Bloggings by boz

From the Miami Herald:

Eric Volz was born in Sacramento in 1979, the year that a rebellion in Nicaragua toppled a dictator and subsequently ignited the U.S.-financed contra war against the leftist Sandinistas.

Today, Volz is 27 and imprisoned in Nicaragua, condemned for the rape and slaying of a former girlfriend -- a crime that Volz's family and witnesses insist he couldn't possibly have committed.

For one thing, they say, eyewitnesses place the surfer and entrepreneur in Managua, two hours away from the small coastal town of San Juan del Sur, at the time of Doris Jiménez's death. For another, they add, no physical evidence links him to the crime.

Volz's conviction and 30-year sentence, they fear, has less to do with criminal justice than with perceptions about Americans that took hold in Nicaragua long before Volz was born and then escalated with the contra war.

I don't know anything about this case other than what I've read in the news, but it doesn't sound like the Nicaraguan authorities have any evidence other than one convicted drug trafficker's statement to back up their arrest.

I first heard about the case from Revaz. The family's website is here so you can read their side of the story.

UPDATE (23 April): Here's the Dateline story.

Brazilian President Lula da Silva writes about the US-Brazil biofuel initiative in today's Washington Post.

This initiative builds on what Brazil has achieved in biofuels. Thirty years of research and innovation have made my country self-sufficient in oil by replacing 40 percent of our gasoline consumption with ethanol. "Flex-fuel" engines, which run on any combination of biofuels, have transformed ethanol into a secure and reliable energy source. We look forward to similar technical breakthroughs as we further develop our domestic biodiesel market.

However, ethanol and biodiesel are more than an answer to our dangerous "addiction" to fossil fuels. We aim to set in motion a reassessment of the global strategy to protect our environment. As well as being renewable, biofuels in Brazil are clean and highly competitive; ethanol made from sugar cane leaves no residues, as everything is recycled and the byproducts of its production are used to enrich the soil. Equally important, sugar cane sequesters carbon from the atmosphere, helping to reduce greenhouse gases.

These alternative energy sources help reduce global dependence on relatively few countries for energy supplies. The agreement between Brazil and the United States provides for diversifying the production of biofuels through triangular alliances with third countries. This networking can include oil-producing countries interested in blending ethanol or biodiesel into their own fossil-fuel stocks. This is a recipe for increasing incomes, creating jobs and alleviating poverty among the many developing countries where biomass crops are abundant.

The story so far... Legislators fired the head of the electoral tribunal (TSE). The TSE then fired the 57 legislators who voted for the bill. An Ecuadorian judge reinstated the 57 legislators who were fired. The tribunal then fired the judge.

Even though it's a constitutional crisis, it's rather entertaining.

Important article from the Washington Post this morning on urban militias that have formed to take on the drug cartels.

The militias have wrested control of nearly 100 of this city's 600 slums, or favelas, from the drug gangs that have long held sway, according to police and nongovernmental organizations. Tostes's murder showed why the shift worries so many people here: Although the militias profess to make the neighborhoods safe, violence is following them. And the deep connections some of the groups maintain to police and political circles make monitoring and controlling them extraordinarily difficult.

Law enforcement and government officials have traditionally advocated a hard-line stance against the easily vilified drug gangs, but Rio's new governor, Sergio Cabral, is urging his colleagues to reject the notion that the militias are the lesser of two evils. He has compared the recent rise of the militias to the situation in Colombia, where the involvement of paramilitary fighters has further muddied that country's long-running battle against Marxist guerrillas. Cabral visited Bogota this week to discuss methods of controlling violence with his Colombian counterparts.

Sadly, Brazil's urban slums are reaching levels of "armed conflict" that are actually more violent in some areas than Colombia. Knowing what happened in Colombia with the AUC, the recent rise of these security "militias" in several countries in the region, particularly Brazil, El Salvador Guatemala and Venezuela, should be a key concern to those following the human rights situations.

Chilean President Bachelet has replaced four of her ministers as a transportation strike is creating severe transportation problems in Santiago. As millions of people use Santiago's transportation system (I figure at least 20% of the entire country's population uses the system), the strike is hitting Bachelet's popularity hard. It's also hurting her image, making her look weak once again in the face of protests.

