Concentrate On The North-South Axis

August 12, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under International Affairs, Latin America, Nixon Center | Leave a Comment 

Senior Editor at The Nixon Center’s National Interest and Naval War College professor, Nicholas Gvosdev, wants President Obama to strengthen hemispheric relations:

But what is of concern is that the president has never really clearly articulated his vision for North America. During the campaign he initially supported the notion of revising the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in a direction that would have put new restrictions into place. The stimulus bill contained “buy American” provisions that were not well received in Canada. And despite the rhetoric of change, Obama’s foreign-policy team is following the traditional horizontal trajectory of focusing on transatlantic relations rather than spending more time and effort on cultivating the “vertical” north-south axis.  When the White House announced that President Obama would focus on rebuilding America’s ties with its partners and allies, the press statement noted that he “visited Europe to begin this process.” Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden is more of a familiar figure in Central and Eastern Europe rather than in the Western Hemisphere.

Does this suggest that, when the current storms have passed, the administration is going to move North America—and by extension, the larger Western Hemisphere—to a higher place on the agenda?

Certainly, there are major drawbacks to pursuing closer integration in North America—not the least of which is the potential for further spillover of violence and crime from a Mexico that is being destabilized by drug cartels. Nor is there the political will in the United States to engage in the transfer of economic resources to assist Mexico’s economy in the way that Germany and the Benelux countries were willing to fund development projects in Ireland and the southern tier of the then–European Community.

But there is still a difference between wanting to turn NAFTA into the “North American Union” and pursuing a more limited, targeted set of policies. Closer law enforcement and military coordination, for instance, in combating quasi-state narco-terrorist actors who can field significant firepower. Extending a zone of drug interdiction from the southern U.S. border further along the Pacific and Caribbean coasts. Creating new and efficient transport networks along the north-south continental access as well as from sea to sea. Developing a long-term strategy to create a “North American energy community” that insulates our region from geopolitical shocks in other parts of the world (the Persian Gulf and West Africa). Perhaps even considering a Schengen-style agreement that coordinates and tracks the arrival of overseas visitors.

TNI: The Democracy Double Standard

July 13, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under International Affairs, Latin America, Nixon Center, The National Interest | Leave a Comment 

The National Interest doesn’t like the OAS’s (Organization of American States) and President Obama’s double standard of condemning Honduras but turning a blind eye to Venezuela:

Throughout the Honduran “coup” fiasco, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has claimed to be the champion of democracy in Latin America. This may come as a surprise to Venezuelans. All throughout his too-long tenure, Chávez has cracked down on opposition politicians and journalists who dared criticize his regime and its numerous stooges. Jackson Diehl, writing in the Washington Post, notes that while the international community is in a tizzy over the undemocratic deposition of the anti-American Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya, it’s paid no attention to Chávez’s gross human-rights abuses and trampling of democracy in Venezuela. Last week, Antonio Ledezma, the mayor of Caracas and one of Venezuela’s opposition leaders, went on a hunger strike to force Chávez to pay the salaries of Caracas’s municipal workers and direct OAS attention to the caudillo’s destruction of democracy. The OAS, of course, has largely ignored Ledezma. But it’s heaped attention on Zelaya. Why? Diehl notes that Ledezma received “almost as many votes in last November’s election (700,000) as Manuel Zelaya (915,000) did when he won the presidency of Honduras in 2005.” Since then, Ledezma has tried to govern his city fairly and ensure the freedom of opposition parties and the press. For his trouble, he’s been “illegally driven from his office by a mob, stripped of most of his powers and budget, and subjected to criminal investigation by the regime of Hugo Chávez.” Zelaya, by contrast, has jettisoned his centrist 2005 platform, become a full-fledged Chavista and tried to engineer an unconstitutional referendum allowing him to maintain his grip on the presidency. Why is Zelaya, who hates the United States and seeks to undermine democratic institutions in his own country, the darling of the OAS? In its denunciations of the Honduran coup, the OAS has stressed the need for democracy throughout the Americas. Why, then, is Venezuela attracting no criticism or scrutiny from the organization?

