Report on US-Latin America's Relations by Matias Bulnes, NYC

Last Monday the Brookings Institution released a report on the current state of relations between the US and Latin America, and the major challenges faced by the region, finally suggesting future policies to president-elect Obama. While highlighting the dramatic changes Latin America has undergone over the last two decades, the report insists on the need for respectful collaboration within the Americas.

The main reason why the US should seek collaboration with Latin American countries, according to the report, is pragmatic, having to do with the nature of some of the challenges faced by the region. Climate change, migratory policies, drug control, and nuclear growth exemplify challenges that demand a joint response—the report says. If everyone takes independent measures, the solutions achieved for these problems will doubtlessly be suboptimal and perhaps even insufficient.

The report also points out the feasibility of such collaboration with Latin America given the democratic stability and relative prosperity many Latin American countries have achieved during the last decades. While it still is poorer than the US or Canada, Latin America is on the rise, and drawing economic and diplomatic attention from various points on the globe. Latin America is entrenching its connections with Asia and Europe and as a result has become more independent of the US. But this boost in international participation is fueled by the consolidation of democracy in Latin American countries which also makes them better partners for the US.

In sum, the report ably argues for the utility and feasibility of uplifting the collaboration between the US and Latin America. What the report deliberately omits is their willingness to partner with each other. The last half a century of relations between the US and Latin America has been rocky, to say the least. There still is much mistrust and animosity between them—especially from Latin America toward the US. And though it is true that they both will pay the price for not collaborating, it is far from obvious that the US will find a warm response from many Latin American countries.

Consider the case of Venezuela—one of the biggest and most influential countries in Latin America. President Chávez has made the US a cornerstone of his political discourse. Chávez routinely uses “the Empire”—as he calls the US—as a scapegoat for all the evils in the world, both real and imagined. Should the US expect a warm response from him to collaborate on a common agenda? Even with Obama as president that seems unlikely. For no collaboration seems possible unless Chávez tempers his anti-American rhetoric. And yet Chávez’s popularity heavily relies upon his incendiary discourse. Thus barring a sudden change in its political direction, it seems unlikely that Venezuela will be on-board with a collaboration plan.

And with Venezuela a number of other Latin American countries follow suit. Cuba, Bolivia and Ecuador, all belong to Chávez’s circle of trust. Moreover, all of the political leaderships of these countries have capitalized on anti-American sentiments in their respective nations. Similarly then, no much warmth should be expected from them.

On the other extreme of the spectrum is Venezuela’s neighbor, Colombia. Unlike Venezuela, in Colombia the leftist rhetoric has worn out. Beset by guerrillas and their paramilitary counterparts, the Colombian people has grown used to the idea that violence will not subside without crushing the guerrilla. The US has thus been perceived as an ally in their efforts to regain internal peace. President Uribe is without a doubt the US’s closest ally in the region and one that will certainly welcome collaboration with the US. However, even here there is a little obstacle: the Free Trade Agreement (FTA). The US congress has proved reluctant to tighten the economic and political ties of the US with a country that tops the lists of violence in the world. In fact, Obama himself has opposed the FTA with Colombia and so it seems possible that it won’t be forthcoming during his administration. If so, the question arises whether the Colombian leadership will take offence. The report recommends approving the FTA but skeptics still remain. In any event, it is a sign of how difficult things can be with Latin America that the US will have to work so hard to get the favor of its foremost ally in the region.

Mexico would make for a good partner if it weren’t for the migration issue. For one, there are anti-American sentiments in the mid and lower classes of Mexican society, but more importantly, the Bush administration has abetted them with its project of building a wall along the border. The Mexican government has rarely been so close in ideology to the US, but I can’t help to be skeptical of the long-term workability of a common agenda with a nation the US is treating with so much disdain as to build a wall between them.

The report also recommends a complete redefinition of the US policy toward Cuba. Cuba has been a tenacious wedge between the US and Latin America, shaping in large measure the relations between the two. The report argues for the need to tamp down the hostilities with Castro’s regime if any close collaboration with Latin America as a whole is to be possible. Obama is in good standing to begin this revival of diplomatic relations with Cuba, but it would seem unrealistic to expect that the trust will be restored within Obama’s mandate. Also, any attempt to restore the trust will require mutual respect for each other’s internal affairs (a point omitted in the report). But this would seem very costly for any administration since it would arouse the fury of the Cuban American community. Again, not an easy task here.

