Bloggings by boz

Both Marc and Greg note some of the recent instability in Chile. Protests over a variety of government policies have turned violent in some areas, leading to the arrests of hundreds.

In terms of polling, CERC has President Bachelet's approval just above 50% while the more conservative Adimark has her just above 40%. Both polls have shown her numbers to be relatively stable over the previous few months. However, if these protests are anything like last year's, Bachelet's numbers are set to go down in the near future.

There's a certain, strange dynamic to the protests and public opinion under Bachelet that is worth noting.

Bachelet's approval in the polls is due to her left/center-left base which continues to see her as strong on anti-poverty, women's issues and social issues. The vast majority of the opposition is from the more conservative parts of Chile who oppose her because they find either her economic or her social policies too liberal. However, many of the protesters are from a small portion of the far left of the population (probably between 5 and 10%) who see Bachelet as too conservative.

When the protests occur and Bachelet fails to successfully manage them, it causes the centrist public opinion to turn against her (because they feel she should be better at maintaining stability in the capital).

So basically, the far left is using protests to place public opinion pressure on Bachelet by moving the center against her. The only way she can maintain the center on public opinion is to quell the protests, and the easy way for her to do that is to move her policies further to the left. So in an odd reversal of how we usually view single spectrum politics, in order to maintain the support of voters among the center, she ends up moving farther away from them.

Obviously, she can't move too far to the left because she will begin to lose those same centrist voters based on policy preferences (and, in that case, she loses more voters from the center than she gains from the left thanks to a kindof-sortof but not exact bell curve in public opinion). However, if she moves too far to the center, the far left can drive some centrist voters away by using protests to create instability.

It's an interesting paradox to model. It's a very tough position to govern from.

From the AP:

Scattered violence marked a 24-hour work stoppage called Tuesday by Bolivia's conservative opposition to protest President Evo Morales' refusal to relocate the nation's capital and his move to prosecute four high-court justices.

The strike against Morales was called in six of nine Bolivian provinces, with organizers asking businesses to close and residents to stay home from work, while halting some airplane and bus service.

Reports on the extent of the strike were mixed, but television images showed significant portions of four major cities shut down by the protest.

Read more from Miguel, Miguel and IPS.

From the Miami Herald:

Former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, set to be released from federal prison next month, will soon be extradited to France. A judge in Miami ruled Tuesday that Noriega can face money-laundering charges there despite his status as a prisoner of war.

The judicial ruling is what interested me:

Last week, Hoeveler rejected Noriega's argument that he was a prisoner of war and entitled to return to Panama under the Geneva Conventions. Hoeveler, who presided over Noriega's original trial, had designated him a POW in 1992.

In his 12-page ruling, Hoeveler said he declared Noriega a POW then "in the context of defendant's concerns about the care he would receive while in custody."

Noriega's POW status enabled him to enjoy a custom-built, apartment-like cell -- equipped with exercise machines, a telephone and a color TV.

Hoeveler made it clear that Noriega should not be allowed to use his unprecedented designation to protect himself from further criminal prosecution in another country.

"This court never intended for the proclamation of defendant as a POW to shield him from all future prosecutions for serious crimes he is alleged to have committed," Hoeveler wrote. "That being said, even the most vile offender is entitled to the same protections as those owed to a law-abiding soldier once they have been declared a POW."

It's an odd ruling, but then again, the Noriega thing has always been an odd case. How many other world leaders have been imprisoned by one country and extradited to another on criminal charges?

Senator Obama's discussion of Cuba policy set the agenda of the foreign policy debate over the past week (Obviously, I was a big fan of the LA Times editorial).

However, when Cuba's foreign minister commented somewhat positively on Obama's statements, conservatives jumped on the statement to somehow claim that the Castro regime approved of Obama's policy.

Now the Castro government has issued a more detailed statement on Obama's policy, and it is rather negative:

Castro, who has overseen communist rule of Cuba since 1959, did, however, make it clear that he is no fan of the two Democrats' support of democratic reform in Cuba.

"Both of them feel the sacred duty of demanding 'a democratic government in Cuba,'" Castro wrote. "They are not making politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon."

