is also widely reported. But a large proportion end up as sex workers. Many end up in brothels across the region, although a high number are destined for the triple frontier's own thriving sex industry.

Children are particularly vulnerable to human traffickers. Charities working with at-risk children in the border region estimate that as many as 3,500 young people could be involved.

Hi, I'm a PC. In spite of that, this is the first of many posts written on my new MacBook. I was in the market for a new laptop and determined that the MacBook was the best computer for me at the cost, power and size I was looking for.

In the first three hours, I've already seen the good and bad of Macs. It's much faster at opening programs and running them than my previous computer. It's also a bit awkward at networking and doesn't run every piece of software smoothly. I've worked on Macs before, so it's not a completely new experience, but it still feels weird.

I am a PC person and will remain a PC person, but for the next year or more, I'm going to be working on a Mac. Recommendations are appreciated.

The Miami Herald has run a multi-part series on the problems within Radio and TV Marti. On top of the two stations' inability to reach the Cuban population, there is corruption and mismanagement within the programs.

At this point, Radio and TV Marti inadvertently serve Castro's interests. The two stations divert millions of dollars away from other programs that could be more effective tools of promoting democracy and human rights in Cuba. The two stations tie up money in an ineffective and corrupt bureaucracy that the Cuban government can dodge and manipulate with minimal effort. They give the Cuban government another international issue to exploit without actually pressuring that government towards any sort of reforms.

Providing information to populations under a dictatorship is a key part to promoting democracy. Radio and TV Marti have failed at that for some time. The US should greatly reduce those programs if not shut them down completely and put that money towards programs that actually have an effect on breaking the Cuban government's information blockade.

The goals of promoting democracy and human rights in Cuba are correct; some of the programs to reach those goals have not been. Over the past decades, too many people within the US government have gotten stuck fighting to maintain programs long after their usefulness has expired rather than adapting to reach the goals.

Maintaining the programs of the last four decades will simply lead to the same results that we have seen over the past four decades. Those fighting to "stay the course" on Cuba policy are simply fighting to keep the status quo on the island.

From the BBC:

Uruguay has accused Argentina of turning a blind eye to protests over a planned pulp mill near their border which are "strangling" the economy.

The protests at the three international bridges on the Uruguay river were aimed at "forcing an end to construction", said ambassador Hector Gros Espiell....

...Argentina maintains the mill will pollute the Uruguay river.

Part of the concern stems from the links between the Argentine government and protesting groups. It looks like the government is quietly encouraging non-governmental groups to protest and harm Uruguay's economy in order to place pressure on an ongoing court case. That's a dirty trick that will hurt relations between the two countries over the long term.

The post below may cause some to wonder why US Special Forces were in Paraguay in the first place. While it's not possible to know for sure, it is likely related to the US claims that Hezbollah and other terrorist groups are financed through networks in the tri-border region.

The BBC had an excellent investigative piece last week on the subject.

The BBC examined a number of the transfer documents and saw large amounts of money, around $10m, moving to Lebanon in the space of a year.

Three transfers, for $100,000, $70,000, and $42,200, went in the space of two days to companies in Beirut which did not appear to exist.

Adolfo Marin, the original prosecutor in the case, said it was very difficult to investigate the money transfers because the banks in Beirut were dominated by Hezbollah.

"I have no idea what they can export to us from Lebanon, so necessarily the money that goes to Lebanon is not for imports," he said. "So it is possible to formulate a hypothesis about the probability of money laundering and links with terrorism."

Kassem Hijazi strongly denied any involvement in terrorist financing. "It's absurd," he said.

The article follows the US Treasury Department freezing the assets of two businesses and Paraguay rejecting claims that terrorism financing occurs within its borders.

Even if you accept the US claims that terrorism financing occurs (which I believe), the question still remains whether the US military should be involved in this issue or whether it should be left to civilian agencies.

Shutting down cells that are financing terrorism seems like an excellent job for the Treasury Department, State Department and intelligence agencies, all of whom should be more involved on this issue. While there is reason for some military involvement, civilian agencies should have the lead and the military should be in a supporting role. The military is an excellent hammer, but not every problem is a nail.

I was reading today's LA Times article about US Special Forces missions encroaching on CIA territory when this sentence in the third paragraph caught my eye:

But the initiative has also led to several embarrassing incidents for the United States, including a shootout in Paraguay...

Wow, that sounds rather serious. The explanation:

In 2004, members of an MLE team operating in Paraguay shot and killed an armed assailant who tried to rob them outside a bar, said former intelligence officials familiar with the incident. U.S. officials removed the members of the team from the country, the officials said.