In Guatemala, the Interior Minister and the Chief of National Police have been forced to resign as a result of the scandal growing out of the murders of three Salvadoran politicians. President Berger's government is in really bad shape right now and this scandal is just adding to his inability to get anything done in the final year of his term.

Former Nicaraguan President Aleman appears to have been freed from his house arrest and is reasserting his political authority in the PLC. In particular, analysts believe the right-wing criminal is helping President Ortega push a "reform" of the Supreme Court through the National Assembly and may be planning to help Ortega rewrite the constitution.

Aleman and Ortega have long had an agreement that puts ideology aside and allows them both to maintain a corrupt stranglehold on the government and party institutions in Nicaragua.

I hope all of those right wingers who supported Aleman's candidate Rizo last election are watching the latest round of El Pacto. They have nobody to blame but themselves for the direction Nicaragua is taking.

In an attempt to provide a "strong alternative" to the United States in Latin America, one regional leader has ordered his government to increasingly engage with the region this summer. He will provide aid packages, form trade alliances and move his nation into a regional leadership position. He also hopes to leverage the OAS further away from US control.

Nope, it's not the leader of Venezuela or China or Brazil or Spain. That leader is Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper.

Not that the US media will notice, but this could be interesting.

Bolivia celebrated its annual Day of the Sea last Friday. I think the AP article provides a fairly respectful view of the Bolivian Navy and their mission. More importantly, from the first few paragraphs I learned that they have the capabilities necessary to do rescue and humanitarian relief missions on rivers and flood plains. That's not an insignificant military capability. It could be that Bolivia's unique geography has taught them some lessons other countries' militaries could learn.

The LA Times reports that documents from the CIA and one other Western intelligence agency link Colombian General Montoya to the AUC. In particular, the article links General Montoya to drug trafficker Don Berna during the 2002 operation to clear Medellin. The documents also indicate General Padilla could be involved as well. These are two of the highest military officials in Colombia.

The CIA insists that the information hasn't been fully checked and asked the LA Times not to publish. The LA Times held back any information that would have revealed sources and methods, but published the story because of the gravity of the issue.

The implications of this story could add to the growing parapolitical scandal, affect the military structure and alter the upcoming debate over Colombian aid and trade in the US Congress.

UPDATE: More from Adam.

Great article in the Washington Post titled "Corn can't solve our problem." The authors argue that corn (and sugarcane) based ethanol are not long term solutions for clean energy, pointing to a variety of reasons including the way increased corn demand affects food supplies and how sugarcane farming in Brazil increases deforestation.

So being a big advocate of biofuels, why do I like this article? The authors don't argue all ethanol and biofuels are bad. They say that over time we will need to balance the supplies of biofuels to include other products like hay and switchgrass. This approach will improve land management and lean towards biofuel technologies that are more flexible. This isn't the message the corn industry wants to hear, but it's the approach that must be taken for biofuels to become effective and economical in the Western Hemisphere.

Why the hell is the Bush administration criticizing Argentina on this?

From the Miami Herald:

In a rare public rebuke, a top U.S. official has complained about Buenos Aires' decision to let Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez use a stadium to attack President Bush as the U.S. president visited nearby Uruguay.

While Bush pointedly ignored the leftist Chávez on his weeklong tour of Latin America, Nicholas Burns, the State Department's undersecretary of political affairs, unleashed some candid criticism of Argentina Thursday.
...
''I'm sorry that that rally was held there on the same day that our president was in Montevideo,'' Burns said, according to a recording of the speech posted on the council's website. "I didn't think that was the right thing to do. And I'm sorry to say that, Mr. Ambassador, but that's the feeling that everyone in our government has about that.''
...
The Bush administration, Burns said, "would not turn over the microphone over to this figure ... whose own policies are going to lead to failure for his country.''

The Argentine government had nothing to do with the event and in some ways disassociated itself with it. The Argentine government did not send any official representatives to the rally. They didn't broadcast it on state TV. The Venezuelan government paid to rent the stadium and bus people in (and they could only half fill the stadium). As Greg notes, the Venezuelans left pretty angry at the lack of support their event received from the Argentine government.

