A UNITED STATES OF LATIN AMERICA?

Latin America’s new left wing leaders believe they can create a United States of Latin America that will lead to the rise of an economic power block to rival the European Union and China.
That was just one of the claims made during a two-day conference in Bolivia in December attended by the leaders of twelve Latin American nations, including the presidents of Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Chile, Peru and Nicaragua. In a fiery speech, Evo Morales, the socialist president of Bolivia, said the leftward trend on the continent was unparalleled and it would banish a history of subjugation and injustice. Brazils’ president, Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva, agreed and said the time for integration had come and that South America, if not all of Latin America could one day see a unity parliament sitting in the Bolivian city of Cochabamba. He added that South America remained one of the last regions of the planet that had not fully asserted itself politically by striving for integration. Now was the time to change that, he pointed out.
Most of the two-day conference, which was held in Cochabamba, was devoted to trade issues as well as financial ties to the dollar. Each of the leaders present had at one time or other been critical of the US link, especially where it related to free trade agreements. In the opening day of the conference, there was unanimous agreement that economic unity was an important element of the way forward in Latin America. That was a central feature in an address given by the Peruvian president, Alan Garcia. He stressed the rarely publicized fact that South America regularly produced more than China. However, he felt that China benefited from having its own currency whereas Latin America was tied to the dollar and therefore vulnerable to American political and financial pressures.
That issue was seized on by the recently elected president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa who trained as an economist in the United States. He said he would not sign a free trade agreement with the US but would seek instead to have extended trade preferences under a drug eradication agreement. As for the dollar, to which his country was tied, he told the other leaders he would maintain it as Ecuador’s currency for the next four years. He also expressed dissatisfaction with the free trade agreements Peru and Colombia have with the US pointing out that such agreements could cause Ecuador “incalculable” harm.
Center stage at the conference, as many expected he would be, was George Bush’s nemesis in Latin America, the Venezuelan leader, Hugo Chavez. The White House sees him as the lighting rod for the “pink tide revolution” throughout South America and the catalyst for anti-America feeling in the region. In one of his typically flamboyant speeches, he talked about how the region needed “political Viagra,” because too many Latin American nations were making decision “without the power to execute them.” In his opinion, it was time to the unstuck from the bureaucratic morass and “these pyramids of paper.”
In part of his speech, he attacked US plans for free market prescriptions in Latin America and claimed that the leftward movement across the continent had effectively crushed a plan initiated a decade ago by Washington to put in place a hemispheric free trade agreement.
Chavez used humor in his speech and at one point had his audience laughing when he told them nations had to be careful in their dealings with Washington because those that signed free trade agreements were later “flooded with chickens’ hind quarters.” He made sure his audience was reminded of his generosity, especially his latest offer to help Ecuador’s economy by supplying it with oil. In return, all Ecuador would have to do would be to pay for refining the oil. In the past couple of years Chavez has entered into similar agreements with his neighbors, cleverly using his country’s oil surplus to enhance his reputation in the region and internationally. Venezuela is the world fifth largest producer of oil, a fact that irritates Washington because oil is not just about wealth but also about power and influence.
On the second day of the conference, Peruvian leader, Rafael Correa received applause when he called for a “land and river” trade route, linking Brazil’s Amazon forest region with Ecuador’s Pacific coastline. He claimed it would provide the region with an alternative to the Panama Canal.
The Chilean president, Michelle Bachelet tried to sound a note of moderation, pointing out that globalization was not all bad, as demonstrated by her country’s trade agreement with the US. She admitted however that globalization also had an ugly and “potentially very destructive” side.
Before the end of the summit, Brazilian president, Lula da Silva, a former metal worker, told his fellow leaders that they would need patience to resolve many of the “delicate” issues they had discussed.
“The solutions are difficult. We’re not just simple workers talking about a strike at the factory,” he warned.
While the summit was taking place, there were streets disturbances between supporters of Bolivian president, Morales and people opposed to his plan to re-write an important clause in the country’s constitution. It was an illustration of the fragile character of new regimes springing up across the continent in the rising “pink tide.”

IS BAKER GROUP'S NEXT FOCUS AFGHANISTAN?

