Bloggings by boz

What I wrote in December:

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....

...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.

So now we know who the candidates are, but has anything changed in the last eight months?
From today's LA Times:

Most voters doubt that any of the candidates is up to the challenge of running an impoverished, overpopulated country suffering from a terrifying crime wave and a collapse of its criminal justice system, said Victor Galvez, a political analyst at the Latin American Faculty for Social Sciences, a university here. The breakdown of law and order claimed the lives of three Salvadoran lawmakers in February — and the Guatemalan police officers charged in their deaths were slain while in custody.

"There hasn't been a lot of enthusiasm in this election," Galvez said. Most polls here list about a third of voters as still undecided. "The electorate is tremendously skeptical."

It's amazing that this race has gone almost completely as expected. Part of me hopes that some candidate manages to shake it up a bit. Unfortunately, the biggest story of the race may not be the candidates or the electorate, but the cartels.

And many of the parties are secretly receiving money from drug traffickers, according to statements by Guatemalan and U.S. officials. Colom recently expelled dozens of UNE candidates for local office from his party because he suspected they were receiving drug money.

Traffickers are concentrating on funding local candidates, said a U.S. official who asked not to be named. But their money is likely "working its way up" party political structures. "In a certain sense," the official said, "it's impossible to stop."

It's an ugly trend and whoever wins this next election is going to need to face down the cartels if he (or she) wants to gain control of the country.

From Bloomberg:

The World Trade Organization ruled that the U.S. failed to overhaul its cotton subsidies enough to comply with global trade rules, the U.S. Trade Representative's office said.

Under trade rules, Brazil can submit a list of U.S.- exported products on which it wants to raise tariffs in retaliation. The South American country may boost duties on some products should the U.S. fail to comply with a final ruling the WTO will issue by Oct. 1, said Roberto Azevedo, secretary for economic affairs at Brazil's Foreign Ministry....

...A WTO panel first ruled in September 2004 that as much as $4 billion a year in U.S. subsidies to cotton growers violated global trade rules by encouraging excess production in the U.S. and driving down world prices....

...After the 2004 ruling, the U.S. eliminated some export- credit guarantees and a program that paid exporters and U.S. mills to buy U.S.-grown cotton.

Still, Brazil argued that the U.S. fails to cut marketing loans and stipends to farmers when crop prices fall below a threshold level, which the WTO also said depresses world cotton prices.

Reforming our distorted farm subsidy system should remain among the top priorities. We could generate good will and economic progress in the developing world, which would in turn benefit our security. Unfortunately, the House Democrats most recent farm bill, while laudable for closing tax loopholes and using the funds to pay for additional food stamp coverage, does little to reform the subsidy system.

From Saturday's Miami Herald:

Mexican President Felipe Calderón, locked in a bloody confrontation with drug cartels, is negotiating a counter-drug aid package with the Bush administration worth hundreds of millions of dollars, say several U.S. officials familiar with the discussions.

Officials on both sides are working out the details of a package that resembles a similar plan for Colombia. The talks have been taking place quietly for several months and will be a central item on the agenda Aug. 20-21 when President Bush and Calderón are expected to meet in Québec.

Mexican officials have been reluctant to go public with the discussions, mindful of the anti-U.S. sentiments harbored by many Mexicans. The conservative Calderón believes he has little choice but to enlist U.S. help given the cross-border nature of drug trafficking and the ruthlessness of Mexico's drug gangs, officials and observers told The Miami Herald.

While Mexico certainly needs help fighting the cartels, they are also very wary of US assistance along the lines of Plan Colombia.

Mexican officials bristle at any comparisons with the Colombian operation, which they view as too ambitious and an infringement on Colombian sovereignty, given the heavy scrutiny by U.S. Congress and direct involvement of U.S. personnel and equipment.

''Any type of a package called Plan Mexico,'' said Armand Peschard-Sverdrup, a Mexico specialist with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, ``would be dead on arrival.'' The Mexico package will more likely be cast as an effort to improve Mexico's judicial system and its security forces. ''The U.S. can play a role in bolstering that reform process,'' he said.

Helping Mexico reform its judicial processes, police forces and anti-corruption efforts would definitely be useful in fighting the cartels. Of course, it's always worth remembering that, like Colombia, there are two things the US can do within its own borders to help. One, reduce drug consumption. Two, reduce illicit arms trafficking. Whatever help our "Not Plan Mexico" will provide, it's worth remembering that parts of Mexico's security problems begin here.

Bloomberg:

Peruvian President Alan Garcia's Arpa Party retained control of the legislature for a second year after congress elected a party member as president.

The 120-member congress elected former Foreign Minister Luis Gonzales Posada in a 66-49 vote over Javier Bedoya, who represented former presidential candidate Lourdes Flores' National Unity party.

I say it's a "rare" win because of the following:

Garcia's approval rating fell to 32 percent this month, according to Lima pollster Apoyo, which surveyed 1,003 people in 16 cities from July 18-19. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

The rating was the lowest since Garcia took office in July 2006 after protests for more roads and tax breaks left two dead in the southern highlands this month.

