Bloggings by boz

In Ecuador, protesters supportive of President Correa stormed the Congress and forced the legislature to shut down.

Correa has been in office less than a month and is already having a hard time managing both his supporters and opponents. On the other hand, Correa has popular support and Ecuadorians hate their Congress. What happened yesterday won't necessarily hurt him among the population.

However, for a country that has regularly forcesd out its political officials, allowing protesters kick out an elected Congress continues a bad precedent that will turn around to haunt Correa later in his term.

Today's Washington Post reports that Bolivian President Morales' government is making a major push to teach students Quechua and Aymara, Bolivia's two main native languages. He claims the goal is to "decolonialize" Bolivia.

Brazil recently began pushing every student to learn Spanish so that they can integrate better with the rest of Latin America. Chile is making a push towards teaching English to every student. In the private sector, there are the growing number of Chinese courses throughout the hemisphere.

There are always good arguments for learning more languages, but is one government spending its resources more wisely than the others? Which model should other governments in the hemisphere follow?

In his op-ed "One NATO is note enough," Colonel Joseph Núñez argues that the US and European allies should encourage the creation of regional security groups. He suggests, without going into too much detail, that one of these groups should be based out of Brasilia. He also suggests that destabilization in Bolivia is a likely threat that this group would need to face.

On the surface, it doesn't seem like a bad idea. There are several militaries (Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela) that could spare 500-1,000 troops, a C-130 and some other logistical support to help peacekeeping operations. There is already a small model of the Brazilian-led peacekeeping force in Haiti to work off of (it's not perfect, but it's a start). There are threats of possible instability on the horizon, including Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and Guatemala.

However, the political conditions do not exist for a regional security operation in most Latin American countries. To take Núñez's example of Bolivia, neither Chilean nor Peruvian nor Venezuelan military would be very welcome by some sectors of society and I imagine even Brazilian or Colombian forces would be frowned upon. Most other countries would also have long-standing historical issues that would make intervention by their neighbors unlikely. Creating the force would cause a lengthy and acrimonious debate over sovereignty and would likely fail to receive the unanimous OAS vote that I'm sure some countries would demand. Additionally, and unfortunately, the current US and Venezuelan administrations, among others, would collide when it came to training and participation in the force.

However, just because political conditions for a "Latin American NATO" do not exist, that does not mean a regional force is a completely negative idea. There are two key areas a regional force would have political viability and be of use.

1. Humanitarian assistance. Somewhere in Latin America this year, there will be heavy rains that cause flooding and mudslides. Forest fires, earthquakes and droughts are all likely possibilities as well. Few individual militaries in the region are equipped to handle these disasters, but a combined regional force would allow a quick and decisive response that could save lives. That same regional force could participate in regular humanitarian aid exercises, whether that means building bridges or distributing medicine to rural areas. The political difficulties of a regional emergency response force would be much lighter than those of a regional peacekeeping force.

2. Counter-illicit trafficking. This isn't just about drugs (although I'm sure that's what would be the US focus). Regional militaries should be concerned about the trafficking of weapons, humans and other illegal goods across borders. Regional cooperation on interdiction efforts, particularly maritime and aerial, would be a benefit to every government in the region. Additionally, cooperation in these areas would pave the way for the eventual creation of a regional force and would build links between the militaries that would hopefully help reduce tensions between some countries over time.

The political reality is that a Latin American NATO participating in regional stability operations is not likely in the next decade, but we should aim for what is possible. I think it is possible to see a moment five years from now where the Brazilian, Chilean, Colombian, and Venezuelan air forces are cooperating to provide assistance after a natural disaster in Central America. I could picture Central American militaries participating in regional counter-arms trafficking efforts with their South American counterparts. Both scenarios would be a benefit to the region with few drawbacks and could be done with limited resources in a short time.

Two articles with somewhat different takes on immigration.

The New York Times covers Mexico's immigration problem from their southern border. Mexico is having as little luck on their border as we are having on ours.

The LA Times reports that the increasing emigration from Ecuador is leaving children without parents, and this in turn is leading to higher rates of youth suicide. It's one of the unexpected consequences that isn't often mentioned in the discussion of remittances.

Good morning!

In Mexico, El Universal has numbers on how Mexicans view President Calderon's recent security initiatives. Overall, people seem to approve of using the military to fight drug trafficking. There has also been a significant rise in having the military help with humanitarian operations after natural disasters. My guess is that second number comes from the hurricane damage in the past few years. President Calderon should take note and make sure his government is up to the task of handling next year's hurricane season.