On December 6, the day the Baker Group handed President Bush its report on the dire situation in Iraq, attacks by a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan confirmed that another phase of the president’s war on terror was far from a success.
That was clearly on the mind of British Prime Minister, Tony Blair as he flew across the Atlantic that same day to persuade the Bush administration to commit more resources to Afghanistan where British, American and other NATO forces are coming under sustained pressure from a Taliban that has re-emerged as a serious threat.
In the past year, while the White House has focused mainly on the chaos in Iraq, Taliban fighters have launched increasing numbers of suicide attacks. By employing roadside bomb tactics borrowed from insurgents in Iraq, they have killed over 4,000. Even though there were 449 attacks in November compared with double that figure in September, the facts on the ground speak to a Taliban that has tightened its grip on areas of the countryside, making reconstruction almost impossible. One aspect of the Afghan conflict that would surprise many people but has not made the headlines is that NATO has brokered deals with the Taliban in some areas and ceded power to them only to find those deals allowed the Taliban to regroup and mount more attacks. The most surprising element of that failed strategy is that the US and Brittan roundly criticized Pakistan president, Pervez Musharraf earlier this year when he reached similar arrangements with tribal leaders along the border between his country and Afghanistan.
British PM Tony Blair has become increasingly concerned that if the US and other NATO countries fail to provide more troops, materiel and funding for the Afghan war it could be lost too, just like the war in Iraq. This year, there have been rumbling in several European capitals that the situation in Afghanistan is so like Iraq that NATO forces cannot and should not stay there indefinitely. There is also recognition in many of those same capitals that the war in Iraq did irreparable damage to the campaign in Afghanistan. Resources were taken from Afghanistan for the Iraq war, leaving a job half done. As a consequence, a complete route of the Taliban was not achieved and Qaeda was not destroyed. Bin Laden and his inner circle were allowed to flee from Tora Bora and the reconstruction of the country has since proved to be a disaster.
Many of Afghanistan’s provinces are now badlands where there is no law and order and where the Taliban is imposing its strict Islamic Wahabism principles on the population. In just one week six female government employees were murdered because the Taliban disapproved of working women and accused them of being government spies. The promises by the two First Ladies, Cherie Blair and Laura Bush, that the war on terror would liberate Afghan women have proved to be hollow. Outside of Kabul, most women and girls are no better off than they were before the war. It could be argued that they are worse off because they briefly had hopes of change when schools opened to admit girls but those schools have now been shut by extremists. Somewhat ironically, both First Ladies have been strangely silent on the plight of Afghan females since reports have emerged of the deteriorating situation in the country.
One of the ways the Afghan war certainly mirrors the one Iraq is the total lack of a successful reconstruction plan. When all is said and done and someday an accounting is made of all the US dollars pored into the country it may well emerge that Afghanistan was another financial black hole. In every Afghan province there is anger and disillusionment with the US and with big donors like the World Bank that promised huge funds for building hospitals, power plants, water and sewage plants, clinics schools, highways and industries. There is a general recognition that large sums of money that were channeled into the central government in Kabul never left the capital. Alarmingly, there appears to have been little US accountability about the way Afghan reconstruction funds were spent. In many instances, the various US departments responsible for handling that money employed contractors who were unreliable and have so far not been brought to heel to explain where the money was went. Afghans complain that, unlike Oxfam and similar organizations with a history of handling post conflict reconstruction, contractors have proven to be amateurs in the field and have generally shown a total lack of knowledge of the country, its customs and its needs.
For the British who are heavily engaged in daily firefights with the Taliban in Helmand Province, there is a growing recognition that if sufficient resources are not committed to the war, it could be lost. In Kandahar, the spiritual birthplace of the Taliban, the situation has worsened in recent months with the Taliban exerting more and more control over the population. It is the areas where the Soviets lost a major battle against the mujihadeen many of whom formed the Taliban and are still in its ranks. A major problem facing British, as well as American forces operating from fire bases is that the use of overwhelming force to deal with the enemy can often have a counter productive impact. In many instances, civilians are killed in what is pejoratively described as “collateral damage,” thereby alienating the civilian population from coalition forces.
For American soldiers operating from fire bases Kunar in the mountains of the east the battle is getting hard because of the terrain and the fact that the Taliban is on familiar territory, constantly being supplied from across the border in Pakistan. Kunar is a wild, rugged landscape which the Soviets found almost impossible to control and is it believed Bin Laden may be hiding somewhere in that region. The fighters facing US troops are not always locals. Some are foreigners who acquired considerable combat experience in place like Chechnya and Iraq.
Now that the Baker Group has reported in Iraq some observers feel it may not be long before it, or a similar think tank representing NATO countries, is set up to examine the war in Afghanistan and consider if a new strategy is needed there that would include a time table for a phased troop withdrawal.