If he's down at 32%, that's a fairly significant hit. In previous polls, Garcia remained strong in Lima while weak in the highlands, this poll shows him with 23% support in the South and 16% support in the Eastern regions where the protests are taking place, but there are also indications he is losing his base of support along the coast.

UPDATE: More from this week's Economist in an article called "That elusive feel-good factor":

The government accepts that more needs to be done to spread the benefits of growth. It is transferring around $3.5 billion to local governments this year, for investment in infrastructure, health care and education. Social programmes have been consolidated and streamlined under an umbrella plan to tackle child poverty and malnutrition in the poorest regions. Other programmes are aimed at helping Andean farmers and at safe drinking-water schemes. Officials hope to reduce the overall poverty rate by a further ten percentage points over the remaining four years of Mr García's term.

The problem is that even if such projects are well-executed their effect will be felt only in the medium term. Some Peruvians worry that the street protests will panic Mr García, whose political touch is sometimes erratic, into reviving his latent taste for popular short-term measures that end up doing harm. So far he has been at pains to avoid the mistakes of his previous term, when Peru suffered hyperinflation and economic collapse.

Less clear is what he now stands for. Provided that the economy continues to grow and the president holds his nerve, the protests should start to ebb. Mr García could yet go down in history for having made serious inroads into the poverty of the southern Andes. But the slingshots are not about to be put away just yet.

Ecuador's Minister of Economy Patino has been replaced following the recent scandal. And only a week and a half after I called for his removal. I feel like an empowered blogger. Patino will be moving to a newly created cabinet post that will keep him outside of Quito.

Lula fired his defense minister following the recent political pressure related to the aviation safety issue. A former Supreme Court official was named the new head of civilian aviation.

Argentina's National Statistics Institute Chief quit after a rocky three months in office. She face protests by employees and widespread criticism in the media that she was altering the data on inflation statistics.

Andrés Peñate, the head of Colombia's the main intelligence service, resigned, claiming personal economic reasons (on the cool side, he's now going to work for a beer company). Peñate took over during a pretty difficult time in October 2005 as the previous DAS head Jorge Noguera was forced out during a corruption scandal involving paramilitary infiltration.

Finally, the outgoing defense minister in Venezuela gave quite the farewell speech, actually taking political shots at the president for his security and economic policies. Nothing like burning your bridges on the way out.

Copied below is the transcript of the debate question that actually mentioned Latin America.

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We’ve been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

COOPER: Senator Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don’t want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.

And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.

And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we’re not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

COOPER: Senator Edwards, would you meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il?

EDWARDS: Yes, and I think actually Senator Clinton’s right though. Before that meeting takes place, we need to do the work, the diplomacy, to make sure that that meeting’s not going to be used for propaganda purposes, will not be used to just beat down the United States of America in the world community.

But I think this is just a piece of a bigger question, which is, what do we actually do? What should the president of the United States do to restore America’s moral leadership in the world. It’s not enough just to meet with bad leaders. In addition to that, the world needs to hear from the president of the United States about who we are, what it is we represent.

That, in fact, we believe in equality, we believe in diversity, that they are at the heart and soul of what the United States of America is.

Obama's campaign has clarified that his answer refers to restoring government to government contacts, not an individual presidential level meeting with each of the five during his first year in office. Clinton's campaign believes Obama's answer refers to personal level meetings and is using the transcript to show a difference between the two candidates. You can read the transcript and decide for yourself.

I actually don't see much of a difference between the three candidates' answers and positions on this issue. I'll give more thoughts later.

LA Times:

Angry protests, tight security and empty hotel rooms marked the celebration Monday of Guelaguetza, a folk festival that is traditionally the biggest tourist draw of the year in this city dependent on the money visitors spend here.

A year ago, protests forced the cancellation of Guelaguetza. This month, a new round of violent demonstrations over the rule of Oaxaca state Gov. Ulises Ruiz led to hundreds of cancellations and delivered a "death blow" to the tourist industry, local business groups said.

On Monday, Ruiz joined 15,000 people for the official celebration in a hillside amphitheater on the outskirts of the city. Access to the area was blocked by hundreds of state riot police. Simultaneously, an estimated 30,000 people marched in the center of this state capital.

They haven't gotten rid of Ulises Ruiz yet? Putting more pressure on this guy should be near the top of Calderon's list of things to do. There's plenty of things wrong with APPO and the protesters in Oaxaca, but as long as Ulises Ruiz is around, the situation is not going to get any better. (Previous posts here, here and here).

The NYT has some of the details that have stalled the Bank of the South's launch:

Venezuelan officials, who want the Bank of the South to be based in Caracas, have had to deal with Brazilian proposals to have it function from a smaller South American capital like Montevideo, Uruguay, or Asunción, Paraguay. Also, earlier Venezuelan ambitions for the bank to start operations with $7 billion in capital have been countered by Brazil’s more modest suggestion of $3 billion.