Diehl writes that the Obama administration has unfortunately succumbed to this double standard. While it has blasted the interim Honduran government of Roberto Micheletti, the White House has made every effort to make nice with Chávez, agreeing on “a new exchange on ambassadors with Venezuela” and repeatedly announcing “its hope to ‘work with’ the caudillo.” The real shame of all this is that the Honduran crisis has given us a rare chance to expose Chávez and his ilk for the tyrannical socialist buffoons they really are. Obama could argue that Honduras should certainly be democratic. And dear old Hugo is perfectly right in calling for democracy in that country. But if Honduras is to be democratic, and the will of its people respected, why shouldn’t Venezuela be equally democratic? Why shouldn’t the will of its people be respected? The administration hasn’t done this as of yet.

The Rise Of The Sustainable Center

July 13, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under International Affairs, Latin America | Leave a Comment 

Latin America has swayed diametrically left to right, but it now just might be at a stability in which a Nixonian-Kissingerian like statesman desires: at peace and in active relations with its neighbors and therefore too costly to collapse.

In Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay, the radical left has reconstructed itself as the center-left. The Concertación in Chile, the Frente Amplio in Uruguay, and the Workers’ Party in Brazil still emphasize social justice and economic equality, but they have become much more flexible in pursuing these goals. They mix market-friendly economic policies with social programs that promote integral growth and the development of human capital. They work to broaden political participation through initiatives like the participatory budgets program in Brazil, while respecting individual liberties and the rule of law. They have quarreled with Washington over torture, the Iraq war, and other issues, but they generally stress the benefits of cooperation rather than the inevitability of confrontation with the United States.

In Mexico and Colombia, the governments of President Felipe Calderón and President Álvaro Uribe have moved toward the center from the other side of the political spectrum. They have continued the progressive liberalization of their countries’ economies while employing rural development initiatives and conditional cash transfer programs to expand protections and opportunities for the poor. Both leaders have also worked to strengthen police and judicial institutions, combat corruption, strengthen pathetically weak tax collection systems, and combat narcotics-fueled violence. In doing so, they have forged strong partnerships with the United States — Colombia through Plan Colombia, and Mexico through the Merida Initiative.

To be sure, centrist governance is not a panacea. Corruption looms large in Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, and the latter two countries have struggled with bloody internal violence and persistent human rights abuses. Growth has been slower than desired in Brazil, and, with the exception of Chile, mass poverty is still a major problem in all of these countries. Finally, the leftist parties’ shift toward the center has alienated their more radical supporters, casting doubt on the future cohesion of the Frente Amplio and Workers’ Party.

Yet there are also good reasons for optimism. Twenty years of Concertación rule have made Chile the closest thing to an unvarnished success story in Latin America, and Uruguay has also prospered under the Frente Amplio. Brazilian anti-poverty programs are widely praised by respected international observers, and the middle class has expanded greatly under current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. (Moreover, Lula’s refusal to seek a third term stands in stark contrast to the ambitions of Chávez and his allies.) And while massive problems still afflict Mexico and Colombia, the policies implemented by center-right governments in those countries have begun to yield results in reducing poverty, strengthening governance, and fostering a more effective state.

For all their flaws, and there are many, these center-left and center-right governments represent by far the healthiest tendency in Latin American politics today. If Latin America is ever to escape mass poverty and economic stagnation, and make democracy meaningful for its citizens, it is likely to be this type of government — rather than that practiced by the populists — that leads the way.

Latin America has long paid a high price for political radicalism of both the leftist and rightist varieties. Amid the political and social troubles that continue to wrack the region, the emergence of a viable political center provides hope that Latin America may eventually find its way toward a more sustainable and productive course.

Zelaya Was The One Waging A Violent Coup On Honduras

July 13, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under International Affairs, Latin America | Leave a Comment 

As she does every week Mary Anastasia O’Grady writes another gem in the “America’s Column” at The Wall Street Journal. In her third piece (straight) she defends the Honduras military’s actions in defending their sovereignty against former President Manuel (Mel) Zelaya, who had grand visions — and for the military delusions — of an unashamed Chavismo-style power grab. According to O’Grady, Zelaya’s attempt to subvert the constitution was just the culmination of a disturbing trend since he assumed office.  And the disturbing trends did not exclude the use of force:

Two incidents earlier this year make the case. The first occurred in January when the country was preparing to name a new 15-seat Supreme Court, as it does every seven years. An independent board made up of members of civil society had nominated 45 candidates. From that list, Congress was to choose the new judges.