There is no reason the Argentine government should have stopped a private event. To Burns' last point, President Chavez did several speeches while he was in New York last year and the US government allowed it. The US believes in free speech and wouldn't disallow a private speech and we shouldn't hold our allies to different standards.

The Bush administration should back away from the comments and apologize to Argentina. We should be working on building alliances with countries in Latin America, and comments like the ones made by Burns simply push those countries away.

From today's Washington Post:

It began with four charred bodies on a dirt road.

The victims had been kidnapped, investigators concluded, and two of them burned alive. The men who were found that day in February on a ranch outside Guatemala City turned out to be three Salvadoran politicians and their chauffeur. Among them was Eduardo D'Aubuisson, son of Roberto D'Aubuisson, the late founder of El Salvador's ruling party and the alleged architect of death squads in the Salvadoran civil war.

Three days later, four Guatemalan policemen were accused of the killings and arrested. Three days after that, with international attention trained on this country, the officers' throats were slashed and they were shot in their cells. The prison murders have not been solved.

The back-to-back sets of killings -- each chillingly professional and brazen -- are exposing the depth of corruption and impunity in a nation still struggling to right itself 11 years after the end of more than three decades of civil war. "A Pandora's box" is opening, said Salvadoran police chief Rodrigo Avila.

Over the past several weeks, some of Guatemala's most powerful political figures have been forced to acknowledge that their government and criminal justice system are deeply infiltrated by organized crime. Human rights activists have responded by blaming the corrupting influence of drug traffickers, who make fortunes funneling up to 300 metric tons of cocaine to the United States each year.

BBC:

Mexican police are investigating the killing of three men who were found with notes pinned to their bodies carrying threats to local authorities.

Also read the criticisms of counter-narcotics aid from Mexico's ambassador to the US and the Economist's editorial in support of more aid for Colombia.

There is a good profile of Colombia's new foreign minister in today's Miami Herald. He was kidnapped by the FARC and held for six years. He is now balancing a variety of international issues.

I would imagine some parts of diplomacy look a bit like theater of the absurd after spending a few years in captivity.

From Bloomberg:

U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged that U.S. economic prescriptions for Latin American haven't reduced poverty and pledged openness to new ideas.

Paulson also supported China's bid for the IDB and some new biofuel initiatives through the IDB.

Nothing overwhelmingly groundbreaking, but it's nice to see the administration paying some level of sustained attention to the region. It's a low bar to set, but just having someone show up the week after the president's trip to continue whatever momentum is an accomplishment.

Among stories to read today, the bland LA Times article on dengue fever in Paraguay should be up there for several reasons.
1. Health concerns. Dengue fever is on the rise in Paraguay and Brazil and the recent flooding in Bolivia have increased the risks there as well. Over 18,000 cases have been identified in Paraguay alone.

2. Government stability. At least one top government official has been forced to resign in Paraguay. Bolivian President Morales has been accused of distributing more aid to his supporters than opponents. If the health concerns get worse, the political implications could rise in both countries.

3. International relations. Who's sending aid? The US, Cuba, Venezuela and Brazil have all sent significant aid to the region. While the battle over who sends more aid is always somewhat absurd, it can only be good for rural Paraguay and Bolivia that can use whatever help they get.

4. Climate change. Increase in dengue fever has been linked to changing climates in South America, and the fear is that the dengue area could spread more widely. A similar fear exists for malaria.

Not the most exciting article, but plenty of reasons to watch the issue.

The Ecuadorian Congress will attempt to meet today. In most countries, this would not be a significant event. However, considering the last few weeks in Ecuador, the Congressional meeting will likely be another showdown between the executive and legislature.

Several weeks ago, the Ecuadorian Congress fired the head of the electoral tribunal. The head of the tribunal, in response, fired 57 members of Congress (Tambopaxi has more). Since then, it’s been a battle between the fired legislators and the security authorities to see whether the fired lawmakers can enter the Congress and whether they can achieve quorum.

Ecuador’s institutions are broken and facing a constitutional crisis. Sadly, it's no big surprise.