Discussions around forming the bank have also focused on how many technical employees each country can nominate, whether financing should come from each country’s foreign currency reserves and how transparent the bank’s lending policies should be.

In addition, Brazil would prefer to limit membership to South American countries, while Venezuela wants to include Central America and the Caribbean, which would allow staunch Chávez allies like Nicaragua and Cuba to become shareholders.

The Bank of the South is an excellent idea in principle, and the Brazilians are right to carefully think through the details before launching. Transparency in the lending policies is the key. If this is to be a legitimate regional development bank, then there should be transparent processes for selecting development projects as well as oversight and accountability of the funding.

If there is no transparent process and the bank just ends up handing out money to Chavez allies because they have certain political/economic leanings, then it ends up being no better than the IMF.

From the BBC:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has vowed to expel foreigners who publicly criticise him or his government.

"No foreigner can come here to attack us. Anyone who does must be removed from this country," he said during his weekly TV and radio programme.

Mr Chavez also ordered officials to monitor statements made by international figures in Venezuela. His comments came shortly after a senior Mexican politician publicly criticised the Venezuelan government.

"How long are we going to allow a person - from any country in the world - to come to our own house to say there's a dictatorship here, that the president is a tyrant, and nobody does anything about it?" Mr Chavez said during his "Hello, President" broadcast on Sunday. "It cannot be allowed - it is a question of national dignity," he said.

Chavez used to do a better job giving the appearance of respecting democracy. He's getting lazy as he gets older.

From today's LA Times:

In that time, several American multinational corporations have been accused of essentially underwriting those criminal activities — in violation of U.S. law — by providing cash, vehicles and other financial assistance as insurance against attacks on their employees and facilities in the South American nation.

But only one such company — Chiquita Brands International Inc. — has been charged criminally in the United States. Now, a showdown is looming that pits some members of Congress against the Justice Department and the multinationals — including an American coal-mining company and Coca-Cola bottlers.

The lawmakers say that, in the cases of U.S. corporations in Colombia, the Justice Department has failed to adequately enforce U.S. laws that make it a crime to knowingly provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization — and they have opened their own investigation.

Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.), who is leading the effort, has questioned whether the Bush administration is putting the interests of U.S. conglomerates ahead of its counter-terrorism agenda.

Too many people claim that paying the protection money to the AUC or FARC was simply part of the Colombian reality at the time. I was going to write a response, but Congressman Engel says what I wanted to say:

"In the wake of 9/11, it is shocking to me that allegations of payments to terrorist groups have not been aggressively investigated and prosecuted by the Justice Department," Engel said at a June 28 congressional hearing on the issue, the first of what the lawmakers have pledged will be many.

"I can only imagine the force and speed with which the entire prosecutorial force of the United States government would come down on a company alleged to have assisted Al Qaeda or Hezbollah," Engel added.

The reason the US government keeps a list of terrorist organizations is to maintain political, diplomatic and financial pressure. If we let US companies simply ignore the counter-terror rules we have put in place, we lose credibility with the rest of the world and become less secure.

Update: Of course, to understand part of the outrage, you have to know how we treat ordinary Colombians if they are forced to pay protection money.

The group of men who ate in Maria's restaurant in her Colombian border town seemed no different from other rural workers. But when she asked them to pay, their tall, bearded leader kicked down her door and tried to kidnap her two sons. Then the men, who Maria now knows belonged to a left-wing guerrilla group considered terrorists by the United States, ordered Maria to abandon her home and business within 48 hours....

...Not long ago, her ordeal may well have qualified Maria for admission to the US as a refugee, like thousands of other victims of Colombia's decades of war.

But, like many other aspects of US law, 9/11 changed all that. Maria says she did not know who the men she served lunch were, and could have suffered violence for refusing them. But under a part of the USA Patriot Act that officials have begun enforcing more vigorously over the past year, the food Maria gave the guerrillas qualifies as "material support" of terrorists, and bars her from resettlement in the US. Critics say this law unfairly brands people victimized by terrorists as terrorist allies.

The fact that we can't resettle a refugee from Colombia's violence while avoiding investigations into the companies accused of violating those same anti-terror laws is a ridiculous double standard.

As I wrote yesterday, Lula needs to act quickly to avoid taking serious political damage from this week's air crash. While the reasons for the crash may still be human error or mechanical, aviation security has been a major topic for several months and people feel the government has done too little. Yesterday, Lula announced the initial measures.

Mr. da Silva spoke shortly after his chief of staff, Dilma Rousseff, announced what she called “short-term emergency measures” to reduce congestion and “increase the degree of confidence” of passengers at Congonhas Airport, the site of the crash on Tuesday. Congonhas is the busiest airport not just in Brazil, but also in all of South America, with more than 600 takeoffs and landings on an average day.