Shouldn't the same people who said the Cuban government's positive comments were a sign of approval now admit that the negative comments are a sign that the Castro government disapproves of Obama's Cuba policy? No, that would just be logical...

From the BBC:

A former top aide to Brazil's president is to stand trial for his alleged role in one of the country's biggest corruption scandals in recent history. Jose Dirceu was accused of involvement in an illegal fundraising scheme through which the government maintained support in Congress....

...Mr Dirceu was the president's first chief-of-staff but was forced to resign over allegations that opposition politicians were paid in order to support the government's agenda.

I agree with the BBC analyst in the story that the scandals are likely to remain a public issue for a while and that they'll likely drag down Lula's approval, no matter what the outcome.

Still, there are three good pieces of news for Lula. First, the scandals came close, but never touched Lula personally, keeping his image relatively clean even as they destroyed his party and close advisors. Second, he is well liked personally by most of the population and maintains a strong image as president. Third, while his legislative agenda was never overwhelmingly politically savvy, he also maintains the ability to set and move the political agenda in a way many lame duck presidents do not.

He beat the scandal allegations once to get reelected. I'm guessing that he'll finish out his second term stronger than many people predict.

The FARC have responded to an offer by President Chavez to use Venezuelan territory to release prisoners.

Raul Reyes spoke publicly for the first time since Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez last week offered his country as neutral ground to pursue an exchange of hostages held by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, for rebels held by Colombia's government.

In the interviewed published by Clarin, South America's largest-circulation daily, Reyes thanked Chavez for "this gesture" and called it a "new impulse" in efforts to resolve the issue.

"But we continue to maintain that any exchange, being a problem deriving from an internal conflict, must be resolved within Colombia," he told a Clarin correspondent at an unspecified "southern Colombian jungle" location. "We are not going to hand over prisoners in Venezuela."

Nobody really expected the FARC to release their hostages, but it was worth a shot.

The Clarin interview with Raul Reyes appears here and here.

Lula has ruled out changing the electoral rules to allow him to run for a third term.

"When a political leader begins to think he is indispensable, and cannot be substituted, a little dictatorship is born," Lula said in an interview in O Estado de S.Paulo newspaper on Sunday.

Good decision. Good reason.

Good morning! I don't do these roundups of Latin America enough, and it's too easy to get behind on doing them.

In Mexico, a poll from El Universal says President Calderon has a 64% approval. Mitofsky has Calderon at 66%.

Also in Mexico, in a poll of only PRD party members, AMLO scored a 92% approval rating within the party. Hints within the poll suggest the party is far more divided than that initial number claims, but the fact that nearly all party members are willing to support AMLO nominally is a sign of strength.

In Guatemala, Vox Latina has the race Colom 22, Perez 17, Giammattei 13, Menchu 4 (that Vox Latina link to Prensa Libre has a lot of good data on the race). The poll says that removing the undecideds (which is a stretch of an assumption) gives the numbers Colom 38, Perez 30. The numbers for a second round between Colom and Perez are a virtual tie. Siglo XXI has the race Colom 41, Perez 30, Giammattei 10, Menchu 5.

In Costa Rica, the CAFTA referendum vote has just over 50% approval and 38% against. That election looks like it will be close.

In Colombia, a poll from Cambio suggest 50% of Colombians support the idea of a third term for President Uribe. I should have more to say on that later, but I think it's a pretty terrible idea.

In Ecuador, a poll from Cedatos suggests 89% of Ecuadorians do not know how they will vote on the constitutional assembly referendum to be held on 30 September. The most recent poll from Cedatos has President Correa at 59% approval.

In Venezuela, I highly recommend reading Caracas Chronicles and Oil Wars for the two most recent polls on the Chavez government. My basic reading on these is that Chavez remains personally popular, but some of his policies related to governance are not. The average Venezuelan perceives the economy as fair to good. The disapproval some people feel with Chavez's governance policies does not really cut into his personal approval numbers. There remains a large segment of the population that feels alienated by politics altogether.

In Bolivia, a poll from Encuestas y Estudios, suggests that 60% oppose reelection for Evo Morales. Other polls show Morales retains popularity around 60%.

In Brazil (and this a few weeks old), Lula has an approval rating of 48%. I haven't seen anything more recent.