Chile and Brazil are perhaps the best partners for the US in the region. Chile because of its economic leadership, Brazil because of its size, both are emblematic countries which are stable and economically sound. Also, because of historical circumstances there is a healthy distance between the US and their internal affairs. This in turn clothes Chile and Brazil with an image of neutrality that makes them more effective as negotiators within the region than submissive US allies such as Colombia. The US must engage them in a way that preserves this asset.

In sum, I believe that the report recommends the right course of action for the US toward Latin America. Nevertheless, the report does not acknowledge the magnitude of the challenge lying ahead. Latin America has internal divisions of its own, its politics is crossed by historical animosities and aspirations. Get them all to work together may be hard in its own merit. Expecting that Obama’s administration will get them to work together and with the US may well be impossible.

Read More...

Summary only...

Solidarity post-Prop 8 by Ornaith O'Dowd, NYC

I have been both encouraged and disturbed by the activism that has followed the passing of anti-gay ballot measures on November 4th: encouraged because of the energy and engagement that have brought thousands on to the streets in support of equality but disturbed by the all-too-vocal minority of my fellow queers that has scapegoated African-Americans for the California result. This type of discourse is precisely what the gay rights movement needs to disavow if it is to succeed. Indeed, all progressive social movements have something important to learn from these post-November 4th debates.

Because of one exit poll, which showed that African-Americans had supported Prop 8 by a larger margin than other ethnic/racial groups, some white gay people began blaming them for the vote, berating them for failing to support what many see as this generation's greatest civil rights struggle. Why, this segment of white gay opinion demanded, can't "they" identify with "our" struggle when "they" were denied civil rights for so long and had to fight so hard for them?

Explaining all that is wrong with this sort of statement may be a useful exercise in self-examination for the gay rights movement.

First, we should be wary of basing a political analysis on one piece of polling data. African-Americans make up something like 6% of California's population, making it far-fetched numerically as well as politically to place so much blame on them, and exit polls, while sometimes useful, are hardly unimpeachable sources of certainty. Lest we forget, majorities-- albeit slimmer ones-- of other ethnic groups supported Prop 8; in any case, why see race or ethnicity as the more relevant way to "cut" the results? Why not focus on age, sex, religious affiliation, economic status, or other indicators? Moreover, California was not the only state to pass an anti-gay ballot measure on November 4th; although it is understandable that particular attention is given to that result since it was more surprising--- and given that same-sex marriages had already taken place there-- the result is only one part of a broader picture. In Arkansas, with an 84% white electorate according to CNN's exit poll, a ballot measure banning gay couples from adopting children passed with a solid majority. According to this poll, the state has a higher proportion of African-American voters, and the anti-gay measure won more narrowly among them than among whites. But nobody talked about that.

Second, those engaging in scapegoating seem to forget that some African-Americans are gay, and some gay folks are African-American. It may sound silly to have to point this out, but some of the discourse floating around the "blogosphere" and, sadly, beyond suggests that all too many simply do not-- or will not-- recognize this. Why can't "they" identify with "our" struggle? Well, some of "them" are us!

Part of the problem is that the gay community and the gay rights movement have become identified with economically privileged white men. This has had the double effect of marginalizing those of us in the gay community who are not economically privileged white men while also rendering attempts to cast the gay rights struggle as a civil rights struggle not only implausible but quite possibly offensive. While economically privileged white gay men are of course as entitled to press for equal rights as anyone else, I imagine many African-Americans might find it rather hard to take suggestions that they have a common experience and common struggle (especially given the deep-rooted, systematic racism that continues to pervade U.S. society). I am not suggesting that these men should stop participating in the struggle for gay rights, but I think it is a good time to ask why that struggle is not-- or at least is not perceived to be-- diverse and inclusive, and it is a good time to ask how this struggle fits with other movements fighting against inequality, injustice, and oppression.