Under the government’s new plan, Congonhas will cease within 60 days to be a hub for airlines and will in the future handle mostly shuttle passengers coming from Rio de Janeiro and other nonstop regional flights. Restrictions were also announced on charter flights to the airport as well as corporate and other private jets.

In addition, the government promised to build a new airport for the São Paulo metropolitan area, which has nearly 20 million residents. Government prosecutors are seeking an injunction to shut Congonhas altogether for safety reasons, a step that the head of the civil aviation agency says is “radical and impractical.”

It's definitely a needed start. Improvements on the runway would also be good as grooving and drainage have also been listed as problems.

Of course, this story can't help Lula's public relations right now:

An unexplained two-hour outage at a radar facility in the Amazon forced at least four American Airlines flights from the U.S. heading to Brazil to return to Miami International airport early Saturday.

Following this week's tragic plane crash, Brazil is being forced to confront the aviation crisis that has been debated for the past few months. While the investigation is not yet done, prosecutors are already seeking to close down the airport.

Prosecutors filed briefs to require Congonhas, the country’s busiest airport, whose main runway has been closed since the crash, to cease all operations “until a complete refurbishment of both its runways can be completed and there is certainty they are fully secure.” Márcio Araújo, who as solicitor general acts as a public ombudsman, called conditions at Congonhas “a calamity, multiplied by the lethargy of the authorities and the greed of the airlines.”

Those complaints were echoed in a sharply critical statement issued Thursday by the International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers’ Associations. “Air safety is currently compromised and is a danger to the traveling public” because “warnings on the conditions at the airport in Congonhas have been repeatedly ignored by the authorities,” especially the Brazilian Air Force, it said.

In February, prosecutors obtained a court order prohibiting large planes from landing at or taking off from Congonhas, which is surrounded by residential and commercial areas, citing similar safety concerns. But that ruling was quickly overturned on the grounds that the harm to the Brazilian economy, 40 percent of which is concentrated in São Paulo State, would be enormous.

While closing down the airport is probably a bit overboard, Brazil definitely needs to fix their aviation industry in general and this airport specifically (see videos on Randy's blog).

Part of the fix is bureaucratic (for example, managing the military and civilian sides of the air traffic control industry) and Lula will encounter political roadblocks at every step of that issue. However, part of the fix is infrastructure and Lula should push forward on that side ASAP. At this point, he has the political support to start fixing runways, improving control technologies and maybe even building a new airport or three to handle the increasing air traffic. It's expensive, but in terms of long term investments into Brazil's economy, this is one that would pay back well over many decades.

Considering that aviation security has been a topic in Brazil since well before this crash, Lula needs to show some action on fixing the problem. Otherwise, he is going to find himself taking the blame, no matter what the actual cause of the crash.

Articles of interest I've read in recent weeks:

Christian Science Monitor: US guns arm Mexico's drug wars
Reuters: "Iron river of guns" flows from U.S. to Mexico
Reuters: Once quiet towns engulfed by Mexico drugs war
Reuters: Mexicans tighten grip on drugs across continent
Washington Post: Calderón's Offensive Against Drug Cartels
SF Chronicle: American guns help fuel Mexico's drug trade killings
LA Times: Mexican cartels outgun towns
Washington Post: Americans Covering Mexico Drug Trade Face Assassination Threat
Fox News: Mexico Sends in Troops to Weed Out Drug Cartels
Time: A Cease-Fire in Mexico's Drug War?
Miami Herald: Violence in Mexico could threaten U.S. oil imports
US State Dept: Combating Criminal Gangs from Central America and Mexico
Samuel Logan: Calderon's Plan for Mexico
WOLA: Reforming the Ranks: Drug Violence and Police Reform in Mexico

I caught the topline of the new Gallup poll in Colombia when I did the poll numbers last Sunday that showed President Uribe dropping to 66% approval. However, I missed the Semana Magazine article rounding up the other numbers. Fortunately, Adam has gone and translated them, so you can read them here.

Along with Presidential approval, I think the big story here is the issue of security. The percentage of Colombians who rank security as the number one issue jumped from 29% in April to 55% today. Part of this jump can be definitely be attributed to the FARC assassination of 11 former town council members who were being held hostage. Any time a poll is done after a major event like that, it will skew the poll from the normal result.

However, if this jump is more than just a temporary effect from the FARC violence, Uribe has a major public opinion problem on his hands. Uribe's popularity rests on the image that he has improved Colombia's security and given the population hope that they can move beyond the conflict. If he loses that image, he has little else to work with and will see his popularity plummet.

We should know in about two months whether this is temporary poll anomaly or a permanent problem for the Colombian government. In the meantime, the government has some work to do to reaffirm the image of security with the population. Uribe is still popular, but they need to avoid losing that popularity through security problems. As I mentioned earlier this week, if Uribe drops much lower, he will find himself a lame duck and little will get done for the rest of his administration.

Canadian Prime Minister Harper is touring the region this week, traveling to Colombia, Chile, Barbados and Haiti. Meanwhile, the Canadian Governor General Michaëlle Jean will travel to Brazil.