In Honduras, a CID-Gallup poll says President Zelaya has 57% approval rating. That's up 30 points in the past 8 months.

In Ecuador, President Correa has a 73% approval rating and 78% support the idea of the a constituent assembly.

In Bolivia, President Morales national support is at 59% according to Apoyo. His support is still anchored by high numbers (around 80% support) in La Paz and El Alto.

In Chile, a poll by La Tercera suggested that Chileans believe Presidents Chavez and Morales run the governments that are the least friendly towards Chile. While Chileans have a very poor view of President Bush (as do most Americans), they still view the US as a key ally.

Finally, a BBC global poll about the attitudes towards the US including information from the Latin American nations of Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico. Not surprisingly, there is general disapproval of US policies towards world issues in those four countries.

Less than two weeks after President Correa's inauguration, Defense Minister Guadalupe Larriva was killed in a mid-air helicopter crash (Reuters article here). Her daughter and five military personnel were also killed. Larriva was the first female defense minister in Ecuador and had been fairly popular in her short time in the position.

Other than the single mention of Cuba, Latin America was not mentioned in the State of the Union. Not even Mexico was mentioned during the immigration section. Not really any different than last year.

Additionally, India (one-sixth of the world's population) didn't make it in. China was only a sidenote in the single sentence that discussed North Korea. Promoting democracy outside of the Middle East got one sentence; fighting global poverty got two sentences. Darfur got half of a sentence; the rest of Africa got lucky and received a full paragraph that discussed fighting HIV/AIDS.

If you need a measurement as to how the war in Iraq has distracted us from our other priorities in the world, the State of the Union speech is a great place to start. Half the speech was allegedly on foreign policy. Yet, issues that should be priorities for the American government and the American people were shortchanged for paragraph after paragraph about Iraq and the GWOT.

There is no doubt that Iraq and the War on Terror are important, but five years after September 11th it's about time we realized that the challenge is one of long term global leadership, not short term tactics in two or three countries. Our priorities need to reflect the global nature of the challenges we face on the issues of terrorism, democracy and development.

The Christian Science Monitor ran a three part series on President Calderon's three main challenges: drugs, monopolies and poverty. Financial Times has an interview with the president on those topics as well.

Calderon seems to have received fairly high marks for his work so far. However, only 50 days in, the real challenge will be whether he can keep up the momentum.

Mexican President Calderon continued his security push yesterday, announcing a new security plan that will include better coordination and training of local police. Unfortunately, he did so on the same day AP reports "Police in Tijuana issued sling shots." Not quite the media roll-out he was hoping for.

The Good:
Poll numbers. After a year in office, President Morales has managed to maintain just over 50% support, the same level he was elected at. Although this is a drop from his peak of 80%, it still places him in a strong position. In particular, his support in La Paz and El Alto gives him a level of political stability that other recent presidents have not enjoyed.

Energy. After initially sparking investor fear with his "nationalization" announcement, Morales managed to compromise with foreign governments and companies. Companies are paying a higher tax rate, but most have continued their work as usual and are still turning a profit. While future changes could alter this scenario, the opening moves by Morales have resulted in a decent compromise.

Hope. Morales still sparks hope in the vast majority of Bolivians, who believe his presidency will improve the country. As long as he can keep doing that, he'll have a chance at success.

The Bad:
Protests. The continued protests show that the opposition to Morales has the power to disrupt certain areas of the country. In particular, protests in the East threaten to disrupt Bolivia's economy. Protests from miners and coca farmers threaten Morales base of support.

Radical supporters. Morales has failed to control his more radical supporters, allowing them to be destructive in their protests, particularly in Cochabamba.

Venezuelan troops and bases. Morales came to power promising to protect Bolivia's sovereignty. While he's been tough against US intervention, he is allowing the Venezuelan government to build military bases and station troops in his country.

The Constitutional Assembly. What began as an attempt to reform the country, is now a farce as the delegates cannot even agree on the most basic of rules much less what needs to go into the new constitution. Some reports indicate Morales has simply given up on this Assembly and will be looking for other ways to remake the country. Others indicate he will make one last effort and take his case directly to the people. This still could turn out well, but so far, this needs to be considered a failure in his first year.