The article as a whole deals with a serious issue, but the Paraguay example is rather lame. If the worst thing this program has done in Latin America was have a soldier shoot a mugger, it's not much of an issue in this region. The examples from East Africa and Europe were much more serious and really showed the dangers of having military do civilian intelligence work. Using this example from Paraguay makes the LA Times look like it was desperate for evidence.

Good Morning!!! It's been a busy week and I've been traveling since Wednesday, which is why the blog has been slow.

In Cuba, a rare Gallup poll shows 47% of Cubans approve of their government leaders while 40% disapprove. Only one in four Cubans are satisfied with the level of freedom in the country but most are happy with the healthcare and educational systems. The poll was done in Havana and Santiago in mid-September. I think Gallup deserves a lot of credit for taking on a difficult and in some ways dangerous assignment.

Two polls from Guatemala. Vox Latina says Colom 23, Menchu 12, Perez 7, Flores 3, Montenegro 2. 76% of the population is undecided. Gallup says only 41% are undecided and has the candidates Colom 45, Perez 13.

In El Salvador, a poll from La Prensa Grafica shows President Saca with fairly high popularity. The population rates him 6.1 on a scale of 1-10 and the polling company says that 59% approve of his government. That poll is in slight contradiction to other recent polls that show Saca's approval dropping.

In Panama, President Torrijos has a 61% approval rating.

In Peru, a new Apoyo poll says Garcia has dropped 17 points in the last six months from 69% to 52%. His political honeymoon is over.

Finally, last week Latinobarometro released their annual survey of democracy in Latin America. The Economist article on the survey is here.

A reader e-mailed me earlier this week to ask about the Guatemalan elections scheduled for September 2007. Copied below is a slightly edited version of the response:

New polls out today, I'll cover them Friday...
http://www.prensalibre.com/pl/2006/diciembre/10/158267.html
http://www.prensalibre.com/pl/2006/diciembre/10/158267.html

75% of the population is undecided and the vast majority of people are very unhappy with the current conditions in Guatemala, although they differ on what the main problem is (security or economy) or how to solve it.

Alvaro Colom of the center-left UNE will definitely be running. He lost the 2003 elections in the second round to Berger. He'll likely run on a progressive economic platform that borders between pragmatism and populism. On issues like CAFTA, he'll walk a fine line of criticizing some aspects of it without calling for Guatemala's outright withdrawal. Fortunately, he'll have candidates to the left of him that will make him look like the moderate alternative, similar to Garcia in Peru. He would be a fairly strong candidate in my book and will likely make it to the second round.

Either Rigoberta Menchu or some indigenous activist she hand selects will run. I'm guessing that one of the main storylines of the campaign in the international media will be the indigenous vote. Menchu has name recognition and would bring a lot of international attention to the election. As it stands today, she would come in second or third place. If she wants a shot at winning, she needs to moderate her policies and image just a little bit and avoid being linked with Chavez, who is not well liked in Guatemala. I can guarantee her opponents will try to label her as a "radical" and she needs to deflect that label if she hopes to win.

There are a few other candidates out there including Otto Perez, a member of the president's coalition (but not his party). While the president is no longer very popular, a large number of voters still want someone with a "firm hand" to handle the security problems. I imagine some candidate on the right (maybe Perez, maybe someone else) will try to take that mantle and will run on that platform along with a pro-free trade economic platform. That platform won't win in the first round, but it could attract enough voters to make it a second round runoff.

It's likely someone on the far-far-right (from the Rios Montt crowd) will run. That candidate would be lucky to get into double digits, but would attract media attention and would probably bring some level of violence to the campaign.

The main point I would stress is that, other than Colom, we really aren't even sure who is running at this point or how the race will shake out. The election is still far enough away and Guatemalans simply aren't focused on it. Remember that in Ecuador, 60% remained undecided until the final two months of the election. I wouldn't be surprised if Guatemala looked similar. In general, people are just tired of politicians and politics and they don't see any party really improving their lives.

Augusto Pinochet died today at the age of 91. He led the coup d'etat against President Salvador Allende in 1973 and headed the military dictatorship in Chile for 17 years.

I'll try to have more to say later.

Marc Cooper has more. Randy adds his thoughts. Michael Shifter had an op-ed in this morning's Washington Post about Pinochet and Castro. Ok, one more from Cooper.

Watching the media coverage, it really boils down to two points:
1. "Escaped justice". Pinochet managed to dodge trials and died before he could ever be sentenced for his crimes.
2. "Mixed legacy". Reporters report the opinion from Pinochet's supporters and opponents.