The trip began with some questions about Harper's foreign policy. The Economist played it up and similar articles appeared in the Canadian media. One of the main questions following him in the Canadian media is whether Harper is setting out to increase Canada's influence, or whether he's simply doing the work of the Bush administration. Following Harper's statements and travels, it looks like he's answering those questions by setting a path that places Canada as an alternative to the US.

In Colombia, Harper announced free trade talks in spite of pressure being placed on the human rights issue. Free trade talks were also announced with Peru. Reuters noted that Canada was stepping into the gap being left by the rift between the US and Colombia on their trade deal.

It's in Chile where Harper made the more interesting statement, declaring "Chile and Canada can show the way forward" and setting out what he portrayed as a third-way between the policies of the US and those of Venezuela. He also took a shot at the US, calling the current policies "protectionist." Canada had announced earlier this year that it wanted to provide a "strong alternative" to US policies in the region, but this speech will be much more noticed.

With two more countries to still hit, Harper's trip has received positive media coverage both in Canada and in the region. Harper seems to be setting up Canada to hold greater diplomatic influence in Latin America. Europe, China, India and Russia have all been increasing their presence in Latin America over the past decade, and now we have our neighbor to the north deciding that there is a gap to fill. It's an interesting move for Canada and the question now is whether they can keep up the momentum over the coming months.

Back in February, Ecuador announced it would delay, but not default on its long term debt. Then, surprising the markets, Ecuador paid on time. At the time, I attributed the move to President Correa's "erratic" tendencies and moved on. It really just looked like an odd anomaly at the time.

Turns out this wasn't just a random event; it was a classic case of corruption. Ecuador's finance minister, Ricardo Patiño, used the announcement of the delay and the payment to manipulate the prices of Ecuador's bonds. Videos have aired in the Ecuadorian media showing Patiño discussing his plans to manipulate the market for profit.

Instead of taking action against his minister, Correa has banned covert tapes and videos from being broadcast by the media in the hopes that no more information about his cabinet's corruption is aired. That's almost a comically bad policy and simply suggests there is a lot more out there still to be seen.

There is something seriously wrong with government ministers in any country using their authority to personally profit off of manipulating their debt market. Patiño should be trying to solve Ecuador's financial problems including its long term debt. Instead, the country's finance minister played games with the country's finances and reputation so he could personally profit off the deal.

Correa was elected on the hope that he would bring a new type of politics. His finance minister's actions were the sort of corruption that has occurred for decades in Ecuador and has led to the disillusionment of the population in traditional politics. Millions changed hands due to Patiño's scam while Correa's political base still lives in poverty. Whatever else you may think of Correa's actions, this should be the easiest decision he has to make during his administration. Correa should fire his finance minister for corruption and set an example for the rest of the government.

Update: Also should note that Argentina's Minister of Economy was forced to resign today due to the $64,000 found in her office toilet. Good for the Kirchners to get that cleaned up before the issue got out of control. Hope Correa is watching.

Update2: Here's part of the video in question, for those who wanted to see it for themselves. It takes a few seconds to start.

As promised...

In Mexico, several polls show that Calderon would easily win an election against AMLO and Madrazo if it were to be run today. Interestingly, even though most polls give Calderon around 60% support, over 40% believe there was fraud in the 2006 election.

In Guatemala, a poll from Siglo 21 says 60% of citizens support "social cleansing." That's just frightening. 40% believe Perez has a better stance on security than the front runner Colom. A poll from Vox Latina had Colom in first with 20%; over 40% said they are undecided.

In Nicaragua, Gallup has President Ortega dropping in approval from 61% to 26%. However, 50% of responders chose "average" instead of good or bad (average is not usually an option), so while the drop should be of concern to the government, it wasn't quite as bad as some media portrayed it.

In Ecuador, a poll from Gallup says President Correa's approval has dropped to 62%, down 14 points in the past two months. Actually, this is not surprising. His numbers were artificially high when they were around 80% and everyone including his campaign team expected them to drop a bit. If he can level off around 60% he'll be doing just fine overall. However, it may mean that he won't dominate the constitutional assembly elections the way he had hoped.

In Colombia, President Uribe's numbers from Gallup have dropped to 66% while disapproval is up at 27%, the highest of his term. Those are still relatively good numbers, but the trend is not. Uribe's support has never dropped below 60% and if his current approval drops further he could find himself a lame duck facing a much more difficult situation in his Congress and in the domestic media.

In Venezuela, a new poll from Hinterlaces said President Chavez's approval has dropped 13 points since November to 39%. The Hinterlaces poll also shows disapproval with specific Chavez policies. While the Hinterlaces numbers are somewhat lower than other major polling firms (others still have Chavez above 50%), most polls are showing a downward trend in Chavez's numbers linked to specific policies that people disagree with. Update: IVAD has Chavez at 71% according to local media. About 50% are satisfied with the current economic situation. This same polling firm last month said 67% rejected Chavez's decision on RCTV.