The Ugly:
Divided poll numbers. Morales' support is sharply divided along geographic and cultural lines. This divide is growing wider and could create a dangerous situation if Morales can't unify the country.

What next? Everyone should be pulling for Morales to succeed on some level, because his failure brings the worst-case scenario. If Morales fails, I see few options for Bolivia that turn out positively. I don't know of another leader who could bring the political capital to unite the country. Both Morales and his opponents need to come to the table ready to compromise, or else they are both setting up their country for future disaster.

UPDATE: See Miguel, Jim Shultz, Washington Post and Miami Herald.

For many years in Latin America, countries avoided high profile drug cartel extraditions to the US. Sending a known drug trafficker to the US was seen both as an infringement on sovereignty and as an acknowledgment that the country's own judicial system wasn't strong enough to handle the cases. When extraditions happened, they were often with reluctance and after significant legal wrangling. With the recent exception of Colombia, that view on extraditions to the US still dominates in Latin American politics.

However, we're starting to see a slight shift in Mexico that could easily move to other countries in the region. President Calderon has extradited over ten major drug traffickers. Rather than fighting the extraditions, he is openly encouraging them and using them to gain political support. It seems Mexican voters are beginning to put effective prosecution of criminals over the more nebulous concept of sovereignty and politicians are taking notice.

This isn't all good news by any means. It would be far better if Mexico, Colombia and other nations created effective and transparent judicial systems that could manage criminal cartel leaders without any US prodding or interference. Still, it's a political change in Mexico and I wouldn't be shocked if other Central American nations and maybe Peru began showing a similar trend.

There was good news for American democracy earlier this week when the Bush administration announced that it is disbanding its warrantless wiretap surveillance program.

As I wrote at the time the program was revealed:

In my eyes, the problem is not that they don't get the warrant first (although, that is of some concern). The problem is that they never get a warrant and the individual cases aren't reviewed by the judicial system at any point, even after the process. The problem is not that they signed this into law via executive decree. The problem is that neither the Congress nor the court system was ever given the opportunity to review and possibly overrule the decree.

Many executives throughout the world have some form of executive order or decree. However, nearly every constitution and law granting executive decree authority also ensures that the authority is checked in some manner, usually through a legislative process.

Where the Bush administration made its mistake was that it believed that Congress's various authorizations to fight terrorism allowed the administration to act without oversight or check on its power.

None of the three branches has the right to destroy its own role in the democratic process. If our Congress were to authorize the president to skip the legislative process, to decree without oversight or chance of possible veto, to escape judicial accountability, they would essentially be creating an elected dictatorship. None of the bills passed since 9/11 give the executive branch that level of authority, and in the case of warrantless wiretaps, the president overreached in attempting to interpret that they did.

However, if the US Congress had authorized President Bush with this law passed yesterday in the Venezuelan Congress, warrantless wiretaps without oversight would still be a reality and there would be no way to stop them. If the US Congress had passed that law for Bush, he could have shut down the New York Times over revealing the wiretap story without any legal recourse for the newspaper to protest. Hypothetically, with that Venezuelan law in place in the US, Bush could change the tax code for corporations, demand creationism be taught in every classroom in the country, shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, privatize social security, cut off highway funds to the blue states and place the National Guard in charge of security in major cities, all without any legislative or judicial power that could alter or stop his ruling.

No president in any democracy should have the power of decree without oversight that I described in the above paragraph.

Yesterday, the Venezuelan Congress began that process to create an elected dictatorship, in the most traditional sense of the word. For the next 18 months the Venezuelan Congress are going to hand over nearly the entire governmental decisionmaking process to Hugo Chavez and trust that he use it wisely.

Would you blindly trust your president, or any president, to use the powers I described above? I know I'm glad I live in a system with checks and balances.

One interesting statistic from the Miami Herald:

Once secure under virtual impunity, at least 20 former presidents -- from Mexico to Argentina -- currently face human rights and corruption charges or are in prison, though some accusations are alleged to be the result of political vendettas.

Going after public officials who were corrupt or committed human rights abuses is progress for Latin America. It's unfortunate that some of the prosecutions are more about scoring political points than finding justice, but I think most of the current cases have at least some validity to them.

The Bush administration announced yesterday that it will modify free trade deals with Colombia and Peru. The announcement reflects the reality that many pro-free trade Democrats and moderate Republicans in Congress felt there should be greater labor rights protections within the deals.