Mr. Zelaya had his own nominees in mind, including the wife of a minister, and their names were not on the list. So he set about to pressure the legislature. On the day of the vote he militarized the area around the Congress and press reports say a group of the president’s men, including the minister of defense, went to the Congress uninvited to turn up the heat. The head of the legislature had to call security to have the defense minister removed.

In the end Congress held its ground and Mr. Zelaya retreated. But the message had been sent: The president was willing to use force against other institutions.

In May there was an equally scary threat to peace issued by the Zelaya camp as the president illegally pushed for a plebiscite on rewriting the constitution. Since the executive branch is not permitted to call for such a vote, the attorney general had announced that he intended to enforce the law against Mr. Zelaya.

A week later some 100 agitators, wielding machetes, descended on the attorney general’s office. “We have come to defend this country’s second founding,” the group’s leader reportedly said. “If we are denied it, we will resort to national insurrection.”

These experiences frightened Hondurans because they strongly suggested that Mr. Zelaya, who had already aligned himself with Mr. Chávez, was now emulating the Venezuelan’s power-grab. Other Chávez protégés — in Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua — have done the same, refusing to accept checks on their power, making use of mobs and seeking to undermine institutions.

It was this fondness for intimidation that prompted Mr. Zelaya’s exile. Honduras was worried that if he stayed in the country after his arrest his supporters would foment violence to try to bring down the interim government and restore him to power.

Mr. Zelaya also has friends that have used similar thuggish tactics:

It wouldn’t be a first. Bolivia’s President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada was removed in 2003 using just such tactics. Antigovernment militants, trained by Peruvian terrorists and financed by Venezuela and by drug money from the Colombian rebel group FARC, had laid siege to La Paz. As the city ran short on supplies, Mr. Sánchez de Lozada issued a decree to have armed guards accompany food and fuel trucks. The rebels, who had dynamite and weapons, clashed with the guards. Sixty people died. The president was pressured to step down.

Mr. Sánchez de Lozada told me by telephone last week that he only presented a letter of resignation to the Bolivian Congress when the U.S. threatened to cut off aid if he left the country without doing so. He signed under duress but the letter was then used by the international community to endorse what was in effect a brutal Venezuelan-directed overthrow of the democracy.

The fact that the Organization of American States and the U.S. never defended the Bolivian democracy cannot be lost on the Hondurans or the chavistas. You can bet that Venezuela will try to orchestrate similar troubles in an attempt to bring condemnation to the new Honduran government. Honduran patriots have better odds against that strategy with Mr. Zelaya out of the country, even if Washington and the OAS don’t approve.

Explaining Zelaya’s Abdication

July 11, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Latin America | Leave a Comment 

Miguel Estrada, a respected Washington lawyer, former judicial nominee, and Honduras native breaks down his home country’s constitution and justifies the legality (the most comprehensive explanation yet) of Mel Zelaya’s removal from office.

Chavez On Democracy

July 10, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under International Affairs, Latin America | Leave a Comment 

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez expresses his disappointment for the recent developments in Honduras:

“It was a grave error,” Chavez told reporters today at the Presidential Palace in Caracas. “It’s turned into a very dangerous trap for democracy that sets a very grave precedent.”

I guess Chavez certainly has the credibility to make such a statement. The same Chavez who pulled the plug on the opposition RCTV station, who has jailed political opponents, who continues to support the FARC’s policy of terror against Colombia, who has established a vast and corrupt bureaucracy based on personal loyalty (in which government employees are required to donate their pay to his campaign), who oversees a justice system in which 3 out of 100 murders are actually prosecuted, who incites violence against dissenters, who continues to ally with a fascist Iranian regime that systematically murders them, and whose first attempt at power was none other than a military coup-d’etat.

Realism?