In Argentina, a poll from OPSM gave Cristina Kirchner 48%, well ahead of any potential rivals. She needs at least 45% to avoid a second round.

Finally, Pew Global did an international survey that included seven Latin American countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela). To generalize, Argentina is the least favorable nation to the US and its policies while Venezuela is the most favorable (also see KA's analysis). A majority in Peru and Bolivia support the US fight against "terrorism" Peru can be explained by their experience with the Shining Path; I'm not sure why Bolivia. Views on US influence and values ranged from neutral to negative in the region, most people believing that the US promotes policies based on its own self interest and not in order to help others.

In response to how much confidence people have in foreign leaders when it comes to world affairs, President Chavez has the confidence of 40% in Argentina and 33% in Bolivia. Over 65% lack confidence in President Chavez in Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Peru. What was interesting about this question was that nobody polled well (they polled Bush, Putin, Merkel, Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Hu). They didn't poll Lula, but it was interesting to see that really no world leader inspires confidence in Latin America. I think that says something about the region's disillusionment over the past decade.

Lots more questions about US influence, China's influence and Israel/Palestine issues. I also want to note over 80% in all the Latin American countries view global warming as a serious threat and all of them view the US and China as the key causes of environmental problems. If we're looking for areas to improve the US image, this issue would be a good place to start.

I know, I know. It's been a few weeks since my last poll numbers post. I'll try to get something up over the weekend even though (or perhaps because) I'm working the overnight shift for a few nights.

On another note, got my Obama bumper sticker yesterday. Not many cars, even around DC, have stickers for candidates yet. I've seen a few Obama and a few Richardson, but that's it. I predict that after I put the bumper sticker on my car, over the next 16 months an increasing number of cars in the DC area will add political bumper stickers to their car. I'll be a trend setter.

Update: In the comments, I'm asked about Obama's foreign policy. So as additional reading , I recommend reading this statement on Latin America, this speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and this article out of Foreign Affairs magazine.

The EPR claimed the recent pipeline bombings in Mexico that shut down several factories and plants in the country. The EPR, like the Zapatistas, is more talk than action. However, the recent bombings do show that even with limited capabilities they can cause some serious economic damage.

While the EPR is not a major long term threat to the country, it's not unthinkable that drug cartels could turn to energy infrastructure attacks. In particular, the cartels are likely to look for successful ways to attack the government should Calderon's military offensive start succeeding in pressuring them. As John Robb notes, the attacks are cost effective and very disruptive to a variety of industries. Additionally, attacks like these will drain government resources trying to protect key infrastructure, which would mean fewer resources to take the fight to the cartels' home turf.

Calderon needs to show the Mexican government can respond effectively or more attacks like this are likely to appear in the near future. If the cartels learn that this is a way to pressure the Mexican government, these small attacks are going to be a much bigger threat to his administration and its priorities.

Bloomberg:

Peru's former President Alberto Fujimori defeated his country's efforts to extradite him on corruption and human rights charges after a Chilean judge found the evidence against him inadequate.

Supreme Court Judge Orlando Alvarez, ruling on charges related to kidnapping, murder, and misuse of public funds, said Peru had failed to tie Fujimori to many of the events that occurred during his decade-long presidency while other allegations didn't support extradition under Chilean law.

Chile has some strict extradition laws. Still, I'm hopeful this is simply a delay in extraditing Fujimori and that the process will continue. President Garcia should use the extra time to his advantage to build both political support and the criminal case necessary for when the former president returns.

(By the way, is it just me or does the recent Red Mosque incident in Pakistan remind people of Fujimori handling the MRTA takeover of the Japanese Embassy in 1997?)

A few days ago I wrote about Brazil fighting the PCC and other gangs by promoting government services and investment into the slums.

In previous decades, armed groups attempted to overthrow national governments and implement their own national government. Today, we're seeing a trend of violent organizations attempting to destabilize and displace government at the local level. They provide limited services rather than replace the national government and use the area lacking government as a base of operations (often for trans-national criminal networks, occasionally for terrorism).

Brazil is taking this next wave of violent groups head on, and for that should be applauded and supported. A combination of "hard" security, "soft" government services and "smart" policing is necessary to take on organizations like the PCC.

Everything I wrote there also applies to the Colombia. Yesterday's article in the Washington Post describes Colombia's plan to use more civilian government services as the next part of Plan Colombia.

"We have to go to the more remote areas, where we have drug trafficking and illegal groups and we have poverty," said Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos. He said the idea, one that has never been applied here, is for the military to work with the government's social action agency and other institutions to provide schools, health care and infrastructure.

"What we're doing now is aligning our efforts in a way that will allow the state to go and clear those areas and then hold those areas -- what the military calls 'clear and hold,' " Santos said. "And the hold aspect has to do with the presence of the state, of institutions different from the military. We go in with brigades of doctors, teachers, the justice system."

