Beautiful Horizons

The Return of Oscar Arias to the Presidency

Adam Isacson has a moving personal recollection of the recent inauguration of Oscar Arias Sanchez as president of Costa Rica:

In his inaugural speech, Arias promised to govern in line with many of the values his foundation sought to promote. He promised to spend 8 percent of GDP on education. He called for improving basic infrastructure and access to technology, to modernize the country. To cheers, he called for strengthening the national healthcare and social welfare system, and to pay for it with an increase in progressive income taxes. He called for a foreign policy based on human rights, peaceful conflict resolution, promoting demilitarization, “human development,” and reliance on the United Nations. He said that Costa Rica should be a “moral power” in the world, and its “brand” should be “peace and love for nature.”

This all makes Arias sound like another center-left leader who will quickly run afoul of the Bush administration (just as Arias, for his efforts to end Central America’s wars peacefully, ran afoul of the Reagan administration twenty years ago). But that’s not likely. Arias is not only an admirer of the United States at heart (he is particularly fond of John F. Kennedy), he is a fierce defender of a free trade agreement with the United States. The Bush administration – no doubt anxious to hold on to its dwindling number of friendly leaders in the region – has promised “full cooperation” with Arias, and that’s why they sent Laura to represent the United States instead of, say, the deputy secretary of transportation.

Arias’ pro-CAFTA stance, however, has made Costa Rica no exception to the deeply divisive neoliberalism-versus-statism debates that have swept through Latin America lately. Of all Central American countries, Costa Rica – with its educated workforce and economy less dependent on agriculture – probably stands to gain most from a free-trade agreement with the United States. But the issue is hugely controversial within Costa Rica, and the rather emotional debate has left the country more polarized than it has been in decades.

I've always had a great deal of respect for Arias. I find few words more compelling than these from his Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech:

I know well you share what we say to all   members of the international community, and particularly to those   in the East and the West, with far greater power and resources   than my small nation could never hope to possess, I say to them,   with the utmost urgency: let Central Americans decide the future   of Central America. Leave the interpretation and implementation   of our peace plan to us. Support the efforts for peace instead of   the forces of war in our region. Send our people ploughshares   instead of swords, pruning hooks instead of spears. If they, for   their own purposes, cannot refrain from amassing the weapons of   war, then, in the name of God, at least they should leave us in   peace.

I wish him well.

CAFTA - I Guess We HAFTA

I tend to regard so-called Free Trade Agreements ('so-called" because intellectual property never seems to be included and farm subsisides, well you know . . .) like chiropractic treatment: a great deal of hype ("If we fix that subluxation, you'll never get the flu again!), some occasional relief, but the long term problems remain.

I think that long-time Central America observer, David Holiday, has the best comment here with regard to CAFTA:

In a day of high-level lobbying, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made the rounds to argue that Cafta would help heal old divisions in the region and foster stability. Late last night, Mr. Cheney camped out in an office just off the House floor, and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez worked the halls.

Wait a minute -- CAFTA will "help heal old divisions" in the region? 

NOT. CAFTA has already provided a useful political foil for the left, and now that the region's elites have it, they'll have to accept the political consequences should that reported 300,000 job gain in the region prove elusive. That can only help the left and other opposition forces. Which I doubt the Bush administration will be too happy about.

Boz understandably worries about the state of our democracy, but not for the obvious reasons:

During the debate over CAFTA, both sides demonized the other's position, which prevented compromise. Both sides pushed for votes on the basis of party lines and pork rather than what was right. Both sides talked as if failure was the end of the world. The party in power twisted arms and offered last minute deals to buy the votes necessary. Had the White House brought the moderate Democrats into the negotiation process, I truly believe this bill could have passed with 240-260 votes. But that's not how either side is playing the game of politics today. Some will say that's how politics works, but I don't think citizens should accept that as an answer.

A bill I felt was flawed, but yet I still believed was worth passing, made it through Congress last night. For some reason it makes me feel awful. And worse, I don't see a solution on the horizon.