July 7, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Barack Obama, International Affairs, Latin America, Political Philosophy | Leave a Comment 

President Obama on his support for constitutional subverter Mel Zelaya and America’s interests in the Western hemisphere:

“America supports now the restoration of the democratically-elected President of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies,” the president told graduate students at the commencement ceremony of Moscow’s New Economic School. “We do so not because we agree with him. We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or not. “

The Basij Trumping Up Charges Against Mousavi

July 1, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Barack Obama, International Affairs, Iran, Latin America | Leave a Comment 

The Iranian regime’s paramilitary group and enforcers of last month’s illegitimate elections want reformist challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi’s head:

The semiofficial Fars news agency said the Basij – known as supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s street enforcers – sent the chief prosecutor a letter accusing Mousavi of taking part in nine offenses against the state, including “disturbing the nation’s security,” which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.

This development has seemingly slipped passed President Obama, who is now isolating the Central American country of Honduras for ousting a president who was also on an illegitimate power grab.

President Obama Comes Out Strong For Iran Honduras

June 30, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under International Affairs, Iran, Latin America | 1 Comment 

Somebody phone Mir Hossein Mousavi President Obama has found his inner jingo.

Obama said yesterday that the ‘coup’ against Honduras’s leftist President Mel Zelaya was illegal, recalling America’s dark past of not standing for fledgling Latin American democracies when they didn’t act in their larger neighbor’s  interest.

This reaction is a stark contrast to Obama’s remarks about Iran’s election ‘irregularities’ in which he didn’t want to be seen as meddling and said there was no way of investigating foul-play because international observers weren’t present. Then, Obama recalled our shameful past of meddling in sovereign nations. Charles Krauthammer explains:

Now Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is threatening a military invasion.

Meddling In Honduras

June 29, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Barack Obama, International Affairs, Iran, Latin America, Obama administration | Leave a Comment 

The Organization of American States (OAS) and the Obama administration are condemning the military ‘coup d’etat‘ in Honduras that placed popularly elected President Mel Zelaya to exile in Costa Rica yesterday.

According to Mary Anastasia O’Grady in today’s Wall Street Journal opinion page, it was Zelaya — who is a member of Venezuelan dictator for life Hugo Chavez’s leftist coalition of Latin American states  — who was aiming to subvert the democratic process, attempting to circumvent Congress and re-write the Constitution to rescind presidential term limits. The military was just upholding their constitutional obligations:

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court’s order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

It remains to be seen what Mr. Zelaya’s next move will be. It’s not surprising that chavistas throughout the region are claiming that he was victim of a military coup. They want to hide the fact that the military was acting on a court order to defend the rule of law and the constitution, and that the Congress asserted itself for that purpose, too.

Mrs. Clinton has piled on as well. Yesterday she accused Honduras of violating “the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter” and said it “should be condemned by all.” Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. Chávez pledged to overthrow the new government.

Honduras is fighting back by strictly following the constitution. The Honduran Congress met in emergency session yesterday and designated its president as the interim executive as stipulated in Honduran law. It also said that presidential elections set for November will go forward. The Supreme Court later said that the military acted on its orders. It also said that when Mr. Zelaya realized that he was going to be prosecuted for his illegal behavior, he agreed to an offer to resign in exchange for safe passage out of the country. Mr. Zelaya denies it.

Many Hondurans are going to be celebrating Mr. Zelaya’s foreign excursion. Street protests against his heavy-handed tactics had already begun last week. On Friday a large number of military reservists took their turn. “We won’t go backwards,” one sign said. “We want to live in peace, freedom and development.”

The administration’s swift condemnation of the Honduran military is in fact an interesting development. Rather than apply the ‘measured’ and neutral approach maintained in the aftermath of Iran’s rigged elections, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are picking sides, calling on the military to respect ‘democratic norms.’

This new found idealism has thus far not been reserved to regimes whose motives run antithetical to U.S. interests. Interesting for an administration that has wrapped itself in the shroud of realism.

Hugo Chavez, who has repeatedly trumped up charges and jailed his political opponents  has not been rebuked or sanctioned for violating the Inter-American Democratic Charter. And the administration has made it an all but foregone conclusion that Cuba will be brought out of its isolation even though dozens of dissidents and journalists remain imprisoned by the Castro brothers.