For now, President Correa is winning these battles. I’ve been predicting since day one that he will win the initial referendum on whether to rewrite the constitution by a wide margin. He will then have a tough battle to get over 50% of the delegates to the constitutional convention. I’m going to guess that he can pull that out as well, but I’m not quite as certain. By winning those two elections, he will essentially silence his opposition within the Congress.

If he wins and controls the assembly, he buys himself 6-8 months of momentum in which to reform Ecuador’s government and improve the economy. The opposition will complain and claim he is destroying the institutions. As Correa’s momentum slows, he’ll need to take another issue directly to the public. Correa’s success or failure on that next round will ride on his ability to deliver tangible results to the public over the coming months.

Governing by using quasi-direct democracy to override existing institutions is possible (both Chavez and Fujimori pulled it off to some extent). The problem is that it creates frequent round by round battles for public opinion. Lose one battle, and you likely lose control of the government. With very fluid public opinion in Ecuador, Correa is setting himself up to be constantly on the edge of stability. Then again, considering Ecuador’s recent history, Correa may believe he has no other option.

Four years ago, as the Iraq war was beginning, the Cuban government rounded up dozens of opposition activists and imprisoned them to silence dissent.

Oswaldo Paya writing in the Washington Post:

The world should know that they were jailed for peacefully defending and promoting human rights. Many were unofficial, independent journalists who broadcast their opinions and criticisms in a transparent manner. Others participated in projects to promote and defend human rights and labor union rights. Still others participated in civic organizations that pursued peaceful changes toward democracy. The majority of Cuban Spring prisoners were and still are organizers of the Varela Project ( http://www.oswaldopaya.org), a citizen's petition -- legal under Article 88G of the Cuban constitution, which allows voters to present a bill to the National Assembly and to demand a referendum -- for change.

I am not defending a particular project; I defend the rights of citizens. More than ever, the Cuban people need and desire a peaceful solution to the country's political situation, a transition to democracy, respect for human rights and freedom. For this reason the campaign continues -- this and because our jailed brothers who helped launch the campaign continue to support it. If the world understands these peaceful citizens' participation in this campaign and other civic activities, people will understand the injustice of these imprisonments -- an injustice that is perpetuated as long as they remain in prison -- and the nobleness and legitimacy of the cause that we defend together. I hope that this will awaken their solidarity.

The most common question I've gotten over the past few days is whether I think the Bush trip was a success or failure. While I think it fell flat in parts, the real answer is that it is too early to tell. The success or failure of the trip that just ended will be decided over the next 30-60 days.

The important question Latin Americans are asking is whether this trip had any effect on President Bush. Leaders like Lula and Calderon want to know that their concerns were heard and helped convince the president to act on their issues. If, over the next two months, the president can make progress on immigration, trade, ethanol, aid to the region or just common diplomacy (pick up the phone), this trip could still be labeled a mild success. If the president changes nothing about his policies to the region and doesn't at least try to take the region's leaders' concerns into account, then this trip was an expensive and rather worthless set of photo ops.

Chiquita Banana has been fined $25 million for paying protection money to the AUC (they also payed the FARC and ELN). There are other US companies that have paid "protection money" in Colombia and I hope the US government is going after them as well.

One question I have about the payment is where the money will go. It seems to me the $25 million should go to the UNHCR or International Red Cross to help communities of internally displaced refugees in Colombia. It would be the sort of reparations that would actually help the victims of the violence that the initial protection money paid for. Does anyone know whether it would be possible to direct the fine that way under US law?

The first two legs of the president's trip to Latin America were dominated by biofuel and trade issues. Colombia was about trade and US security/counter-narcotics assistance. Central America and Mexico bring up a different set of issues.

Just reading the NYT coverage of the Guatemala and Mexico visits, it's clear the administration wants to talk about trade and security, but these countries want immigration as the number one issue. There is a lot of anger and disappointment at how the Bush administration specifically and the US in general has handled immigration. In Guatemala, anger at the recent deportations spans the entire population including those who are generally pro-US. In Mexico, immigration is tarnishing the bilateral relations between the US and what should be one of our strongest allies in the world.