Marc Cooper is peeved at the Democrats who voted for it and resolutely enraged about the possibility for harm to labor here and farmers in Central America:

Some of the other more traditional exports can also rebound against the domestic labor market. Cheap American corn that flooded into Mexico after passage of NAFTA wiped out as many as two million subsistence farmers whose most attractive remedy was to hop the border and compete for minimum wage jobs in American fields and factories.

One of the American crops that will be favored by CAFTA is rice – a true staple in Central America. Once the 35-60% tariff on U.S. rice is lifted will anyone care to guess how many scratch-dirt rice farmers will be ploughed under? Look for them to show up soon as “day laborers” on your local corner.

Such is the logic of current American politics: Bolster and exploit the economic disjunction in the hemisphere and then claim to clamp down on the border to keep out the displaced. In the meantime, American workers will have more free time on their hands to watch the spectacle as they will have fewer jobs to keep them occupied.

As for me, I still think the chiropractic analogy is most apt: a lot of hype some relief for a few, but the pain for the most part will continue.

They're Dropping Like Flies

Former Costa Rican Presidents, that is. After the resignation of former president Miguel Angel Rodriguez from the position of Secretary General of the OAS and his return to Costa Rica - where he has been ordered jailed for six months - while prosecutors assemble the case against him and the recent surfacing of corruption allegations against former President Rafael Angel Calderón who is in jail waiting his trial on allegations that he took kickbacks for a loan from the Finnish Government, there now comes the news that former Costa Rican president and current executive director of the Swiss-based World Economic Forum José María Figueres has acknowledged receiving nearly a million dollars in "consulting fees" from the same French company that Rodriguez is accused of receiving bribes from.

Figueres is the son of former three time president Jose "Pepe" Figueres, a leader whose presidency was the source for much of the positive aspects of Costa Rican life today: the abolition of the military, suffrage for women, etc. This analysis of what this may mean for Costa Rica is worth a look, but it does equivocate a bit. As for me, I do not know enough about the details in these cases to form an informed opinion. I do believe that having leaders arrested for corruption in Latin America is barely half the battle. What is most important is making the case against them and if they are proven guilty, that they be shown that the consequences for their actions are severe, including the forfeiture of any and all illegal enrichment, jail time and loss of political rights (i.e. being allowed to run for office).

Tina Rosenberg on Nicaragua

Tina Rosenberg is one of the keenest observers on foreign affairs and the New York Times is lucky to have her.

In yesterday's paper she took a look at the state of Nicaragua during the Sandinista years and now and places a plague squarely on both houses. First, the Sandinistas:

The contras' war and the American blockage of international loans wrecked the economy and diverted what money there was from schoolbooks to guns. Nicaragua, one of the world's poorest countries, was attacked by a superpower, and the Sandinistas responded with repression.

But the war was not entirely to blame. Brought to power by a guerrilla insurrection, the Sandinistas arrived with a siege mentality that confused opposition with betrayal and revenge with justice. Followers of Mr. Somoza went before kangaroo courts. Newspaper reports on protests were censored. This was before Mr. Reagan ordered covert aid for the contras in December 1981.

The Sandinistas' determination to lower the price of food meant that farmers could buy beans more cheaply than growing them. So they didn't grow them, leading to a rationing system that created corruption and speculation. Capital and skilled people emigrated. Phrases like the "workers' state'' raised expectations of higher pay and farm credits that the revolution could not afford. The Sandinistas quickly outlawed strikes and peasants' land invasions. All Latin American revolutions will end up like ours, Mr. Carrión had said, and he was right, although for a larger reason than he believed.

Now for the post-Sandinista leaders:

The Sandinistas have been gone since 1990. But three-quarters of the population lives on less than $2 a day, and inequality has soared. More than a third of school-age children do not attend school. The government spends $19 per person annually on education today - half of what the Sandinistas spent when I lived there. Land reform, which had created Latin America's most egalitarian pattern of ownership, has been eroded - in part because small holders cannot get credit and are forced to sell.