In Paraguay, a poll from Ultima Hora says 50% disapprove of President Duarte's job. Only 11% give him an excellent or good rating while 39% say "average."

In Argentina, IPSOS has Kirchner at 71% approval, which is the highest number I've seen for him in some time. That same poll has his wife winning the first round of the election with 49% with everyone else down near single digits. A poll from Hugo Haime company has similar election numbers. Equis has Kirchner at 45% but Elisa Carrio in second place with 15%.

From AFP:

Foreign ministers and envoys from 33 Latin America and East Asian countries Wednesday opened two days of talks here to boost fledgling trade ties and build links between the far-flung regions.

The Forum for East Asia Latin American Cooperation (Fealac) "can well be the greatest ocean-connecting bridge," said Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso of the two regions separated by the vast Pacific Ocean.

"Our two-way trade is now 3.5 times as big as it was in 1998, from 53 billion US dollars to 183," he said. "The canals connecting the two oceans, both wet and dry, must be made broader."

It's a shame these events don't get more media coverage than they do. Even in the Latin American press, the coverage is fairly minimal.

According to EFE, Brazil is also pushing its biofuel investment to Asia during a parallel meeting to this event.

Both the FT and CSM have stories questioning whether the earthquake relief efforts are hurting Garcia's political standing. While aid agencies are praising the national level policies that have helped aid move in so quickly, there is concern that political micromanaging on the ground is harming the efforts.

Interestingly, a recent poll by Apoyo suggests 76% of Peruvians support the president's efforts after the earthquake with only 19% disapproval. While this is only a temporary increase, the poll movement is providing Garcia the opportunity to prove his ability to manage the crisis and gain more solid support. Prior to the earthquake, Garcia was sitting between 40 and 50% approval and falling.

Finally, good job all around to the hemisphere for providing support. There were major, immediate food and supply donations from Colombia, Spain and Venezuela that were needed. US Southcom provided a medical team that treated 1,300. Additional support is coming from all of Peru's neighbors including Brazil, Bolivia, Chile and Ecuador. Following the initial recovery there is going to be a longer rebuilding process. Let's hope that in spite of the political tension that sometimes exists among these nations, they can see this as an opportunity to cooperate on something worthwhile.

Sometimes we take these issues far too seriously. It's worth posting these, just for the laughs.

The Daily Show on Hugo Chavez:



Interview with Nicholas Kozloff:

Obama writing in today's Miami Herald:

It is a tragedy that, just 90 miles from our shores, there exists a society where such freedom and opportunity are kept out of reach by a government that clings to discredited ideology and authoritarian control. A democratic opening in Cuba is, and should be, the foremost objective of our policy. We need a clear strategy to achieve it -- one that takes some limited steps now to spread the message of freedom on the island, but preserves our ability to bargain on behalf of democracy with a post-Fidel government.

The primary means we have of encouraging positive change in Cuba today is to help the Cuban people become less dependent on the Castro regime in fundamental ways. U.S. policy must be built around empowering the Cuban people, who ultimately hold the destiny of Cuba in their hands. The United States has a critical interest in seeing Cuba join the roster of stable and economically vibrant democracies in the Western Hemisphere. Such a development would bring us important security and economic benefits, and it would allow for new cooperation on migration, counter-narcotics and other issues.

So what does that mean in terms of actual policy?

Cuban-American connections to family in Cuba are not only a basic right in humanitarian terms, but also our best tool for helping to foster the beginnings of grass-roots democracy on the island. Accordingly, I will grant Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island.

But as we reach out in some ways now, it makes strategic sense to hold on to important inducements we can use in dealing with a post-Fidel government, for it is an unfortunate fact that his departure by no means guarantees the arrival of freedom on the island.

Accordingly, I will use aggressive and principled diplomacy to send an important message: If a post-Fidel government begins opening Cuba to democratic change, the United States (the president working with Congress) is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo that has governed relations between our countries for the last five decades. That message coming from my administration in bilateral talks would be the best means of promoting Cuban freedom. To refuse to do so would substitute posturing for serious policy -- and we have seen too much of that in other areas over the past six years.