For me, Pinochet is a symbol of the US foreign policy struggle between short-term convenience and long-term values. Several administrations simply looked the other way rather than publicly condemn his human rights violations.

This isn't simply a question of historical curiosity. How many other "benevolent dictatorships" do we coddle today in the name of fighting the War on Terror? When we ally with people like Musharraf, Mubarak and the House of Saud, aren't we just repeating history?

One of the final (and only) acts of the 109th Congress was to provide a six month extension to all four countries covered under the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA). The final bill was a compromise between the Senate version, which offered a full year extension to Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, and the House version, which only offered a six month extension to Colombia and Peru.

ATPDEA has created thousands of jobs in the Andean region by opening US markets to niche businesses. The cost to the US is minimal and the benefits for the region are fairly extensive. If ATPDEA were not to be renewed, the jobs in the Andean region would be lost to Asia (they wouldn't come home to the US) and the economies of all four nations would suffer.

There will be major Congressional battles next year focusing on free trade with Peru and Colombia as well as counter-narcotics efforts in the region. In the process of the debates, Congress should not lose sight of successful policies like ATPDEA. If the Democrats are smart, they will pass an additional 12 month extension for the trade preferences to all four countries before beginning the debates over trade and counter-narcotics next year.

Good Morning!

In Mexico, President Fox's approval ratings fell to 59%, slightly down from the past few months but still fairly high. Interestingly, that poll also shows some very negative numbers including 65% who believe the economic situation of the country has deteriorated under Fox and over 75% who disagree with his handling of the crisis in Oaxaca. A poll from Parametria suggests 65% nationwide and 56% in the DF disapprove of Lopez Obrador's declaration of a shadow presidency. A poll from El Universal says the mayor of Mexico City has a 51% disapproval rating.

In Guatemala, a poll from Vox Latina asked about international leaders and found 59% dislike President Bush and 55% dislike President Chavez.

In El Salvador, Tim has numbers here and here. Saca's approval rating is at the lowest of his presidency. In general, it looks like the country is becoming more pessimistic.

In Bolivia, Apoyo reports 68% of Bolivians approve President Morales' choice to work with Chilean President Bachelet on the issue of exporting natural gas. However, 74% have little or no confidence in Chile's actions on the issue.

In Chile, President Bachelet's approval is at 51%, the first time she has been above 50% in the Adimark poll in the past 6 months.

Finally, several media in Latin America have noted the new Transparency International poll on corruption (different from the rankings that were released a few weeks ago). The basic story is that governments do not do enough to fight corruption. The poll also has interesting data about how bribery affects the lives of ordinary citizens. Take a read when you have time.

Oppenheimer writes:

Many analysts see a growing political manipulation of religious fervor in the region, alongside a greater church influence in state affairs. Some fear that, much as in other parts of the world, religion will soon be used to fuel domestic and even regional confrontations....

...The growing political manipulation of religious fervor in the region -- as well as in the United States -- makes me nervous. Will Chávez now push his new plan to reform the constitution to allow his indefinite reelection in the name of Jesus Christ?

Will Nicaragua's Ortega seek to reopen old border disputes with neighboring countries in the name of God? Will others start campaigning as God's emissaries? Maybe not. But religious populism is on the rise worldwide, and may be growing in Latin America as well.

Several news organizations are writing up their summaries of the elections over the past year in Latin America. I say Latin America is shifting towards the center. Others say it is moving in different directions.

Everyone wants to see the scorecard. I think this list is simplifying the hemisphere way too much, but lists are fun to argue about so I'll do it anyway...

There were eleven elections in the past 13 months, not including Haiti.

• The neo-populists won four (Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Venezuela).
• Moderates, either center-left or center-right, won five (Honduras, Chile, Costa Rica, Peru and Brazil).
• Conservatives won two (Colombia and Mexico).

And here's the loss column (which doesn't add up to eleven because there are sometimes more than one candidate):

• The neo-populists lost three (Mexico, Brazil (Helena) and Peru (Humala)).
• Moderates lost two (Ecuador (Roldos) and Venezuela).
• Conservatives lost six (Bolivia, Chile, Nicaragua, Ecuador (Noboa), Peru (Flores) and Brazil).
• Moderates faced off against moderates in two elections (Honduras and Costa Rica).

There is plenty of room for argument in the list above. Here's some of the more controversial calls I made:

• I'm sure the most controversial thing I did was label them "neo-populists". I would note that I do not consider them "Chavez allies" because I believe that this "neo-populism" can exist separate from Chavez (and AMLO may be a case study in that). That almost deserves a post in itself.
  