Nicaragua depends on the whims of the world coffee market and the hurricane season, and both have been cruel. The poor state of health, education and political institutions all undermine the economy. But the Sandinistas had all these problems, while the successor governments have not suffered from war, American vetoes of their international loans and capital flight. They have also not cared about the poor.

The revolution left one ironic legacy. In 1990, President Daniel Ortega lost a landslide election to Violeta Chamorro and recognized his defeat, permitting for the first time in Nicaragua's history the bourgeois democracy the Sandinistas so scorned. Nicaragua now has no internal spies or censorship. It has regular, meaningful elections. But most Nicaraguans are still waiting for their revolution.

Especially when Somoza-like corruption can still exist. Yes Alemán was tried and convicted, but Nicaragua, the second poorest country in the Americas (only Haiti is poorer) is US$100 million poorer for having had him as president.

The Risks Faced by Central American Immigrants

A tip of the hat to Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft for sending me this article about Central American immigrants - and indeed these are the poorest of the poor - and the risks they face in hopping trains in Mexico to get to the US:

A few months ago Leticia Melia kissed her baby and two children goodbye and set out from her Honduran village northward. She was aiming for New York but got only as far as Mexico. Now she sits in a wheelchair reliving the moment when her legs were crushed under the freight train that trundles through the area every night laden with Central American economic migrants just like her. Exhausted by several days dodging the border police, she had bungled the jump on to the moving train and slid under its wheels.

Lack of agility had nothing to do with the loss of Wilmer Dubon's left leg, amputated just below the thigh. He says he easily leapt on and off the ladders up the side of the wagons and spent a tranquil week riding along the Pacific coast, tying himself on with his shirt when he got sleepy. But the Honduran farmer's youthful resilience was no match for the gang of knife-wielding tattooed delinquents who took all he had and then threw him off the train.

As the article notes, these are the people who cannot afford the notorious coyotes who guide many immigrants into the US. It's heartbreaking to read, but it's invaluable in keeping our own lives in perspective.

Say Hello

Say hello to "Central America and Beyond: Ruminations, Speculations & Provocations," a weblog by David Holiday who's currently living in El Salvador.

He has some informative posts up about the recent elections in El Salvador and brings to light the contrasts between Salvadoran soldiers and contract employees (in particular the salary differences between them). Check him out!

Is the Cold War Over?

One wonders if the Bush Administration does when you see the machinations going on behind the recent election in El Salvador. The election pitted Shafik Handal, a 73 year-old former Marxist guerilla leader of the FMLN against António Saca, a 39 year-old conservative and as Marcela Sánchez notes here, the left could not have put forth a weaker candidate. Why, then did the Bush administration feel such a strong need to view this through the prism of the Cold War?

Throughout last week, Republican members of Congress such as Tom Tancredo and Dana Rohrabacher, together with White House special assistant Otto J. Reich, made clear in TV and newspapers interviews that a Handal triumph would roll back free trade, affect immigration and put great distance between Washington and San Salvador.

In a teleconference with reporters at ARENA headquarters, Reich suggested that Salvadoran immigrants, some of them under temporary status, could be deported under a Handal administration. Comments by Tancredo about the effects of Handal on remittances -- the more than $2 billion a year that Salvadoran immigrants send to relatives back home -- became "U.S Congress threatens remittances" in the headlines of one local publication.

Salvadoran voters were probably listening and reading closely. Today, one of every four Salvadorans lives in the United States -- 300,000 of them under a temporary status granted by the executive branch. And remittances from the United States will soon surpass El Salvador's entire export revenues. Needless to say, there is substantial personal interest in maintaining good relations with Washington.

Pre-election polls in El Salvador consistently forecasted a Handal defeat despite his party's strong showing in legislative and municipal elections.