Here's the policy points I see from this op-ed:
1. There is an ultimate goal of encouraging democracy and freedom in Cuba.
2. Unrestricted travel by Cubans visiting their families.
3. Ability to send remittances to families.
4. Bilateral talks between the US and Cuban governments.
5. No immediate change in the embargo, but a likely, gradual easing for a post-Fidel government that moves in the direction of democracy.
6. Obama uses "post-Fidel" instead of "post-Castro". I believe that's intentional and rather significant. While I believe Obama recognizes that Raul is not the solution to Cuba's problems, he is giving Raul space to receive some credit if he works on reforms.

When I wrote the previous entry on the mysterious $800,000 in a suitcase, it looked like the Argentine and Venezuelan governments had moved beyond the scandal. Over the weekend, allegations emerged that Antonini, the guy carrying the cash on the flight with Pdvsa officials, had done so on the orders of President Chavez, with whom he had lunch the previous day.

Chavez refused to discuss the issue on his weekly program other than to claim (again) that it was a plot of the empire. Other ministers said they could account for Chavez's movements that day and prove he had not met with Antonini.

From a public relations standpoint, the Chavez government would be smart to get whatever evidence they have out there quickly to disprove the allegations that Antonini met with the president immediately before attempting to smuggle $800,000 into a foreign country. They are close to moving beyond this issue, but they probably shouldn't let an allegation this important hang out there too long.

After all, they now have a Cans O'Tuna scanadal (atungate?) that makes maletagate look like old news. Might as well close one off before moving to the next.

From AP:

Former President Carlos Menem was easily defeated by an incumbent governor of the western province of La Rioja on Sunday, ending a comeback bid by the 77-year-old who governed the country from 1989 to 1999.

With 88 percent of the vote counted late Sunday, Gov. Luis Beder Herrera had a 41 percent of ballots. Menem, who had used two terms as La Rioja governor as a springboard to the presidency, placed a distant third with 22 percent.

More on the results from Clarin.

Having one more nail in the coffin of Menem's political carrer can only be a good thing for Argentine democracy.

From AFP:

President Hugo Chavez has announced that Venezuela's official time will be put ahead by half an hour starting January 1, and its first-ever offshore oil rig will start pumping before the year is out.

"Its about the metabolic effect, where the human brain is conditioned by sunlight," Chavez said in a rambling, seven hour discussion on his radio show "Alo, Presidente" with Science and Technology Minister Hector Navarro.

Specifically, Chavez said the Law of Metereology will be changed to reflect Venezuela's new time grid on the map showing it to be three-and-a-half hours behind GMT instead of the current four hours.

What's the point of running a country if you can't order everyone to change their clocks from time to time?

Michael Shifter writing in today's Miami Herald:

In addition, the United States should look closely at its seven-year experience in assisting Colombia in its fight against drug-fueled violence within the framework of ''Plan Colombia.'' (Predictably, despite sharp differences between the two cases, the Mexico package is commonly referred to as ''Plan Mexico.'') To date, the United States has spent some $5 billion on that effort, which has yielded mixed results -- scant progress in reducing drugs but some success in improving security conditions.

For Mexico, the most relevant policy lesson of Plan Colombia is that the main objective should be to bolster the legitimate authority of the state and its capacity to protect citizens from violence, within the rule of law. That means directing ample support toward improving the performance of Mexico's police forces and judicial institutions. To be sure, some military aid is also important to fight the heavily armed cartels -- especially since this is the linchpin of Calderón's own approach. But it would be a serious mistake if that element ended up driving or dominating the U.S. assistance package, possibly resulting in more human rights violations.

I think that's a clear way of saying some of what I tried to get across in this post. There are both positive and negative lessons to learn from Plan Colombia, and those structuring NPM (even though everyone stresses it has nothing to do with Colombia) should take a realistic look at both sides of the Colombia debate if they hope to have success in helping Mexico. Anyone thinking a quick military boost is enough to defeat the cartels severely misunderstands this issue.