If Bush takes one message home from this trip, it's that the immigration issue is hurting the US in Mexico and Central America (not to mention the rest of the world). If he cares about the region, it's an issue the president must spend political capital on, even if it's unpopular within parts of his party. All the trade and security and development assistance in the world isn't going to help us if the US is seen as an isolated, walled country that deports those people whose only crime in life is wanting a better living standard for their families.

Getting immigration wrong is our biggest strategic threat in the region. Getting it right would be a huge, long term victory for the US.

Today's Miami Herald and others cover the one year mark of Chilean President Michelle Bachelet. The most recent polls suggest she is hovering around 50%.

1. Pinochet's death. President Bachelet handled this issue about as well as she could, splitting the ideological middle in terms of sending a representative to the military funeral while denying a full state funeral. Still, even handling this well, it dragged down the momentum of her administration and forced her off agenda.

2. Student Strikes. For only one year in office, Bachelet has done an impressive job on education, but many Chilean student groups believe she should do a lot more. Before 100 days were up, Bachelet was hit with student strikes that forced the eventual resignation of the Minister of Education. Expect the students to protest again about education or transportation to show off their political power.

3. Corruption. Like several other presidents on the continent including Uribe and Lula, Bachelet has seen a fair share of corruption scandals hit her political allies. While the scandals are not directly linked to her, they have probably hurt her approval ratings. The scandals have definitely hurt the image of the Concertacion and may affect the next election cycle if they cannot clean up their problems.

4. Women's rights. The issue was a key component of her campaign and she has lived up to it. She has pushed through a number of laws related to women's rights in spite of Chile's traditionally conservative culture. This should be seen as a strong point for her administration and should help keep her base strong in the polls as other issues hit.

5. International Relations. Along with Lula, Bachelet is widely viewed around the region as the model president for a progressive government integrating with the world economy. She faced some domestic pressure on the UNSC vote, but her careful approach in not giving strong support to either side helped force the eventual compromise. She is continuing to support a very strong trade policy for Chile, while working at home to mitigate the negative effects. Whatever the specific policies, the image of being a progressive, third-way between the two extremes of the continent can only help her and strengthen Chile's position over the long run.

That was President Bush's response to whether the US would drop its tariff on Brazilian ethanol. He even stepped in to make sure he answered before Lula could.

It's a lack of leadership. Congress is set to look at the tariff again in 2009. If this issue is seriously on President Bush's agenda, he'd put it in front of Congress this year rather than passing it off to the next president. We're talking about an issue that could strengthen our alliances in Latin America and accelerate our use of renewable fuels.

"Not going to happen." The president is telling us he is not willing to fight in Congress. Not willing to take on a domestic political group. Not willing to make any real sacrifice to improve our relationship with the region.

And then the administration wonders why journalists ask whether Latin America is really a priority for this president.

As Adam and this morning's Washington Post article note, the Bush administration claim to have doubled aid to Latin America is really stretching the facts. Aid is around the same levels as the final years of the Clinton administration and much of the aid is for military and counter-narcotics issues. Also, as Tambopaxi says in comments below, significant aid cuts were made to Ecuador, Bolivia and others this year.

With the president's trip to Brazil today, there are several good articles and opinion pieces out there about biofuel, in particular, this one in the Washington Post.

Some are for it, some are against it. Some believe it will work, others don't. What runs in common is that nearly every commentator believes the US should drop the tariff on sugar ethanol. At 54 cents per gallon, the tariff is significantly holding back greater energy integration.

So here's a question, because I don't have time to look this week: Can anyone find an article defending the tariff? I know there are articles out there criticizing biofuels in general, but I haven't seen a single article or op-ed defend the tariff as good policy.

The president's proposals for Latin America are pretty good, but in some ways, it comes off as an excel spreadsheet of US-led initiatives rather than an attempt to engage. The insistence that the US and his administration have always focused strongly on the region seems disingenuous. The lack of admitting mistakes hurts our credibility. It would have been nice had he added:

We’re sorry the US backed repressive, non-democratic governments in previous decades. We strive to promote democracy, but we haven’t always lived up to those ideals.

We’re sorry that the reforms we pushed in the 1990’s did not improve the lives of all Latin Americans, and in many cases hurt economic and political stability and ruined people’s lives. We still believe free markets and trade are necessary for development, but we know they are not sufficient to solve the problems of the hemisphere.