Fast track authority allows the president to introduce trade deals to Congress for up or down votes without amendment. However, even with fast track, Congress should have a role in the negotiations or structure of the deal.

That's not how the Bush administration has treated Congress over the past six years. In the case of CAFTA, many moderates supported the general idea but had legitimate criticisms of the details within the treaty. Instead of responding to those criticism, the deal was rammed through by the Republican majority using arm twisting, vote buying and parliamentary tricks. Whether the deal deserved to be supported or not, it was clear the process was broken.

The Democratic Party isn't anti-trade, as many in the media portray them, but they aren't going to approve new trade deals without having some say in them. The announcement yesterday was a positive sign, but I think we're going to need to see some concession that is more than symbolic for trade deals to get back on track in Congress.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about security as a growing political issue in Latin America. One of the many implications is that civilian governments may be more likely to involve the military in domestic security affairs.

Mexican President Calderón isn't just using the military to fight the drug traffickers, he is also using military images to gain political support for his security policies.

In a nation where civilian leaders have mostly kept the military at arm's length, Mr. Calderón has embraced it, inviting generals to media events and lavishing praise on the armed services, which have effectively replaced the police as the nation's bulwark against the growing power of drug cartels.

Then Mr. Calderón donned an olive green jacket and matching cap with the five stars of the commander-in-chief, sparking derision by his critics but also serious concerns about the military's growing public role and what that could mean for Mexico's young democracy.

Latin American leaders in military uniforms are a bad symbol domestically and abroad. Latin America fought hard to obtain civilian-led democracies and militaries subordinate to those civilians. I realize this was just a symbolic political stunt, but Calderón should have known better. Even with his role of commander-in-chief, he is the president, not a general, and he should act like it.

I don't generally discuss domestic politics here, but I think today's announcement of Barack Obama's presidential exploratory committee is a good time to note that he's the candidate I'm supporting in the Democratic primary and he's the person I believe should be the next President of the United States. Yes, I've heard all sorts of reasons as to why he shouldn't run or can't win. I still believe he brings a new perspective to the table that is needed in American politics today. I also believe that over the course of the next two years, his message will resonate with a majority of voters across the country.

While I don't plan to regularly promote his candidacy, I thought I should make my biases known early. I may occasionally link to articles on the side or comment briefly, but I'll try to keep this blog relatively presidential campaign free for now.

Reading through the many articles of coverage (including my usual three Ecuadorian papers, El Comercio, El Universo and La Hora):

"Bolivarian and Alfarista government..." I love when people have vague and undefined ideologies with cool names.

"Fighting corruption, impunity... Creating a revolution in health and education" and other promises every Latin American president makes at their inauguration speech. It's like a Mad Libs book sometimes.

"Fighting imperialism." I would have been disappointed if he had said anything short of that. I had it on my inauguration quote bingo card.

"La patria no se negocia". Funny that he said this, then announced that his finance minister will be negotiating with bond holders next month. Ok, so the patria is negotiating, but it will try not to lose its shirt at the poker table.

"Protecting our sovereignty... integrating with the rest of Latin America." ah, more vague contradicting promises.

"...visiting Presidents Chavez, Morales, Ortega and Ahmadinejad" Funny how every media pulled these guys and nobody pulled another random group like "Presidents Uribe, Garcia, Bachelet, Lula da Silva and Duarte Frutos all attended."

And then he signed the decree making the big announcement:

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY REFERENDUM
ON 18 MARCH 2007!!!

President Correa has come through for Latin America and is helping a region that is going through serious election withdrawal. Thank you Mr. President. We now get our full helping of election coverage and maybe, if I'm lucky, poll numbers.

Of course, the result of the election is nearly a forgone conclusion. The question will be phrased something along the lines of: "Do you believe we should kick all the bastards out of the corrupt and ineffective Congress and fix the government ourselves? Yes or no?" When you ask something like that two months after being inaugurated, it's not a question of whether you'll win, but by how much.

But hey, I'll take it.

A few stories out of Central America that you may have missed over the weekend.

Yesterday, Guatemalan President Berger delivered his speech in writing to avoid the protests outside that Congress. It was reminiscent of Mexican President Fox, who was forced to cancel his State of the Union speech to the Mexican Congress last year to avoid protests.

In Honduras, President Zelaya seized foreign-owned oil storage terminals. A congressional commission in Honduras suggested the government could save $66 million this year, even after compensating the energy companies for the asset seizure.