From the Economist:

These trends are furthest advanced in Chile. But they are most dramatic in Brazil and Mexico, which between them account for more than half of Latin America's 560m people. In Brazil between 2000 and 2005 the number of households with an annual income of $5,900 to $22,000 grew by half, from 14.5m to 22.3m, while those receiving less than $3,000 a year fell sharply to just 1.3m (see chart 2). In Mexico, according to Alejandro Hope of GEA, a consultancy in Mexico City, the number of families with a monthly income of between $600 and $1,600 has increased from 5.7m in 1996 to 10.7m in 2006.

Something similar is starting to happen in Colombia and Peru. In Argentina the decline of what had been a predominantly middle-class country until the 1970s reached its nadir in the economic collapse of 2001-02, when a majority of Argentines fell below the poverty line. But a rapid economic recovery has been mirrored in a revival of the middle class. Ernesto Kritz, a labour economist in Buenos Aires, reckons that around 40% of Argentine families, up from 20% in 2003, have the monthly income of $1,000 that he sees as necessary for a middle-class lifestyle.

In Latin America as a whole, according to calculations by Banco Santander, a Spanish bank, some 15m households ceased to be poor between 2002 and 2006. If the trend continues, by 2010 a small majority in the region will have joined the middle class, with annual incomes above $12,090 in purchasing-power-parity terms (see chart 3). In Mexico some 15m out of 27m households could have middle-class incomes by 2012, reckons Mr Hope.

Good article overall. The article argues that the middle class is growing due to formal and informal economic growth, not state run enterprises or protectionism. In the cases of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico, it makes a pretty strong case. For much of Central America and the Andean Region, however, I'm not sure whether that argument currently holds true.

After over a week of pressure from the Argentine government and attention by the media, Clarin reports this morning that President Chavez finally fired the head of PDVSA in Argentina, Diego Uzcategui Matheus. Recent media reports were finding close links between Uzcategui and Antonini, the person carrying the suitcase with $800,000.

The Argentine government and the Kirchner campaign have been asking the Chavez government for any sort of gesture that shows they understand the seriousness of the corruption allegations. Firing Uzcategui for his involvement was at the top of the Argentine government's list. It may be a bit delayed, but good for the Venezuelans for finally taking the right action.

There are still many questions to clear up regarding this case (including the eventual destination of the $800,000). However, in terms of political and media attention, this move should help take some of the pressure off both governments.

A 7.9 magnitude quake struck about 100 miles south of Lima last night. As of 4:30 this morning, the media were reporting over 300 dead. There are also reports that the hospital system in Ica can't handle the number of injured and some key roads are down that could bring assistance to the area.

Peru's El Comercio has videos, pictures (some submitted by readers) and a forum with over 1,000 comments so far where people are discussing the earthquake.

Almost immediately after I wrote my post yesterday, news came in that the Argentine government will file charges against Guido Alejandro Antonini Wilson, the Venezuelan citizen who was carrying a suitcase with $800,000 aboard a private jet that contained Argentine government officials and officials from Venezuela's state oil firm. Here's links from Clarin, Bloomberg and BBC.

Today's FT focuses on the effect this scandal (which some are calling Maletagate) will have on the campaign. The answer from most analysts (including me) is not much. President Kirchner's approval rating has dipped slightly below 50%, but he's still relatively popular and there still isn't an opposition leader who has been able to capitalize. Fact is, all the opposition candidates are currently running for second place with the off chance hope there will be a second round.

Another headline in Clarin reads: "In Venezuela, they continue with conspiracy theories." That pretty much describes it. A week after President Chavez declared the $800,000 suitcase a plot of the empire, Venezuela's Foreign Minister Maduro blamed the CIA or Pentagon for the scandal. The head of PDVSA said it was a plot by the "media" carefully timed to harm both governments. The Interior Minister claimed that the $800,000 was picked up during a layover in Bolivia and had nothing to do with the Venezuelan government. The Venezuelan minister for coordinating conspiracy stories said he was working on the problem.

Previous posts here and here.

The BBC notes that there have been over 40 election-related murders in Guatemala so far this campaign. The presidential election is now scheduled for 9 September and the violence is expected to get worse as the election gets closer.

Of note, 19 candidates from Alvaro Colom's UNE party have been murdered. Colom currently leads the polls and takes a slightly less "hard hand" approach than his main rival Perez Molina. Then again, while violence is a key issue for the electorate, I think most voters also recognize that beating the gangs and cartels takes a more comprehensive approach than the usual mano dura laws.