Adam has the numbers of the changes in US aid to Colombia:

The Senate bill probably cuts military and police aid in the Bush administration’s request by about $90.7 million, to about $359.5 million; the House had cut military and police aid by about $160.4 million, to $289.8 million. The aerial fumigation program would be cut significantly, with an increase in funding for manual coca eradication.

It also appears that the Senate increases economic-aid programs by about $61.9 million over the Bush administration’s request, to about $201.4 million; the House bill would increase economic aid by $101.3 million, to about $240.8 million.

Overall, the Senate bill would decrease aid to Colombia by about $28.8 million, a slightly shallower cut than the $59.1 million foreseen in the House bill. The military-to-economic aid split would be 64 percent to 36 percent, compared to 76-24 in the administration’s request and 55-45 in the House bill. (As always, about $150 million in military aid from the Defense budget must be added to the final total.)

This isn't about being soft or anti-military, as some GOP critics contend (there's still plenty of military aid in there). As noted in the Post article, Colombia's conflict is not going to be won by fumigation and bullets. It's going to be won in the long term by having police stations, hospitals and schools in areas that have never seen sustainable government presence. Getting government services and economic development to Colombia's rural areas is the only way to win the battle against the drug cartels and terrorist groups like the FARC and AUC.

While I dislike seeing a decrease in overall aid to Colombia (or Latin America), moving the percentages towards more economic aid in Colombia is the smart move and the bills coming out of the Democratic-controlled Congress are a step in the right direction.

From the Miami Herald:

Every night for 12 hours, the three U.S. civilian Pentagon contractors leftist Colombian guerrillas have held since 2003 are chained by their necks to each other or to a tree.

If the Americans behave, their captors remove the chains during the day. If they don't, the chains remain, sometimes for weeks. And if government troops approach, they're forced into long marches to flee the area, according to a Colombian who once shared their jungle prisons.

Police officer Jhon Frank Pinchao was held by guerrillas of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, better known as FARC, for more than eight years. He escaped in April, and has been providing a rare glimpse into the harsh lives of Keith Stansell, Marc Gonsalves and Thomas Howes.

In an interview with The Miami Herald, plus other media accounts and court transcripts, Pinchao told of the monotony of a tightly regimented routine made slightly less intolerable by the camaraderie among the FARC's captives, some sports activities and occasional messages from loved ones.

I'm going to cheat this morning and simply quote the Financial Times for five paragraphs as Richard Lapper sums up the recent Bush administration diplomacy in Latin America quite well.

After stumbling from mistake to mistake in the way it dealt with Latin America at the beginning of this decade, the Bush administration finally seems to be forging a worthwhile policy towards the region. The problem, though, is that the initiatives being developed by figures such as Thomas Shannon, the top state department official for Latin America, and Henry Paulson, the Treasury secretary (who visits Brazil, Chile and Uruguay this week), are in the broader scheme of things too insignificant to attract the kind of funding and consistent high-level attention that would really make a difference. And in important areas like trade and immigration where the administration tends to have the right instincts, it is on the defensive, stymied by the congressional alliance of conservative Republicans and protectionist Democrats.

The interesting new element of US policy is the surer diplomatic touch being displayed by officials like Mr Shannon and the way in which the US is looking to build alliances - not just with friendly governments like Mexico and Brazil, but with the private sector, non-governmental organisations and the multilateral banks. This is evident in the way that Mr Paulson is trying to encourage private banks in Latin America to lend more money to small businesses or lever up more private investment for infrastructure.

And it is also a feature of the Comfort humanitarian mission that is offering primary healthcare and some surgery to poor people in nine countries, with US military medics working hand-in-hand with volunteers from organisations such as Project Hope.

Unfortunately, the scale of these kinds of effort is dwarfed by those launched by Venezuela and Cuba. The Comfort will dock for a few days in Panama or Guatemala, for example, while Mr Castro’s doctors set up a permanent network of primary care in areas of Bolivia or Haiti.

And administration officials can talk all they like about how real economic integration is creating an “alliance of peoples”. But as long as they fail to advance a more open approach to trade and immigration, these will be empty words.

The Comfort is doing important and needed work in Latin America. However, if the US government can't find a way to make that aid effort sustainable, then whatever goodwill the Comfort manages to bring will not survive past the next port of call.

It's also worth noting that Defense Secretary Gates canceled his trip to Latin America to prepare a report about progress in Iraq for Congress. In case you needed something symbolic of how the Bush administration has let the Iraq war sap energy away from diplomatic efforts everywhere else in the world, particularly Latin America.

There's a good article in the Washington Post opinion section that counters some of the recent criticism of biofuels.

The critics are right about several things. Corn-based ethanol isn't very economical or environmentally helpful. It inflates food prices, and it's propped up by foolish subsidies and tariffs. But to write off biofuel is to miss the forest for the trees -- or, in this case, the grassland for the corn. Enthusiasm for ethanol isn't the problem. It's the solution.

Biofuel is our next logical technology. We've had an agricultural revolution, an industrial revolution and an information-technology revolution. Now we're putting them together to harness the power of life. Ecologically, it's ideal: a fuel that literally grows on trees....