It took several more murders and beatings on the streets of Teheran for President Obama to finally admit the futility of the ‘engagement’ charade and speak out — albeit in relatively general terms –  against the brutality of Iran’s clerical-military apparatus. This wasn’t before drawing a moral equivalency between the Khamenei backed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the leader of the people’s democracy movement, Mir Hossein Mousavi.

The message President Obama is sending is clear, his diametric shift in public diplomacy is now predicated on the perceptions of those traditionally contemptuous of American power, with the hope that our diminished presence will limit our role as occassional whipping boy. Hopefully he’ll come to grips with the reality that our emasculation will make us a permanent one.

Policy Or Propaganda?

June 11, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Culture, International Affairs, Latin America | 1 Comment 

Hugo Chavez’s government bans Coke Zero:

The government’s concern over Coke Zero stems from one of the components in the no-calorie soft drink, Alvarez said. “We were notified on Wednesday of their concern and have started a process of demonstrating that there are no health risks,” she said.

The measure against Coca-Cola is only the latest episode in a long list of troubles assailing the company in Venezuela. A group of former workers, backed by legislators aligned with President Hugo Chavez, caused intermittent stoppages in bottling and distribution plants last year, hampering the company’s operations.

More recently, after being targeted by Chavez, the company agreed to hand over a parking lot that was used as a distribution center to the Venezuelan government in exchange for another location.

If readers can remember this type of low-intensity provocation isn’t foreign to the bombastic Chavez who last year declared war on the English lexicon.

Photo couresy of FP.

Redefining Democracy At The OAS

June 8, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under International Affairs, Latin America | Leave a Comment 

Mary Anastasia O’Grady who writes the “America’s column” at The Wall Street Journal says that Cuban admittance into the Organization of American States legimitizes the anti-US parties (Chavez, Correa, Morales, et al.) in the region:

The OAS expelled Cuba in 1962, in part, because the regime’s Marxist-Leninist ideology was considered “incompatible with the inter-American system.” In 2001 all OAS members strengthened that position by signing “the democratic charter” and pledging to respect limits to state power. But under Secretary General José Miguel Insulza the organization’s principled stand has withered. Led by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Argentina now tell Mr. Insulza what to do. Brazil goes along as part of its eternal quest to reduce U.S. power in the region. Chilean President Michelle Bachelet has been very public about her admiration for Fidel Castro.

So when the group met to discuss Mr. Insulza’s proposal that the 1962 ban be lifted, there wasn’t much suspense. Ecuador’s foreign minister captured the spirit of the regime’s apologists when he told the gathering that Marxist-Leninist ideology is compatible with democracy. That jibes with the views of the Honduran president, who has argued that Cuba is a democracy.

It is true that the agreement ties the renewal of Cuban membership to democratic reform. Yet by lifting the ban, Latin America’s axis of evil made important strides toward its end game to redefine democracy at the OAS. The rights to property, transparent elections and free speech are not part of the new definition. The fact that Venezuela is still an OAS member despite the military government’s assault on organized labor, religious expression and the press signals where OAS standards are headed.

“Fidel Is Entrenched”

May 21, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Cuba, Latin America | Leave a Comment 

That means the Island nation has no immediate intention of reconciling the 50 year rift with their northern neighbors:

When Fidel became ill in mid-2006, Raúl took over as interim president and hinted that some degree of economic liberalization was on the way. (He officially succeeded Fidel in February 2008.) The Raúl-led government introduced a raft of small reforms — such as beginning to decentralize agriculture and allowing Cubans to purchase various consumer electronic products — that had a meager economic impact but raised expectations on the island. As Daniel Erikson, a scholar at the Inter-American Dialogue think tank, writes in his new book, The Cuba Wars, Raúl unleashed a relatively robust debate about possible economic reforms, which the Communist youth newspaper Juventud Rebelde characterized as a “revolution within the revolution.” Now Fidel has effectively squashed that revolution and Raúl has dialed back his reform talk.

Barack Chavez?