• I consider Honduras and Costa Rica both center-left vs. center-right matchups, but I'm sure people on each side would tell me how extremist the opponent was.
• The conservatives have moderated in Chile and I'm tempted to put that race as the third moderate vs. moderate matchup.
• I'm arguing that Rosales is a moderate; I'm pretty sure the Chavez fans will call him a conservative.
  
• Although the neo-populists won Nicaragua, the two conservative candidates combined for over 50% of the vote in Nicaragua and the moderate center-left candidate died of a heart attack, making it difficult to make a call for that country as to which ways it is politically tilting.
  
• Uribe's win was due to special circumstances, so I'm not going to count the loss against anyone. While Uribe is definitely conservative, his supporters and opponents spanned the political spectrum.

I want to know what people think I should change in the list above and what the list as a whole means for where the hemisphere is moving ideologically. Argue away.

Victory*. Chavez's campaign went out and won about 60%, a larger percentage of the vote than in his previous elections. The opposition can and will complain that he used state resources and media, intimidation tactics against public workers and delays at voting booths in opposition areas to bolster his percentage. But it was up to the opposition to overcome those institutional advantages, not complain about them. Chavez mobilized more voters than the opposition, and no matter how he did it, it counts as a victory for him.

Will the opposition* hold? Rosales put a new life into a divided opposition. His challenge now is to hold the line and prevent the opposition from falling back to its old ways. If he can manage to hold the opposition together over the next few months, he should then begin restructuring at the grass roots level to win local elections. There are plenty of issues for the opposition still to fight on and there are elections to be held in the future, but only if the opposition can maintain their will.

Reforms*. Chavez has put on deck amending the constitution to allow for permanent reelection. He has discussed restricting private media as private television licenses are up for renewal in 2007. He has said the state oil company and the military should fall under his "Revolution" and not under the country of Venezuela as a whole.

Revolution*. The "reforms" are part of a wider "revolution" that Chavez insists he is implementing. He views his revolution as continent-wide and will continue to push other countries in the region to ally with him. In doing so, he hopes to portray himself as the leader of an anti-US movement. I don't personally believe revolution is the accurate term to describe what is occurring, but it is necessary to understand that this is the mentality of the Venezuelan government as they continue on.

US Policy*. Chavez is in power, at least for a few more years. The US needs to accept that reality. We also need to accept that there is no quick-fix solution. We need to look long term to mend our relations with Latin America and help to improve the economic and political conditions in which the majority of the population lives. As a general rule, we do well when we maintain open lines of communication and cooperation. We do poorly when we go it alone or try to force our position onto other countries. Increasing trade, communications and cultural exchanges will improve US-Latin American relations over time, in spite of those who think they can drive a wedge between us. The only key to this strategy is that the US does not drive the wedge itself through misguided short-term policies that neglect the long term goals of cooperation and good relations with the entire region.

For all of you looking for updates on Venezuela, I won't have any until later tonight or early tomorrow morning. I'm off to the Redskins game today.

Ok, there's only one set of numbers you guys care about today. So let's get to it, this time in reverse alphabetical order, just because.

Zogby: Chavez 60, Rosales 31
U Comp Madrid: Chavez 60, Rosales 40
Survey Fast: Chavez 50, Rosales 49
PSB: Chavez 48, Rosales 42
IVAD: Chavez 53, Rosales 28
Hinterlaces: Chavez 45, Rosales 33?
Hannah Arndt: Chavez 51, Rosales 49
EMC: Chavez 57, Rosales 38
Datos: Chavez 55, Rosales 28
Datanalysis: Chavez 53, Rosales 26
Consultores 21: Chavez 58, Rosales 41
CEPS: Chavez 60, Rosales 39
CECA: Chavez 35, Rosales 46
AP/Iposos: Chavez 59, Rosales 27

What does boz say? Neither candidate will receive over 54%.

I said in early October that this will come down to a near 50-50 race and I'm staying with that prediction. It's been hard in the face of all the polls showing a 20-30 point gap, but every time I've run the numbers I've found reason to be optimistic that this race would end up closer than the polls show. I guess we find out Sunday.

UPDATE: Daniel has basically the same prediction I have (it will be a close election) using a different methodology.

UPDATE2: Bienvenidos a todos lectores de Noticiero Digital. Es posible que sea equivocado, pero los numeros que he visto muestra un resultado mas cerca que la mayoria de encuestas dicen. Vamos a ver este domingo.