...If you want to help poor people, biofuel beats the heck out of oil. In a biofuel economy, the chief asset is open land. Who has open land? Poor countries. Latin America has sugar cane. Africa and Asia have cassava. Switch grass, which grows in dry regions, will level the playing field further. Bush says that switch grass will empower the western United States. That's nice, but the real story is that it'll empower the Southern Hemisphere.

Also, Brazilian President Lula da Silva was out promoting biofuels last week, discussing how biofuel technology will help reduce poverty.

"Consider that everyone has the technology and the knowledge to dig a little hole of 30 centimeters to plant an oil plant that could produce energy, the energy they couldn't produce in the 20th century," he said.

He told an international biofuels conference in Brussels that the biofuels boom was an opportunity that rich nations in Europe and elsewhere had to give to the poor countries of the world - referring to ethanol tariffs that have limited Brazilian exports to the European Union.

"It's important that you look at this in terms of giving a chance to those who didn't have a chance in the 20th century," he said.

He added that biofuel technology also had the potential to help avoid conflict in the world.

Happy Independence Day to everyone. I spent the day at the baseball game watching the Nationals crush the Cubs 6-0 and working on a paper that's overdue for work. Hopefully the rain will pass here in DC for tonight's fireworks.

From Reuters:

The Brazilian government will spend $1.7 billion to bring running water and other basic services to Rio de Janeiro slums to counter drug gangs that control many of the poor areas, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said on Monday.

"If the state doesn't fulfill its role and does not provide (adequate) conditions for the people, drug traffickers and organized crime will," Lula said days after clashes between police and gangsters killed 19 people in one slum.

"So we want to compete with organized crime, and we are sure that we will beat it when we manage to bring benefits to the poorest places," he said at a meeting with auto workers in Sao Bernardo do Campo, an industrial suburb of Sao Paulo.

In previous decades, armed groups attempted to overthrow national governments and implement their own national government. Today, we're seeing a trend of violent organizations attempting to destabilize and displace government at the local level. They provide limited services rather than replace the national government and use the area lacking government as a base of operations (often for trans-national criminal networks, occasionally for terrorism).

Brazil is taking this next wave of violent groups head on, and for that should be applauded and supported. A combination of "hard" security, "soft" government services and "smart" policing is necessary to take on organizations like the PCC. Lula's plan seems to understand that dynamic. Even with a smart plan, however, Brazil has a long road ahead if they are to defeat the PCC and other violent organizations currently dominating the slums.

From the BBC:

Supporters of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who narrowly lost Mexico's presidential election a year ago, have held a rally in Mexico City.

Tens of thousands of people with flags and banners gathered in the Zocalo, the main square, to mark the anniversary.

But...:

But attendance at the demonstration was much smaller than those staged a year ago, and some Mexicans say he is becoming an increasingly irrelevant political figure.

More from the Tribune and AP (I read the Mexican media coverage as well, which was extensive, but links to Mexican newspapers have a tendency to break after a few days Anyway, here's the latest poll from El Universal/Ipsos).

AMLO certainly maintains a small number of fervent supporters who will continue to back him, but watching the politics over the past year, his political time is likely up. He will always have some supporters, but he will have a very difficult time rebuilding the coalition of voters he created in 2006 that brought him within 1% of being president.

If not AMLO, then who will become the "legitimate" opposition to President Calderon? While most polls have Calderon's approval ratings above 60%, they are unlikely to remain that high over the coming years. Marcelo Ebrard, the current mayor of Mexico City, seems like a likely opposition leader, but his viability will depend on whether AMLO attempts to maintain control of his part of the PRD. The PRI have some younger leadership outside the Madrazo circle, but few seem to have stepped forward to become a viable national opposition leader.

This creates another question: Is AMLO holding back opposition to Calderon? Fewer voters support Lopez Obrador today, but he remains the most visible opposition player in Mexican politics. It could be that whoever wants to be seen as the opposition to Calderon first has to beat Lopez Obrador for media attention and public opinion.

Argentine media reported this morning that Cristina Kirchner, wife of the current president, will run for president in place of her husband.

Had President Kirchner run, he still would have been the favorite for reelection. However, while the president's numbers remain above 50% (even above Cristina's at the moment), momentum has been running against him. Energy shortages and inflation are beginning to frustrate voters, especially during the particularly cold winter. Crime remains a major issue across the country. The loss of the president's candidate in the recent mayoral election showed some electoral weakness. While he had a strong record overall, in recent months President Kirchner's position seemed to be slipping as several of economic and political factors worked against him.

Having Cristina run will put a fresh face on the president's party and shake up the race. She can run on the positive points of her husband's record while dodging some of the negatives that have been appearing. Further, she obviously has name recognition and has built personal support for several years through a variety of social programs. Considering the events and the polls over the past few months, having her run is probably a smart move that will revitalize the administration and give a bounce to the campaign.