Beautiful Horizons

It's Insulza

As Boz noted here Miguel Insulza will be the next Secretary general of the OAS.

What is interesting is to compare how the Miami Herald and the New York Times covered the story. It's the subject of my post today on The American Street.

While you're at it, you should also read Marcela Sánchez's column on the OAS and how they dropped the ball on Ecuador. Sadly, it's the same old story that she wrote about more than a year ago, only the subject then was Haiti.

Can the Haitian Police be Trusted?

One wonders. Amnesty International is calling for them to be held accountable by MINUSTAH, the UN Peacekeeping force, but they have consistently proven themselves not to be up to the task.

This account of the most recent incident last Wednesday is very disturbing:

Police officers, many wearing black masks over their faces, fired at demonstrators during the march in the capital, Port-au-Prince. Renan Etienne, central director for Haiti's administrative police, said "bandits" had attacked a police patrol and that "the police returned fire."

"We know that two bandits were killed, but we can't call  them demonstrators," Etienne said.

Really? Then perhaps he should explain this:

Five bodies lay on the street, some with gunshot wounds in the back, and at least three people were injured. No police were hurt, Etienne said.

[...]

Several protesters and witnesses disputed the police account and said police fired at them without provocation. One of the injured, 21-year-old Romel Dorisma, said he had not taken part in the demonstration but was shot by police as he walked out of a pharmacy.

"I saw the police open fire. I got shot in the leg and I  had to crawl," said Dorisma, who hid under a wrecked car.

A cameraman for a local television station said he saw police put a gun beside one of the bodies and that police summoned him over afterward and insisted that he film the gun. [my emphasis]

Etienne has a lot of explaining to do, but no one appears to be interested in holding him accountable. One of the few hopes here appears to be the position of Caricom which has refused to readmit Haiti until after it holds democratic elections. The larger issue, however, is how to hold these elections in an environment in which the police wear masks and open fire on demonstrators.

A Few Short Notes

I'm rather tired, so I just wanted to call your attention to a few short notes.

First off, Adam Isacson at the Center for International Programs, Plan Colombia and Beyond blog has this comprehensive analysis of the FARC's recent attack on Toribío, a town of primarily indigenous residents. Human Rights Watch has also condemned the FARC's use of gas cylinder bombs.

On the other side of Colombia's conflict, The Economist has this distressing article about the increasing political influence of the AUC and this passage underscores why my sympathies lie squarely with the peaceful citizens of Colombia caught in the middle and why I feel dubious about President Uribe:

Earlier this month, Congress amended the amnesty bill to deny the paramilitaries the right to stand for office. Mr Uribe is trying to change that. But many normally pro-government congressmen fear opening the door for drug-traffickers to enter politics, as they have often attempted.

Many of the AUC's tactics mirror those of their foes, the FARC. The left-wing guerrillas expanded during failed peace talks under Mr. Uribe's predecessor. Those talks collapsed because the guerrillas never declared a ceasefire or agreed to demobilise. The AUC has been smarter. Although it has frequently violated its ceasefire, Mr. Uribe has turned a blind eye, while unleashing the army against the FARC.

Colombia faces a difficult choice. In the past, the politicians would have settled for peace, allowing the gunmen into politics even if that meant pardoning horrific crimes. Now, many Colombians—and international human-rights groups—resist that. Already, the paramilitary chieftains are gaining political power without, in practice, renouncing violence. An election next year could see their influence in Congress grow further.

Isacson also has some suggestions for Condoleeza Rice's trip to Latin America. I especially like his comments about Hugo Chávez here:

Hugo Chávez is legitimate, elected, and CIP firmly opposes anything that even remotely resembles a U.S. effort at regime change. We also applaud his channeling of Venezuelan oil wealth to badly needed social-services. Chávez is a complicated figure, though. Though he is usually called “leftist,” some of his government’s policies run counter to the goals of some important progressive causes. 

• Those who value press freedom should be concerned about a recently passed law with vaguely worded language allowing the government to close down media outlets deemed to be inciting violence or threatening public order.
• Those who value demilitarization should be concerned about the host of new internal non-defense roles the new constitution has given the Venezuelan military, as well as President Chávez’s plan to create a 2 million-strong army reserve.
• Those who value respect for human rights should be concerned about limits on freedom of expression and the independence of the judiciary, and about the role that “Bolivarian Circles” may be playing in intimidating dissent. The Inter-American Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Watch have already registered concerns about these issues.
• Those who value equal rights and opportunities for women should be offended by President Chávez’s crude and suggestive comments about Condoleezza Rice in January.
• Those who want to limit global small-arms transfers should be worried about the Venezuelan government’s latest weapons-buying spree, including the purchase of 100,000 AK-47 assault rifles from Russia. 

His advice about the Bush administration's stand on Venezuela is spot on in my opinion.