The presidential inauguration in Nicaragua meant we got to see some more diplomatic games surrounding the China-Taiwan issue. Eight countries in Latin America recognize Taiwan, and Taiwanese officials travel to the region any chance they can get to strengthen relations. China has actually loosened the pressure in recent years, but occasionally they step up and make a power play, as they did yesterday by forcing President Chen's plane to detour around Mexico.

Interesting article in today's Washington Post:

As Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits Latin America this weekend to strengthen economic and political ties with the region, Argentina's Nestor Kirchner will not be in the line of presidents turning out to greet him.

Kirchner's government has reinvigorated attempts to prosecute Iranian figures for their alleged role in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center here, recently issuing arrest warrants for nine former Iranian officials. Among those sought is former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, accused of ordering the attack that killed 85 people and injured more than 200.

Having lived through a terrorist attack sponsored by Iran, Argentina takes a very different view of the Iranian regime than do its allies in the region.

Argentina isn't afraid to use international pressure in its search for justice, as shown by the brief arrest of former President Isabel Peron in Spain this week. However, the Iranian issue has larger global political implications for today than the prosecution of Dirty War criminals, meaning Argentina faces a more difficult political path.

From the BBC:

At least two people have been killed and more than 70 injured in clashes in the Bolivian city of Cochabamba. The violence involved thousands of rival protesters at odds over a regional governor's call for a referendum on greater local autonomy.

Miguel has pictures from earlier days of protests. Alvaro provides commentary from the opposition point of view.

On other Bolivia news, FT is reporting that President Morales is supporting the protesters and may halt the constitutional assembly. The Chicago Tribune has an update on energy nationalization. Last week, the New York Times reported about Venezuela sending 30 soldiers to Bolivia, which is angering the opposition. The International Crisis Group published a new report warning of increased conflict in Bolivia.

The political situation is definitely deteriorating and the divide between the East and West is growing. This may not end well.

Good Morning! Not much new out there this week in Latin America. I miss the election year.

Newsweek published an exclusive Zogby poll of Latin America's elites (political and business leaders) suggesting that over 50% are optimistic about the direction Latin America is heading. I see three possible ways to read this number: They agree with the turn politics/economics has taken in many countries, they dislike the political trends but do not believe they hurt long term success in the region, or the recent commodity boom has made them more optimistic than they should be.

While I've discussed the Latinobarometro poll before, Randy points me to an excellent article from Worldpublicopinion.org that discusses some of the ideology numbers in the poll.

In Guatemala, a new poll has Colom 35, Perez 16.

In Nicaragua, a poll from M+R suggests two-thirds of Nicaraguans believe conditions will improve under President Ortega. He's got a honeymoon, let's see if he can use it.

Once upon a time, Daniel Ortega was somebody. He played a key role in organizing an insurgency, overthrowing a dictatorship and installing his own government. The Soviets backed him. The international left swooned over him. The media covered him as a key international leader. The US really opposed him, throwing a whole lot of effort at toppling his government, and yet he survived in power for nearly a decade. I don't like Ortega, but he was a major figure in his time who actually had to battle to obtain and stay in power.

Then there's Chavez. While Ortega was doing his thing, Chavez was a low ranking military officer running around the jungles of Venezuela, unsure what path in life to take. He failed at his coup attempt. His position today comes largely due to high oil prices (and his budget comes largely from US demand funding him). In spite of his rhetoric, Chavez has never really faced US opposition on a significant scale. He has to invent the threats to keep up the illusion that he is some sort of persecuted revolutionary.

Watching the media coverage of the inaugurations yesterday, the implications were quite clear. Chavez received the majority of the coverage and trumped Ortega, even at Ortega's own nomination. Ortega was treated as some kid sidekick to Venezuela's president.

It makes me wonder, what does Ortega really think of Chavez? Ortega needs Chavez's money right now to stabilize his own power. But deep down, I wonder if there is some resentment.

Interesting article in yesterday's Dallas Morning News on how Mexican drug cartels are taking over much of the supply chain.

In South America, the Mexican groups are bypassing the Colombians and cutting their own deals with coca farmers in Peru and Bolivia, setting up dozens of tiny, state-of-the-art cocaine processing labs inside Peruvian territory, say Western diplomats and Peruvian authorities. The groups are opening new consumer markets throughout Latin America and elsewhere.