There was some disbelief among white queers that their vote for Barack Obama was not "reciprocated" in the Prop 8 votes of African-Americans. Unfortunately solidarity is not always so easy, so "instant." If all marginalized groups in U.S. society-- women, people of color, immigrants, the working class-- had voted out of solidarity with all other marginalized groups on November 4th, we would have had dramatically different results: Cynthia McKinney would probably be picking her cabinet as I write! It cannot, therefore, be any surprise that these groups did not "rescue" gay rights. Although many queers of all colors and classes have been active participants in a wide range of social justice struggles, the most powerful gay rights organizations seem more focused on running celebrity-studded awards galas and sending out credit card offers than on fighting oppression on all fronts. There has been a tendency toward "mainstreaming" gay rights issues: that is, removing them from any kind of radical political context and casting them as rights to assimilate. Such a strategy seems to suggest that, as soon as formal equality for LGBT people is achieved, we will retreat behind our picket fences and avoid any disruption to the status quo. Given the dominance of this sort of gay rights politics-- at least in public perception-- people fighting against racism or classism might well ask why they should stand with the LGBT community when there is reason to doubt that the LGBT community will stand with them in their struggles.
The gay rights movement needs to be radical again; its center of gravity should be the streets, not the boardrooms of "gay friendly" corporations, and its mission should be justice for all and an end to all oppression, to the very idea of relations of domination. This means not only acting in solidarity with other communities but looking at its own agenda: for many queers, protection from job discrimination and hate crimes may be just as urgent as the fight for mariage rights (indispensable though they are).

Of course, solidarity should go both ways; homophobia ought to be vigorously challenged in every community. This will surely involve some difficult conversations. The claim that the gay rights struggle is a civil rights struggle is sometimes met with skepticism and even annoyance in the African-American community. Although I think the gay rights are indeed civil rights, I think it is a worthwhile conversation to have. It seems to me that the objections to the comparison with the civil rights struggle of African-Americans are of two main kinds: (1) it is wrong to compare the two because LGBTs have not suffered the same pain as African-Americans and (2) it is wrong to compare the two because gay people can "pass" and African-Americans (mostly) cannot. (Of course there some object to the comparison for purely homophobic reasons, but this is not as interesting a claim.)

With respect to (1), it should be emphasized that it is one thing to compare and another to equate. I think it is true that the pain suffered by African-Americans has few parallels in human history in terms of its sheer scale. This unique history and experience should be honored. Nevertheless, the comparison with gay rights is valid, since there are highly relevant similarities. No-one should be denied civil rights for morally arbitrary reasons (e.g. race or sexual orientation). On this point, a short anecdote: when teaching an undergraduate class on privilege and discrimination, I found that students who at first resisted the comparison of racism and homophobia often changed their perspective after I shared with them some every-day examples of discrimination and lack of privilege that gay people face. Whether it is because of race or (perceived) sexual orientation, it is simply a painful human experience to be stared at, mocked, verbally harrassed, threatened, or assaulted by people who hate you for being part of a stigmatized minority. None of this should be taken to underestimate the extraordinary pervasiveness of racism in our society-- a fact that white privilege tends to obscure for many of us.

With respect to (2), the simple answer is that gay people should not have to "pass" in order to be treated fairly. It is useful, though, to pursue this kind of objection, perhaps with the following thought experiment: suppose there is a reliable and simple method through which an African-American can appear "white." Should any African-American be told to use this method to escape racism rather than pursuing and end to racism? Obviously not.

These are simple arguments, with which I doubt many readers of this blog will disagree, but my aim in airing them here has been to point out that these conversations do not seem to be happening often enough. Without them-- uncomfortable as they may be-- solidarity among all groups fighting for justice and equality will remain something of a chimera.

Read More...

Summary only...

Will Tuesday's Election Make History? by Matias Bulnes, NYC

Every election is the most important one ever. At least that is how the media portray it and people perceive it. Tuesday’s election is no exception to the rule. The media and public opinion have attached an enormous historical significance to it, using expressions such as "crucial" or "tipping point" to describe it. Of course the US is the most powerful country in the world and American culture a dominant force in our era. If only for this reason the election of its political leadership has a tremendous impact everywhere. But this has been the case with every presidential election in the US since at least the early XX century. More interesting is the question whether this election is special over previous ones, whether we should not take it routinely. Is it really more important than the last election or the one before? Can this election significantly alter the course of history? Let's analyze the issue carefully.