We apologize that we promised to focus on Latin America, and then got distracted by the War on Terrorism. World events caused us to turn our attention elsewhere. We’re late in coming back.

Latin America is not the US’s backyard. It’s our neighbor. And increasingly our cultures, our economies and our prosperity are linked. We’ve made mistakes in the past, but we want to work with you. How can we help?

President Bush gave a major speech on Western Hemisphere policy today, focusing on education, health, debt relief and trade in Latin America. The speech is here and a summary from the White House is here. It's a good set of initiatives, but we have a long way to go.

The New York Times and the Miami Herald cover Guatemala's extensive corruption and violence, linking the story to the recent assassination of three Salvadoran politicians. Both papers link the violence to the historical problems within Guatemala that were not resolved following the civil war, as well as corruption caused by drug trafficking. Several analysts border on calling the country a "failed state." I wouldn't use that term (Guatemala certainly isn't Somalia or Sudan), but there is a clear problem of poorly governed spaces that the country needs to solve.

Colombian Juan Pablo Montoya won the NASCAR event in Mexico City today. NASCAR couldn't have staged a better marketing coup if they tried.

Bolivia is planning on exporting coca-derived products in violation of international treaties:

Asked whether exporting coca was legal, Morales told The Miami Herald: ``I don't have to ask permission from anyone to produce coca products. . . . Just like in the past we used coca for the benefits of humanity, now we'll industrialize it. We don't have evil ends in mind.''

I have no problem with Bolivia exporting industrialized products made from the coca leaf. Individual packets of coca tea or coca-based toothpaste or whatever other products they are planning will have little or no effect on the international drug market. It would be fairly difficult and very uneconomical for someone to make cocaine from those products.

There is a problem with Bolivia violating an international treaty. (If the US was smart about our counter-narcotics policies (ha), we'd help Bolivia modify the treaty at the UN and define the terms. Exporting individual packets of coca tea should be ok; truckloads of raw coca leaf should not be. Obviously, that's unlikely to happen.)

Right now, because they are going to violate an international treaty, the onus is on Bolivia to prove to the world that they are doing this correctly. This is an opportunity to Bolivia to register and monitor the production and industrialization of legal coca while cracking down on illegal growers and cocaine producers. By allowing farmers into a legal system that tracks coca growth from the ground to the production facility, Bolivia could then more easily crack down on illegal growers. On the other hand, if Bolivia fails to monitor the process, the drug traffickers are going to have a field day and Bolivia will quickly feel an increase of the corruption and violence that drug trafficking brings.

President Morales has good intentions with what he is attempting. The question is how he executes the plan. If he does it right, this initiative could spur Bolivia's economy and reduce illegal trafficking. If he fails to think through the plan, the entire country will suffer as a result.

There was a hearing yesterday at the sub-committee for Western Hemisphere Affairs. At the website, you can read the testimony of Assistant Secretary Tom Shannon as well as Peter Hakim, Arturo Valenzuela and Eric Farnsworth.

If you can’t tell from my previous posts over the past two weeks, the general consensus is growing in the region that the benefits of biofuels outweigh the costs.

The challenges of biofuel exist, but they are manageable. Diversifying and expanding the sources of the fuel can help ease the pressure on certain food markets including corn. Intelligent planning and rotation can reduce the environmental impact that increased farming will create.

On the benefit side, improving the efficiency and production of biofuels will provide a relatively cheap, renewable energy resource. It is cleaner than petroleum and can provide a level of energy security that is not dependent on a few oil-extracting countries.

Indirectly, biofuels will also improve integration across the Western Hemisphere. Both President Bush and President da Silva are pushing to increase cooperation in this sector and they hope to bring along other countries in the region. Shared production and shared technology will lead to energy security.

For the reasons above the drive for biofuels in Latin America extends across a fairly large ideological spectrum.

Both President Chavez and Fidel Castro attacked biofuels as the first point of business in a radio call in earlier this week. Why are they afraid of a topic that will help integrate the Western Hemisphere and provide regional energy security? I guess their money and influence are more important than the region’s interests on this issue. However, if they are going to stand against modern energy technology in Latin America, they are fighting a losing battle.