The Mexicans ship cocaine loads by boat to the Mexican coast, then up to the border with California or Texas, with its coveted Interstate 35 northbound corridor, Peruvian officials and experts said. South Texas remains the leading entry area for cocaine smuggled into the U.S., according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

In addition, Mexican and Colombian scientists working for the cartels have introduced chemical fertilizers that are multiplying coca leaf production up to 1,000 percent per hectare, Peruvian authorities say.

Also, the drugs are funding violent groups in Peru including a new iteration of the "Shining Path", which this time resembles more of a drug gang than a Maoist insurgency. Peru faces some tough security issues ahead.

We haven't heard from the runner-up in the Mexican election in a while. He started his own parallel government, held a big inauguration, then dropped off the face of the earth. In spite of the amazing media coverage his "inauguration" received, pretty much nobody in the media has paid attention to him since Calderon took charge.

BBC is reporting that Lopez Obrador is going to start a TV show. It will run every Tuesday night at 1AM. I actually think this is the smartest thing AMLO has done in a while. Even with the lousy time slot, he now has a platform to speak to the media every week. The question is whether he can take advantage of it.

In response to Venezuelan President Chavez denying a license to an opposition TV station, OAS Secretary Insulza said:

"The closing of a mass communications outlet is a rare step in the history of our hemisphere and has no precedent in the recent decades of democracy," OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza said in a written statement.

Insulza said any move that forces RCTV to close "gives the appearance of a form of censorship against freedom of expression and at the same time serves as a warning against other news organizations, leading them to limit their actions at the risk of facing the same fate."

To which Chavez replied:

"Dr. Insulza is quite an idiot, a true idiot," Chavez said. "The insipid Dr. Insulza should resign from the secretariat of the Organization of American States for daring to play that role."

Attacking the source as biased is always easier and sometimes more effective than debating the issue. Chavez would have a good job commentating on Fox News if he ever left office.

[Note: Chavez used "pendejo." AP went with "idiot," but take your pick on translation here. I think Reuters actually gets it right.]

Both Randy and Greg point to this NYT article on Chile's copper profits.

The larger focus of the article is on how the government should spend the copper money windfall that has come with recent high prices and whether the government should plan for continued high prices. It's encouraging to see that the Chilean government as a whole is taking an incredibly responsible approach to the money, looking for ways to spend it on long term social benefits without getting trapped into debt by a boom and bust cycle. That is a welcome break from both Chile's history as well as other governments in the region who are acting irresponsibly with booming commodity prices.

However, the line that gets everyone is the reminder that the Chilean military automatically receives 10% of copper revenue. The constitutionally mandated copper tithe is a throwback to the Pinochet era in which he wanted to ensure that the military would be funded from outside the usual civilian government bureaucracy. Most people agree it's a poor law and should be changed.

In the process of changing the law the government, particularly the Congress, needs to come up with a process for funding the military before the copper money gets cut. The process should be predictable and transparent, but most importantly, it should be figured out before the copper law is changed to keep political tensions at ease and allow for what is likely to be a lengthy negotiation process.

Also, Chile's Congress and presidency should have a greater say in the military's priorities. Here's a hint: A country that has 4,000 miles of coastline while never being more than 200 miles wide and surrounded by mountains on nearly all sides needs a larger Navy and smaller Army and certainly does not need heavy tanks like the ones they just purchased. It should be much easier for the civilian government to veto dumb purchases once they have control over the military funding (although if the US is any indication, it doesn't mean the civilian gov will always exercise that oversight).

Coincidently, we met the same week I started this blog over two years ago. Six months later we took a 2,500 mile road trip to Guadalajara, Mexico and have been dating long-distance ever since. We've traveled to Puerto Vallarta, New Jersey, Guanajuato, Las Vegas, Mexico City and Chicago to see each other.

She said yes on New Year’s Eve. I'm a very lucky guy.

Good morning!

In El Salvador, Tim breaks down the numbers from the Latinobarometro poll.

In Colombia, a new poll of Colombia's six largest cities shows that only 15 out of 100 people have been victim of a crime in the last year. Not only is that better than most of Colombia's neighbors in Latin America, including Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela, but it also beats the rates of the US and UK. In some ways, however, this poll has a negative side. Violence in rural areas is still very bad in many parts of Colombia. While the majority of the population in urban areas may no longer view security as a top issue, it must remain near the top of the political agenda for Colombia to continue progressing. If the public support declines for spending money on security and rebuilding in rural areas, Colombia faces a risk of losing the gains it has made.