My previous posts on the election here and here. Also, the Economist has a good backgrounder here.

We're still talking about this?

One week later, the $800,000 found in a suitcase remains a top story in Argentina, Venezuela and even in the US media covering Latin America. From the Venezuelan blogs, read KA, Quico and Daniel.

This is one of those times we get to see how far Chavez is willing to go to help the Kirchner's. As was rumored in several media outlets, the campaign of Cristina Kirchner is asking the Venezuelan government to fire someone to show that they are taking this corruption scandal seriously (in particular, they'd like to see the head of PDVSA in Argentina gone).

The Kirchner's will manage to get through this scandal just fine whether or not Chavez actually fires anyone linked to it. But they do believe that after a week's worth of media coverage, having heads roll is the right way to move past the issue and get the campaign back on track. They know the corruption scandals, while not doing major immediate damage, are slowly eating away at their support.

Of course, in order to fire someone (or force them to resign), Chavez will grudgingly have to admit the scandal was on his side of the Caribbean and not a US plot.

Will Chavez give in to Argentine pressure and fire someone for corruption or will he stubbornly refuse and hope to wait out the issue in the media? That's the question that will hopefully be answered this week. It'd also be nice to know what all that cash was for and who was behind it, but I'm not sure the public will actually get to find that out, so we're reduced to watching the political implications.

Thanks to Randy for pointing out this recent poll from Zogby about what US citizens think about Latin America.

First the bad:

Only 10% of online poll respondents said they were familiar with Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the second-term president of Brazil, South America’s largest country. And just 20% were familiar with Felipe Calderon, the President of Mexico, who was elected last summer in an extremely close race that captured global headlines.

So I can somewhat understand Brazil (I'm sure not many Americans could name the leader of France or China or India either), but the fact that only one in five can name the president of our neighbor to the south is desperately awful.

Then the somewhat accurate:

A majority – 55% – said they believe the American economy benefits from migrant workers from Latin America, while 48% said the U.S. should pursue more free trade agreements with Latin American nations. One in three U.S. adults disagreed, however, saying they do not believe the U.S. should pursue more free trade agreements with southern neighbors.

I would have thought both those numbers would have been far lower considering some of the signs of isolationism gaining ground in the US political scene.. The fact that a majority of Americans think we benefit from migrant workers and a near majority think we should have more trade deals is somewhat encouraging.

Finally, the very accurate:

One in four American adults (26%) gave President Bush positive job approval marks specifically for his handling of U.S. relations with Latin America. Just 29% said they think the Bush administration has done an adequate job of focusing on Latin American issues and building stronger relationships with the region, while 60% disagreed with that statement.

Not surprisingly, Bush's presidency has not been seen as a good time for US-Latin American relations. While there has been some good work done, it's been overshadowed by a lot of other negatives. Few in Latin America think US-Latin American relations have improved over the last eight years and the fact the American public recognizes that reality is an important first step if we're going to improve.

Both the Miami Herald and Christian Science Monitor have articles suggesting that the respective tours of President Lula da Silva and President Chavez are signs of a competition between the two countries.

Both tours are definitely about regional leadership, but on two different levels that make it wrong to see them as competing with one and other. Note the differences in diplomacy.

First, Lula's tour is focused on long-term energy security through biofuels and alternative energy development. Lula 's focus is not on short term aid to gain quick wins and he seems genuinely concerned about moving Brazil and the region beyond simply oil production. Chavez's focus is more on short term wins with his oil giveaways and hydrocarbon production. Considering the cold winter and energy needs in the Southern Cone, Chavez's cheap oil handouts are certainly appreciated, as is his investment into certain hydrocarbon infrastructure improvements. However, it does little to build a future for the region beyond extracting and refining oil and gas, which is a century old model.

Second, and related, Chavez tour focuses on short term, personal momentum building while Lula is working on long term relationships for Brazil. Chavez's agreements clearly give the impression that he wants to take personal credit for them. Lula is building projects and agreements that won't even have a full effect until he's out of office and the next administration begins.