The Economist also has this article (subscription only) on Belize's recent troubles and speculates that "Perhaps [Prime Minister Said] Mr. Musa might prefer it if his people cannot talk to each other."

Oh Please

So according to Juan Forero in today's New York Times, U.S. Considers Toughening Stance Toward Venezuela. I'm sure Hugo Chávez is thrilled to read that and I'm sure this mentality will continue to rally support for him in Venezuela and throughout Latin America.

The image of the U.S. in Latin America is probably at its lowest point since Reagan was cozying up to Videla, Rios Montt and virtually every other anti-communist dictator in the hemisphere. The White House continues to view Latin America through the prism of the Cold War, having dredged up such Reagan-era figures as Elliott Abrams, Otto Reich and John Negroponte to serve yet again. Thank God Jeane Kirkpatrick was otherwise engaged.  Do they think that the rest of the hemisphere is unaware of this?

Marcela Sánchez, in her column last week got to the heart of the matter:

Slipping into a Cold War left-right trap, though, plays to Chavez's strengths by fanning the flames of anti-American sentiment that the Venezuelan uses to enhance regional divisions. This narrow vision also handicaps South American nations that might want to try a transformational diplomacy of their own by engaging with Chavez instead of seeking to isolate him.

There are now solidly leftist presidents in almost all of MercoSur, most of the Andean nations, and next year, assuming Manuel Lopez Obrador gets to run for president, in Mexico. In other words three of the four most populous countries in Latin America (Brazil, Argentina and possibly Mexico) will be led by democratically elected leftist leaders. The WEhite House would be well-advised to take Sánchez's advice:

In South America, Washington's lofty goals to spread freedom and democracy will depend on its ability to differentiate between two lefts. The success of one will ensure the defeat of the other. In other words, the surest route to undermine what Chavez represents is cooperation with a modern left struggling to play by the rules of democracy and capitalism while satisfying the high expectations of the people who voted these leftist leaders into power.

Don't hold your breath in the expectation that they will learn this lesson.

Here's More Proof

David Adesnik pointed me to this story about how Charles Taylor is still up to no good in exile and how, despite his asylum agreement with Nigeria, he is still meddling in Liberian affairs. David asks "why isn't our government trying to stop him?"

Here's the answer, David: this emperor has no clothes. The Bush administration has the attention span of a gnat and when you consider how it washed its hands of Haiti after Aristide was out of the picture and how it has largely paid little attention to the Americas and scant more to Africa (other than Sudan), why should this surprise anyone?

Do As I Say . . .

. . . Not as I do. The myth continues to be shattered about the Bush administration and human rights. What Mark said.

Justice At Last

One of the most thoroughly hideous aspects of Argentina's military dictatorship was the trafficking in the children of the disappeared. All too oftenthese children were given as infants to military families or the families of those who allied themselves with the dictatorship. Finally a measure of jsutice has been exacted against some of those responsible:

An Argentine court has given a 10-year jail sentence to a doctor who helped steal babies from political prisoners held in a torture centre.

The offences were committed during Argentina's "dirty war" - the period of military rule between 1976 and 1983.

Jorge Luis Magnacco falsified the birth certificate of a baby born to a mother held in the centre, the court said.

[...]

The adoptive mother and father of the child were also handed prison sentences by the court for adopting the child illegally.

The man, who worked for the Air Force, was given a seven-and-a-half year sentence and the woman a term of three years and one month.

Now let's see to it that Videla pays for his role in this monstrous activity. I wonder if Jeane Kirkpatrick would still have a state dinner for this kidnapper and criminal against humanity? Probably.

Unrest in an Unlikely Place

Unrest in Belize? I'm stunned by this:

Best known for its Caribbean beaches, scuba diving and Mayan ruins in dense jungle, Belize has been thrown into turmoil by a strike at the state telephone company and by opposition calls for the government to step down.

Army troops are patrolling the streets after youths rioted and looted businesses late last week in Belize City, the largest town in this country of 270,000 people. The government said one man was killed.

Telephone workers went on strike last week and sabotaged lines, leaving the country cut off from the rest of the world, and teachers are threatening to strike in coming days.

I traveled there many years ago and remember just how peaceful everything seemed there. The entire had two traffic lights and while Belize City could be dangerous, especially if you didn't use good judgment, I would have had a difficult time imagining anything like this happening.

Why Seek Asylum in Brazil?

I wondered in this post why Brazil was always so willing to make itself available for asylum to the likes of Lúcio Gutierrez, Alfredo Stroessner and others. Slate's Explainer column gives an interesting take on why this may be.

I don't mean to offend anyone from Brasília, but if they really want to punish Gutierrez, require him to stay within the dry and dusty Distrito Federal. That'll make him homesick.

A Little Humor for My Brazilian Friends

For everyone click here and try not to laugh to hard if you understand Brazilian Portuguese (the photo's from Portugal). For my American friends, I'll explain what it means in comments in a couple of days.