One wonders if Karl Rove has been doing their ads as Andrés Oppenheimer relates one:

A typical pro-Saca television spot that aired repeatedly in the closing days of the campaign showed a middle-class Salvadoran couple receiving a phone call from their son in Los Angeles.

''Mom, I wanted to let you know that I'm scared,'' the young man says. ''Why?'' his mother asks. ''Because if Shafick becomes president of El Salvador, I may be deported, and you won't be able to receive the remittances that I'm sending you,'' her son responds.

As Sánchez notes, what may work in El Salvador, probably won't work in other countries in Latin America facing elections this year:

Pre-election polls in El Salvador consistently forecasted a Handal defeat despite his party's strong showing in legislative and municipal elections. But elsewhere, polls show leftist candidates way ahead in Panama and the Dominican Republic for May contests, and in Uruguay for October.

Unlike Handal, Martin Torrijos in Panama, Leonel Fernandez in the Dominican Republic and Tabare Vazquez in Uruguay are not Cold War relics. They are progressive rather than radical leaders, more akin to Ricardo Lagos in Chile than Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Moreover, their countries, even the Dominican Republic that receives more than $2 billion in remittances, are also much less dependent on Washington's good graces than El Salvador.

And that's what makes the Republican message a poor match for those candidates and the voters they attract. U.S. warnings about the outcome of elections in these other nations would probably be futile, if not also counterproductive. In Bolivia two years ago, the U.S. ambassador's admonitions against supporting the leftist candidate for president fueled anti-American sentiment that almost carried the coca leader Evo Morales to power.

Around the hemisphere, voters are asking many of the same questions raised in El Salvador. But the answers provided by those in Washington, who would throw fear around for political gain rather than offer substantive arguments to address legitimate concerns, are unlikely to satisfy.

In the current environment, it is essential that Washington be willing to speak directly to the anxieties that are affecting practically every political contest in the region. In Panama, the Dominican Republic and Uruguay, voters are particularly disenchanted by the poor economic performance under their current governments and many fear the ramifications coming from U.S.-touted economic models as adopted by mostly right-leaning governments in the region.

I have long believed that the presence of Otto Reich, Elliott Abrams (even though he is not dealing with LatAm issues) and John Negroponte in the Bush administration was not lost on the public in Latin America. If the president really wanted to show that the relationship between the United States and Latin America was as valuable as he indicated as a candidate, these men would not have such prominent roles in his administration. If they continue to view Latin American-US relations using a Cold War mentality and stick to the same economic model that has not addressed the needs of millions of Latin American citizens, they will be continue to be a miserable failure in this part of the world.

Winds of Change Latin America Briefing

My latest Winds of Change Latin America Briefing is available at the Winds of Change site. Click over at check it out.

I'd also like to point out that Joe Katzman, who created and manages the site, is from a different side of the political spectrum than me, but he invited me to participate, knowing my views because he values a diversity of voices. I salute him for that.

As I need to call it a night soon, I urge you to read this editorial in today's New York Times about Gerard Latortue, the new Haitian Prime Minister's praise for the thugs who led the revolt against Aristide:

Mr. Latortue has no democratic mandate. Haitians are bitterly split between Aristide supporters and opponents, and both sides are heavily armed. Clearly, he needs to reach out to those on both sides of this divide who want to move their country forward. But Mr. Latortue aided neither national reconciliation nor his own shaky legitimacy by the unseemly ceremony he took part in last Saturday.

Ferried by American military helicopters to the city of Gonaïves, where the anti-Aristide revolt began, he stood on a stage with killers like Jean-Pierre Baptiste. Mr. Baptiste, who escaped from prison in 2002, is a death squad leader convicted of participating in a 1994 massacre of Aristide supporters.

Also welcoming Mr. Latortue to Gonaïves was Guy Philippe, the rebel military chief, who has yet to keep his promise to American commanders to disarm his fighters. While there, the prime minister unwisely paid tribute to Amiot Métayer, the murdered founder of the Cannibal Army, an initially pro-Aristide gang. In 2002, Mr. Métayer was jailed at the behest of the Organization of American States. Freed by his supporters the next month, he turned against President Aristide and was later murdered. Mr. Métayer's followers began the revolt that toppled the elected government.