ECUADOR IS LATEST IN PINK TIDE

Ecuador has become the latest Latin American nation to join five of its neighbors in a massive left-wing shift that is sure to send shivers through Washington.
In what is being called the “Pink Tide” Ecuadorians elected a new president, Rafael Correa, an American educated economist who is opposed to free trade with the US. He has pledged to reduce the level of foreign debt payments his country is forced to make to international bankers, including the World Bank whose representative he says he will expel from the country. His electoral success mirrors the growing leftward trend across Latin American and puts Ecuador alongside Venezuela, as well as Chile, Brazil, Bolivia and Nicaragua that have all elected socialist presidents in the past 12 months.
Rafael Correa, 43, has an economics doctorate from the University of Illinois and is a relative newcomer to politics but he shrewdly exploited anti-American sentiment throughout his election campaign. He described President Bush as “dimwitted” and applauded the recent attacks on him by Venezuelan leader, Hugo Chavez. He also lambasted his opponent, Alvaro Noboa, 56, for being pro-US and a friend of vested interests in Washington.
Noboa, a banana billionaire proved an easy target for Correa in a country where Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez is a hero and George Bush is a baddie. Noboa was making his third run at the presidency and presented himself as a bible-loving friend of the Kennedys and Rockerfellers. He also trumpeted his wealth and his ownership if 114 companies. During his campaign, he handed out free computers and even gave away $500 bills. Correa accused him of trying to scare the electorate by telling voters that if they did not elect him international companies and financial institutions would turn their backs on Ecuador.
As electioneering wound down, Correa subtly moderated some of his rhetoric when he realized it could scare off investors. In particular he stayed away from earlier threats he had made to dissolve the country’s assembly and reduce foreign debt payments. Both candidates promised a lot, each vowing he would build hundreds of thousands of homes for the poor and increase the $36 monthly “poverty bonus” to the 1.2 million Ecuadorians living beneath the poverty line. Noboa went so far as to demonstrate his generosity and upright character by reading from the bible at some of his rallies and handing out medicines. He told voters that, like Christ, all he wanted to do was serve the needy. Correa too had something to say about religion, describing himself as a “leftist humanist Christian.”

Both candidates knew they were dealing with an electorate that had seen eight presidents chased from office in ten years, the last two after serious street demonstrations. Therefore, Correa was able to cleverly portray himself as a new face - a man not tainted by the corruption that has characterized the country for three almost three decades. He was also fortunate that he was well known for his work with the poor through educational programs he hosted.
A major factor that characterized US concerns about the country lurching to the Left was the intervention of US investment bankers, Goldman Sachs, in the run up to the election. They made it clear they were siding with the billionaire Noboa when they publicly warned Ecuadorians not to vote for his opponent. GS in a statement said “We anticipate that the gridlock and confrontation between the executive and the legislature will reach new heights under a Correa administration.”
Some observers have since argued that the intervention of Goldman Sachs only helped Correa because it strengthened his case that Washington was prepared to use any means to influence the election result, even if it meant scaring the electorate about Correa’s proposed economic policies.
For Washington, the election result is now seen as yet another blow to US influence in the region and exemplifies a growing disenchantment with the Bush administration in particular. Correa was able to exploit President Bush’s global unpopularity throughout the election, making his opponent’s support for the US “a vote for George Bush.”
In a strange twist of irony, the moment the election result was announced, Linda Jewell, the US ambassador in Quito, the country’s capital, phoned Correa to congratulate him and to remind him of the historic ties between their two nations. Her overture to him came days after he announced he would not sign the lease on the US military base at Mantra when it came up for renewal in just over 2 years. In Washington, the State Department issued a statement, saying the election appeared transparent and fair.
It is now a striking reality that from 9/11 onwards George Bush focused on Afghanistan and then in a more concentrated way on the Middle East, especially Iraq. As a result, say some experts, he took his eye off the ball in Latin America and failed to see the genesis of a developing “Pink Tide.” More alarmingly, he appeared oblivious to the fact that China was stealthily increasing its influence across the Latin America continent, investing billions in the process, particular in countries like Brazil and Argentina. China also signed an oil deal with Venezuela that produces a fifth of the world crude oil.
Washington likes to portray the political change in Latin America as the malevolent influences of Hugo Chavez and his mentor, Fidel Castro, but that may be a convenient, if not a skewed analysis. Some study groups believe the populations of many Latin American countries simply want change and the winds of change are so strong, they are almost unstoppable. For example, the Center for Economic Policy and Research speculates that the election result in Ecuador was proof of ordinary people “going over the heads of the political establishment” as a way of dragging themselves out of poverty created by decades of corruption. If that analysis is accurate, US influence will further decline because it was US political meddling and US corporate greed that, in many instances, degraded many economies across that continent. For the next decade or so, the US may have the bite the bullet while this “Pink Tide” rises and either crashes or flattens out, allowing for new relations to be formed between America and its neighbors. On the other hand, the days of neo-liberalism in Latin America may soon be just a faded memory.