One of the arguments underlying this magnifying view of the ongoing election appeals to the international scenario and an alleged redistribution of power in the world. Since the end of the Cold War there has been no counterbalance to American dominance. This state of affairs, some fear, is beginning to change. China has had a decade of persistent growth around the 10% mark which has earned it both power and influence. China still is considerably poorer than the US or Europe, but if they continue to grow at half the present rate, not for too long. Additionally, its monstrous dimensions grant China an important advantage in the game—same advantage the US has enjoyed over its dismembered European neighbors. China need not equal the GDP of the US to surpass it in power and influence. Can the outcome of this election interfere with China’s raise to the summit?

Like it or not, let’s first accept that China’s investiture as first power is very likely inevitable. It is part of the natural historical progression that countries occupy the position of superpower temporarily. And given China's tremendous success and size it seems poised to be next superpower. The question is when (rather than if) this will occur. In the light of this, Tuesday’s election is crucial if the outcome can alter the speed of China's development. Can either candidate do this? Hardly because China's growth can be explained in large measure by internal events such as an accelerated urbanization and industrialization.

Barring influencing its economic development, the only way the next US president could play a significant historical role in relation to China would be by passing the title of first power to the Chinese. But this also seems highly improbable. Granted that China will likely be the next superpower, the imminence of this event is oftentimes exaggerated. For all its growth China is nowhere near the US in economic stature. The US still doubles China in GDP and its share of the World GDP does not seem to be in decline. Most likely the US will continue to be the most powerful nation on Earth when the next president leaves the White House, and very likely, for the years to follow.

The remaining international conditions have not changed significantly since Bush won the reelection. The threat of terrorism is still lurking, the Iraq War has worsened but is essentially equally untenable, the Israel-Palestine conflict is in the same deplorable state it has been for the last decade. So if the significance of Tuesday’s election is not being played in the international scenario, is it being played in the domestic one?

Some particularities of this election make it look special. First, the two frontrunners, Obama and McCain, stand in striking contrast even aside from their unremarkable political differences. One of them is unusually young, the other is unusually old; one is Black the other is White; one is the child of an immigrant the other belongs to a traditional military family. But all of these amount to simple anecdote. More important is the fact that this election has attracted more public attention than recent ones. The response to phone polls has been better and more enthusiastic than in previous election years and experts expect the turnout to near the historical pick (the 1960 Election between Kennedy and Nixon had a 64% turnout, the highest in recent history). But in itself this does not seem to me to endow the election with historical significance. It perhaps shows that the election is perceived as very significant, but this is hardly enough evidence that it will be. After all, if it is not, it would not be the first time public perception misrepresents reality.

In isolation none of the above conveys the historical significance of Tuesday’s election. But when put together within a cogent, independent historical narrative they constitute strong evidence that we may be witnessing an outstanding presidential race. I believe that the only coherent narrative that brings all these pieces together is the history of race relations and multiculturalism in the US and, more generally, the post-Cold War world.

The significance of this election to the history of race relations within the US is obvious from the fact there has never been a non-white president. But it is more than a mere mention in history textbooks that is at stake on Tuesday: an Obama victory would mark the culmination of a historical process and the beginning of a new era in race relations all across the Western hemisphere. It all began with the arrival of slaves from Africa and has continued intermittently with Asian, European and Latin American migratory waves. In West Europe the immigration is more recent and from Africa and the Middle East mainly. All the same, the last century or two have witnessed a remix of races that can only be compared to the barbarian migration to Rome back in the V century. That story did not end well as the Romans eventually abandoned the city and the Empire fell as a result. In the present case the prognosis is much better since the newcomers have integrated into the host societies—in fact, so much so that the next president of the most powerful one could be a newcomer.

Speaking more practically, race relations will most likely undergo a transformation as a result of this presidential campaign. While the non-white had traditionally been left out of the circuits of power, this has inevitably affected the interaction among individuals of different races and ethnicities. Having darker skin will no longer be a sign of powerlessness—whether or not one is willing to act upon this assumption. When going out to the street on Wednesday and seeing a black person we will have to contemplate the possibility that he or she could be a future president of the US. This slight change in our perception of one another can change American society for good and for the better.

Read More...

Summary only...