It's not a competition. It would be a competition if there were two leaders competing for attention or two countries competing on their regional model. Instead, one president is building for future energy models and regional integration, something he can pass on to his successor and something that could build for decades. The other president is building up his personality-driven "revolution" that centers on himself and is gone as soon as he is gone.

The tours aren't competing because they are on different levels. One tour is building a future for a country and the region; the other tour is focused on promoting an individual. No competition there.

From the Miami Herald, Washington Post and Clarin:

Venezuelan businessman Guido Alejandro Antonini Wilson was caught entering Argentina with nearly $800,000 cash. Antonini attempted to bribe customs officials upon entering the country, then gave up the cash. Flying with Antonini on the private jet was an Argentine government transportation official who was responsible for many of Argentina's negotiations with Venezuela. He has since resigned. Also on the plane were the head of Argentina's state energy company and four officials from PDVSA.

Venezuelan President Chavez, visiting Argentina this week to discuss energy issues, denounced the cash as a plot of the empire.

President Kirchner said the money was corrupt (which is why one government official was asked to resign) but also said that this sort of corruption would have never been uncovered under old administrations.

Opposition party leaders say that this is evidence of continued corruption in the Kirchner administration and evidence that Venezuela may be manipulating the Argentine elections.

I, for one, think they're all wrong. This is part of an elaborate guerrilla marketing campaign by the Argentine Tourism Ministry called "Bags O'Cash." What better way to draw tourists to Argentina than to make them think they might find a bag of cash anywhere, from a private jet to a government ministry toilet? Tourists would come from all over the world to participate in a scavenger hunt designed with clues appearing to mimic government corruption.

Elborate tourist campaign or plot of the empire? Can't wait to see which one it is.

Both the Christian Science Monitor and the Washington Post have details about the counter-narcotics assistance deal being worked out between the US and Mexico, which I am still referring to as "Not Plan Mexico." The deal is expected to offer a mixture of social and military aid (leaning more towards military) including helicopters, radar, tracking equipment and US police and military training. The issue of US presence inside of Mexico is still a touchy one.

As with previous articles, everyone in both countries wishes to stress that this deal has absolutely, positively, 100% nothing in common with Plan Colombia. "Not Plan Mexico" (or, for those who like acronyms, NPM) is being treated as a completely new approach to counter-narcotics and all similarities to any other previous program in the region are being ignored and denied.

If the goal is to reduce violence, NPM seems like it can be a good idea overall. I think many people including me are still waiting for more details to be made public before making final judgment though. The Congresses in each country should have a clear and open debate about what is to be provided and what is expected as measures of effectiveness.

A smart US assistance program could lower the levels of violence considerably in Mexico over the course of several years. However, like a certain other plan not to be compared to, will have minimal if any effect on the amount of drugs being trafficked. If we walk in with the goal of reducing violence, NPM can become a major success. If we start touting how much it will reduce drug trafficking, we should be prepared for failure.

Also, it needs a new name. We know it's Not Plan Mexico, but until it is better defined, those comparisons and contrasts to Colombia are going to be the only story.

From the Guardian:

President Daniel Ortega brushed aside Washington's concerns by agreeing to trade bananas, coffee and meat in exchange for Iranian help with infrastructure projects.

Mr Ortega and Iran's energy minister, Hamid Chitchian, signed the accords in Nicaragua's capital, Managua, on Saturday, cementing Tehran's toehold in what the US considers its backyard.

In return for Nicaraguan agricultural goods, Iran is to help fund a farm equipment factory, 4,000 tractors, five milk-processing plants, a health clinic, 10,000 houses and a deep-water port.

Seriously, even considering all the geo-political implications of Iran's nuclear program and Latin American diplomacy, this deal is about as trivial as they come. Not that it will come as a surprise to any readers, but this story highlights how the media's obsession over certain personalities really does skew the coverage of Latin America.

With about half the votes counted in the gubernatorial race in Baja California, PAN candidate Osuna is leading the PRI's Rhon by about eight points. The exit polls showed a statistical tie and a quick count showed Osuna up by less than three.