Until Haiti can hold fair elections, Mr. Latortue derives his authority from the American-led occupation force. His mistakes damage not just his reputation, but Washington's as well.

Amen.

Also, I urge you to read Jeanne D'Arc's tribute to Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero on the 24th anniversary of his murder by a right wing death squad while he was conducting a mass.

Alemán Off to Jail

A rather interesting story coming out of Nicarauga:

Police in riot gear stormed the ranch of former Nicaraguan President Arnoldo Alemán, hauling him out of house arrest to serve his corruption sentence with violent criminals in the country's largest prison.

Saying he suffers high blood pressure, Alemán refused to turn himself in when Judge Juana Méndez -- clad in a bullet proof vest -- showed up at his house to deliver the transfer orders Friday night. It took about two dozen special-forces officers 5 ½ hours to get past the ex-president's wife, former Miami schoolteacher María Fernanda de Alemán, his adult daughters and other relatives using themselves as shields.

''They want to kill my husband!'' a sobbing María Fernanda told the chaotic throngs of police, politicians, farm workers and reporters. ``He's in no condition to go to jail!''

After an hourlong screaming and shoving session, police forced open Alemán's bedroom door, where he was locked in with his maid, doctor and 4-week-old baby. He emerged in his trademark Liberal Party red shirt, smiling and waving his arms as in triumph. About midnight, he was whisked away in a luxury Land Cruiser to the Tipitapa prison north of Managua.

Alemán, president from 1997 to 2002, was convicted in December of fraud, embezzlement and money laundering for diverting nearly $100 million in public funds from the hemisphere's second-poorest nation. He was sentenced to 20 years and fined $10 million.

There is apparently more to this than where Alemán should serve his sentence:

But the transfer out of house arrest was widely seen as a symbol of how deeply politicized Nicaragua's courts -- and the country's biggest criminal case -- have become. The crusade to keep Alemán out of dirty prison cells has become a negotiating tool between the Sandinista Party, which controls the courts, and Alemán's Liberal Party, which controls Congress.

Observers say the two sides no longer bother pretending that political parties are not meddling in the case.

''At some moment, they tried to keep up appearances, but now the gloves have come off,'' said Roberto Courtney, president of Ethics and Transparency, a Managua government watchdog group. ``Now, from punches we've gone to biting and hair-pulling, obviously a more embarrassing spectacle.''

Alemán's transfer order came after a week of contradicting appellate court orders. The criminal division of the appeals court rejected Alemán's claims of health problems and ordered him taken to jail, but the civil division issued an injunction to block the transfer.

''Both courts are arm-wrestling each other,'' Interior Minister Julio Vega said. ``They are two players in the political game.''

The move to force Alemán into prison was believed to be a political ploy by former President Daniel Ortega, who heads the Sandinista party and is considered to wield considerable control over the criminal courts. As Méndez is, most criminal court judges in Nicaragua are Sandinistas.

I've never seen anything to put Alemán's gult into question. That being said, however, this is indicative of a larger problem in Nicarauga and that is the divisiveness that still exists long after Somoza and long after the Sandinista's ruled. Unfortunately, there's nowhere else to send Alemán to my knowledge and house arrest should not be the opunishment for the way he robbed a nation that is as poor as Nicarauga. Nevertheless, the judiciary should not be politicized and I can't seeing this conflict as anything but troubling.

Another Legal Blow Against Corruption in Latin America

Ex-Nicaraguan President Arnaldo Aleman has just been sentenced to 20 years in prison for money laundering and fraud among other crimes:

Aleman was accused of illegally diverting some $100 million in government funds to his party's election campaigns during his tenure in office, which ended in January 2002.

One can hope that harsh a sentence will have some deterrence power.