May 11, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Barack Obama, Latin America, Obama administration | Leave a Comment 

J.G. Thayer of Commentary’s Contentions blog believes — albeit cynically — that the Obama Administration will be watching Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s actions very closely in light of his seizure of 60 foreign companies:

Most important, however, is how the Obama administration will react to this. Those assets belonged to American companies. In some sense, corporations are legal facsimiles of “persons,” and these persons have just been robbed by a foreign government.

How will the Obama Administration react to this provocation? The cynic in me expects them to watch it very carefully, taking note of precisely how it was done — with eyes on how far they themselves can go in their takeovers of the auto and banking industries, and in preparation for their “reform” of the health care and health insurance fields

Annals Of The Obama Administration

March 30, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Culture, Faith, History, International Affairs, Latin America, Obama administration, Religion, Secretary Clinton | Leave a Comment 

SOS Clinton’s reset button gaffe was explained as having been the result of moving her political apparat to Foggy Bottom. 

But news arrives from her Mexican trip that fits into the “you couldn’t make something like this up” category of world class diplomatic blunders.  

On Friday she visited the most sacred of Mexican sites: the Basilica of the nation’s patron saint, the Virgin of Guadalupe.

Mrs. Clinton can be excused for not being personally aware of the history of the shrine and the miraculous painting.  That’s why there are legions of staff at State to prepare briefing books and pithy remarks.  (And I know there’s no reason why she, or anyone at State, should be as intrigued as I am by the story of the Virgin’s eyes, which is something like the western hemisphere’s Shroud of Turin.)

But nothing can prepare you for the sheer tin ear incompetence of what actually went down.  Here’s the Catholic News Agency’s account.   Read it and cringe.  

During her recent visit to Mexico, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made an unexpected stop at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe and left a bouquet of white flowers “on behalf of the American people,” after asking who painted the famous image.

The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was miraculously imprinted by Mary on the tilma, or cloak, of St. Juan Diego in 1531. The image has numerous unexplainable phenomena, such as the appearance on Mary’s eyes of those present in the room when the tilma was opened and the image’s lack of decay.

Mrs. Clinton was received on Thursday at 8:15 a.m. by the rector of the Basilica, Msgr. Diego Monroy.

Msgr. Monroy took Mrs. Clinton to the famous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which had been previously lowered from its usual altar for the occasion.

After observing it for a while, Mrs. Clinton asked “who painted it?” to which Msgr. Monroy responded “God!”

It’s bad enough already — but it gets worse.  It turns out that she had been there before and still didn’t know what she was seeing.

Clinton then told Msgr. Monroy that she had previously visited the old Basilica in 1979, when the new one was still under construction.

Banality is the mother’s milk of diplomatic diplospeak, but, surely, a worldly Wellesley grad supported by scores of assistant under secretaries and stables of speech writers should be able to come up with something better than this:

After placing a bouquet of white flowers by the image, Mrs. Clinton went to the quemador –the open air area at the Basilica where the faithful light candles- and lit a green candle.

Leaving the basilica half an hour later, Mrs. Clinton told some of the Mexicans gathered outside to greet her, “you have a marvelous virgin!”

Secretary Clinton wrapped up her good will visit to Our Lady of Guadalupe by flying to Houston to receive an award from Planned Parenthood.

This evening [Friday 27 March] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is set to receive the highest award given by Planned Parenthood Federation of America — the Margaret Sanger Award, named for the organization’s founder, a noted eugenicist. The award will be presented at a gala event in Houston, Texas.

Seeing Afghanistan Through Colombia

March 10, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under International Affairs, Latin America, Military | Leave a Comment 

A quick thought: if the Colombian military can secure populations and beat guerillas in vast jungles, why can’t American and NATO forces beat the Taliban from farflung outposts in Afghanistan?

Maybe It’s Big Government

February 24, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Economic issues, Latin America | Leave a Comment 

Argentinian President Christina Kirchner is becoming wildly unpopular. In amidst of a global economic crisis she has managed to nationalize all private pensions and raise taxes on grain and beef, disillusioning and alienating one of country’s main economic producers and a key part of her governing coalition. Today the farmers are finally fed up and Kirchner is looking more and more like a paralyzed governor:

Argentine President Cristina Kirchner is contending with defections from her governing coalition just when she needs solid backing in talks opening Tuesday with farmers who have posed the greatest challenge to her authority.