This is an important election for the Calderon administration. Having already lost one governorship to the PRI during his term, losing a second in Baja California would show political weakness on his part (and some surprising strength behind the PRI). Second, with the Mexican security forces in Tijuana facing off against the cartels, a defeat for Calderon's party here might indicate some larger dissatisfaction with his security policies. There's also a symbolic value to Baja as being a PAN stronghold and one of the first places the PRI were defeated after years of controlling the entire country.

For the US, this was important because Hank Rhon, the former mayor of Tijuana, is not the sort of governor we want on the border with the US. He might be corrupt and he's definitely a little crazy.

One more note, the PRI really need to think harder about who represents them publicly. Between Rhon and Oaxaca's Ulises Ruiz, the PRI is far from putting its best face forward. I realize these are local decisions, but the national level party is suffering because they have a couple really bad local politicians.

Good afternoon from the Dallas airport, on my way to a long week working in San Antonio.

I saw the Simpsons movie last night and have little to say other than it was absolutely brilliant. They lived up to the best the TV show has to offer and delivered in a way that I doubt a single person in that movie theater left disappointed. If you're a fan of the show, go see the movie.

From the AP:

President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva began a six-day tour Sunday of Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, Jamaica and Panama to boost bilateral relations and develop energy and biofuel agreements.

Silva and Mexican President Felipe Calderon on Monday are expected to sign a memorandum of understanding on biofuel as part of a wide-ranging energy agreement. They will also discuss an accord on deep-water oil exploration, said the Brazilian leader's spokesman, Marcelo Baumbach.

Nearly every country in Latin America needs help managing their growing energy needs. By developing projects that will help these countries sustainably produce energy and integrate their infrastructure with each other, Lula is practicing a smart diplomacy that the US and others don't always seem to get.

Bloomberg:

A Mexican guerrilla group that took responsibility for attacks on the state oil company last month said it bombed a Sears store yesterday in southern Mexico, a chain owned by billionaire Carlos Slim.

The bomb that exploded in the Sears Roebuck de Mexico store in the city of Oaxaca caused no injuries, according to local police. Mexico's Televisa network showed broken glass from the explosion and damage to the store's entrance. Police also found a bag containing explosive material inside a branch of Citigroup Inc.'s Banamex unit.

The latest action by the Popular Revolutionary Army, or EPR, shows the group intends to follow through on its promise to continue bombings until authorities return two of its missing members. The wording used in its latest statement also signals the EPR plans to challenge the legitimacy of President Felipe Calderon's government.

As I wrote after the last attack, the EPR is not a major threat to Mexico, but continued attacks like these could provide a model to other groups that could harm Calderon's administration.

From the CSM:

Her [Betsy Wier, the manager of program development for Central America for Catholic Relief Services] research, compiled from government figures documenting minors repatriated to their home countries, showed that the number of youths migrating alone has risen by about 1,000 children each year since 2004: from 3,000 to over 5,000 last year.

Mexico's National Migration Institute estimates that, on average, 30 minors are being sent back to their home country each day: there have been 4,577 cases from January through May. Three-quarters are boys.

And those are just the children who were caught and repatriated.

AP:

In Managua on Tuesday, Ortega offered to exchange 651 Soviet-made SAM-7 surface-to-air missiles for military helicopters, surgical supplies and medicine from the United States.

"This won't be a gift, but simply a barter with them," Ortega said.

The requested medical supplies would be used to treat chronic illnesses caused by the American-made pesticide Nemagon used decades ago in by U.S. corporations that ran Nicaragua's banana plantations, Ortega said. He said the helicopters would be used against drug traffickers.

I've followed this story for years. 650 missiles removed from circulation is a good thing. Take the offer.

With UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon visiting Haiti today, it's a good time to ask whether we might be seeing signs of progress in the Western Hemisphere's poorest country.

Clearly, Haiti is far from perfect. Poverty is overwhelming. Environmental damage will take decades to repaid. Corruption in government hasn't magically disappeared. Violent gangs still exist. I could take a number of stories on any given week and title the post, "Haiti: still a mess."

But there is also little doubt that security has improved, the economy is slowly gaining, President Preval has support to continue governing and Haitians are doing better than they have in years.

Why? Is it possible that in spite of all the criticism and bad news, the UN has actually succeeded in improving Haiti in some way, or is there another explanation?