In Peru, a poll by CPI suggests Garcia's popularity is at 57%. There seems to be a perception in Peru, even among Garcia's supporters, that he is not doing enough. He also faces growing opposition in rural areas.

In Bolivia, a Gallup poll said 52% of the population disagrees with a possible reelection of President Morales. 42% agree with reelection. That's a big shift from January, when only 23% rejected reelection for Morales.

Yesterday I wrote about Mexican troops sent to Tijuana. Today, it's being widely reported that Brazilian military police and possibly soldiers are being sent to Rio de Janeiro. These aren't two isolated incidents, but the precursors to what I believe could be a major trend throughout the region: security issues top the agenda.

As many commentators focus on the left/right, populist/democratic, or whatever they are calling the current political divide (and I hope to get back to that), the security issue is creeping up on governments of every political and economic ideology. Mexico is now the top world kidnapping location, Caracas is one of the most violent urban capitals in the world, Colombia's security situation is improving but still very bad in some areas, Rio is experiencing gang warfare on a level that resembles Baghdad in some neighborhoods.

Citizens are beginning to demand political action on these security issues and it's only a matter of time before we seen the first government in the region kicked out (either through elections or otherwise) because they could not get a handle on crime and violence.

Increasingly, governments are going to be looking for options. As we're seeing in Brazil and Mexico (and ongoing in Colombia), the countries' militaries are taking on a domestic security role. As other governments have limited options for improving security, I think this option is going to be on the table in more countries around the region.

So here's the question: How does Latin America's politics change if and when security issues become the top issue on the agenda?

This, of course, inspires plenty of other questions. Do "center-left" governments like Lula's get comfortable with using the military domestically? Does the region end up with more presidents like Uribe, who is the only president today elected on security issues? Is there another president or candidate out there who seems to fit the model for being elected on security issues? Is there a model for a party winning legislative power on this issue? How do the current trend of populist leaders manage security as an issue if it overtakes their current issue base? In a worst-case scenario, do militaries have greater political roles if this trend takes shape?

No answers today, but for those looking 5-10 years out, these are questions that should be thought about.

Last month, someone asked me to e-mail a few points about Argentina's upcoming election. Thought I would share an edited version of those points.

Kirchner is still pretty popular, but with 10 months to go before the election anything is possible.

Kirchner still hasn't announced whether he will run for reelection or whether his wife will run in his place. Both would be strong candidates and would be considered the front runners in the election. For any other candidate to catch up, either the Kirchner's will have to stumble politically, or Argentina's economic or security situation will need to take a dramatic turn for the worse. If the election was held today, someone with the last name Kirchner would win.

The best thing Mauricio Macri has going for him is that he's the president of Boca Juniors. That's worth more than any political position he could hold in Argentina. On the other hand, River fans may not be so happy. Macri is positioning himself as the "security" candidate as well as the "anti-Chavez" candidate.

Roberto Lavanga has racked up the early political support of the Radical Party as well as the Duhalde faction of the Peronists. If the economy gets worse over the next year, he will do well. He can take credit for bringing the economy out of crisis and blame Kirchner's firing of him for the increasing inflation and poor economy in 2007.

Whether the economy will get worse is the question. Inflation is rising fast, but it has yet to affect the economic growth. Argentina's medium to long term economic outlook isn't great, but that doesn't mean the economy will go bad any time soon. If I had to guess, I would say the economy will still look strong in 10 months and that condition will make it likely that the president will be reelected.

Mexican President Calderon moved 3,000 troops to the border city of Tijuana yesterday to take on the drug cartels. This is the second part of an offensive that began in Calderon's home state of Michoacan. The Michoacan offensive, involving some 7,000 military and police, has had only limited success thus far, but is still ongoing and may yet surprise us.

President Calderon has indicated that he hopes to continue launching these offensives against the cartels throughout the country. While I believe many people in Mexico would applaud the effort towards greater security, if Calderon is serious about taking on the drug cartels over the long term, then he needs to think about restructuring the Mexican security forces to do so. There is only so much the current Mexican Army and local police forces can do before they find themselves stretched too thin.

BBC quotes Lula's speech to the Brazilian Congress:

To govern for all is my path, but defending the interest of the poorest is what guides us in this journey.

It's the right message and the one that I think will bring him a successful second term.