The loss of allies could limit Mrs. Kirchner’s policy options as the global recession begins to be felt in the country’s farms and factories.

Last week, four senators abandoned the government’s bloc within the dominant Peronist party, expressing displeasure with Mrs. Kirchner’s agrarian policy and seeking to distance themselves from the unpopular president ahead of October’s midterm elections.

That spurt of desertions followed a steady trickle of defections over several months that cost the Kirchner administration its majority in the lower house of Congress and narrowed its once-towering advantage in the Senate.

Several former and current governors are also among the dissidents forming what’s been dubbed in the local press as the “Kirchner Diaspora.”

These breakaway politicians, some of whom have presidential ambitions, are testimony to the growing weakness of Mrs. Kirchner, whose approval rating has been halved to around 30% since early last year, shortly after she took office.

Much of the discontent stems from her repeated conflicts with farmers, who on Friday began a four-day halt in sales of grains and some beef products to call attention to their demands for a reduction in taxes and export controls and more aid against a withering drought.

Time For Some Pragmatism In Colombia

February 23, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under China, Economic issues, International Affairs, Latin America | Leave a Comment 

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will overlook China’s documented human rights abuses for economic security, but will she do the same for Colombia whose free-trade agreement with the U.S. was squashed with union support on questionable allegations of widespread human rights abuses.  WSJ editors think she should:

Judging by her Asian tour, Hillary Clinton clearly thinks she is more realistic about the world than her predecessor. The Secretary of State said, for instance, that pressing China on human rights “can’t interfere” with cooperation between Washington and Beijing on other issues like the economic crisis or climate change. But strangely — or perhaps not so strangely — Mrs. Clinton and her boss seem to have a far more pinched conception of realpolitik when it comes to Colombia.

Recall that last year Nancy Pelosi rewrote House rules to scuttle the Bush Administration’s free-trade agreement with Bogotá solely on human-rights grounds, even after the pact had been rewritten to include new union protections. President Obama explained last fall that he was opposed because “The history in Colombia right now is that labor leaders have been targeted for assassination, on a fairly consistent basis, and there have not been prosecutions.”

Actually, antilabor killings have dropped by almost 87% under President Álvaro Uribe, and convictions have gone up sharply. Yet neither Mr. Obama nor his top diplomat have lifted a finger to move the Colombia deal — which would open new markets for U.S. exporters when most Colombian goods already enter the U.S. duty-free, as well as strengthen a crucial ally in Latin America. This one should be easy, but the AFL-CIO and the rest of organized labor have ordered that no vote ever occur, and Democrats have so far obeyed.

Chavez: We Will Repay Poor Chavistas

February 16, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under International Affairs, Latin America | Leave a Comment 

Reuters:

Hugo Chavez and his supporters celebrated an election victory that allows him to seek another term as president in polarized Venezuela, as opponents complained on Monday that his use of state funds had made the campaign unfair.

Chavez, who has been in power for 10 years and vows to rule for decades, pledged to repay his poor backers for Sunday’s victory by combating their No. 1 concern — crime that has given the OPEC nation one of the world’s worst murder rates.

And how come the Venezuelan President couldn’t repay and create anti-crime/poverty measures for his backers when the country was flush with record oil prices and petro dollars?

Iron Grip

February 16, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under International Affairs, Latin America | Leave a Comment 

Venzuelan independent journalist Daniel Duquenal reports that Chavez’s victory in scrapping term limits is riddled with blackmail, violence, state resources, and forced public employee backing of his campaign:

The student movement who opposed him was repressed. Chavez went as far as demanding that police “throw tear gas, and of the strong kind” at any student demonstration.

Chavez also used naked blackmail, threatening the country with civil disorder if he was ever forced to relinquish the presidency.

In past months, we Venezuelans have been subjected to the most brutal and heavy-handed campaign we have ever endured in our democratic history, as the government threw all the power of the state behind Chavez, with open political activity in most public buildings. Public employees were required to donate one day’s paycheck to the campaign and attend a variety of political activities during working hours.

The opposition did its best to fight government dominance, but it was essentially penniless following the regional election of 2008. It was also vastly outspent.

Next Page »