Unfortunately, the public battle between President Juan Manuel Santos and former President Alvaro Uribe regarding a peace deal with the FARC may be leading to a split in the Colombian armed forces.
Uribe is relentless, using every means of communication to undermine his former protégé. He's on Twitter daily dishing it out to his 3.7 million followers--just yesterday he complained about Santos insulting his mother.
This has sucked in the military, members of which have become more public with their views. Santos is trying to convince them that peace is good for the country and for the military, while Uribe pushes the notion that the FARC are terrorists who must be defeated only by force. He frames Santos as traitorous, deceitful, and weak.
It would be interesting to compare this situation to others in the region, particularly the end of Central American wars. In those cases the military was highly politicized, more so than Colombia. That would decrease once a peace accord is implemented, but what are the potential long-term impacts? Since the Colombian military has not been political, hopefully it can weather this difficult period and adjust to peace.
Saturday, April 25, 2015
Unfortunately, the public battle between President Juan Manuel Santos and former President Alvaro Uribe regarding a peace deal with the FARC may be leading to a split in the Colombian armed forces.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
More mainstream media attention on the accusations that U.S. soldiers raped Colombian children (in Time magazine). It's a balanced story, trying to start the difficult process of determining what's accurate.
The truth commission report was authorized at ongoing peace talks in Cuba between the Colombian government and the guerillas of . Twelve Colombian academics, half chosen by the government and half by the guerrillas, authored the report. Renan Vega, a left-wing university professor who wrote the chapter accusing the Americans of sex abuse, is a FARC appointee. Like the FARC, Vega is fiercely critical of U.S. troops and foreign contractors in Colombia whom he calls “mercenaries.”
What’s more, Vega’s allegations make up just one paragraph of the 800-page report. He does not cite criminal complaints or other sources to back up his claim of 53 sexual assaults. Vega could not be reached for comment. A spokesman for the Colombian Attorney General’s office said there is no record of widespread sexual abuse by U.S. troops or foreign contractors in the Melgar area in the mid-2000s.
“I would say there’s no truth to anything involving 50-plus people,” said Keith Sparks, who during the mid-2000s was country manager for DynCorp, one of the largest U.S. military contractors in Colombia. “We had at one point up to 1,000 employees. And there were never, on my watch, any accusations of rape.”
Still, some experts call the truth commission allegations troubling, especially in the wake of other instances of bad behavior by U.S. government employees in Colombia.This story is going to be fleshed out even more as reporters do a bit of digging.
Here are my previous posts about it.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Sixty million of Gov. Pat McCrory’s bond package will go toward replacing an “aging” building at UNC Charlotte.
Would he explain where all the money from exorbitant tuition and fees goes, if not toward maintaining the campus?
Seems like bond money should be used for the good of the majority of citizens, rather than a relatively small group of science students at a school that receives millions in taxes and donations.
Wow. Myths simply abound here. Who knows where "exorbitant" comes from, as we're quite cheap, and with limits to state funding we're barely keeping up with where we need to be. I have no idea how donations are relevant to anything, and it's important to note they are very often earmarked for something specific. And aging should not be in quotes. At 30 years old Burson is aging--there are problems, for example HVAC, that limit what Chemistry can do.
Worse, though, is the idea that having updated science facilities somehow is not good for taxpayers. Unlike other campuses in the UNC system, we're continuing to grow by leaps and bounds. Since I started in 2000, the student body has increased by roughly 12,000 students and that keeps going up. We can't afford to bring in more and more students who are unable to do the experiments they need. It is good for both Charlotte and North Carolina more broadly to have the best educated students we possibly can. It hurts all taxpayers for us to generate substandard students simply because we won't invest in badly needed science upgrades.
This writer clearly believes we're swimming in money, which is sad, especially when you start thinking about how many other North Carolinians have the same mistaken idea. The UNC system is the backbone of the state's economy, and it hurts all taxpayers to undermine it.
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
I'm very pleased that the final pre-production task is complete on the second edition of U.S. and Latin American Relations, which is the cover.
The anticipated publication date is July 2015. The history of this textbook has always been a topic on this blog. The first edition was born in my head in June 2003 in Chile. It came out in December 2007. I signed the second edition contract in October 2013. I got going seriously with the revising in January 2014. Now I hope I can get enough interest to have a third edition in a few more years.
UNC Charlotte has a trial subscription to the National Security Archive database, which I hope very much becomes permanent (which I've recommended but have no control over). It is both fun and interesting to read through documents, which are also useful for class. It also makes me wonder, not for the first time, what is being blacked out or not, and and why.
Take, for example, this short CIA 1976 intelligence assessment on the Somoza government's response to the Sandinistas.
What I thought was funny was the sloppiness on page 2. The CIA employee was getting bored. Further, though, the analysis is nothing a newspaper reporter wouldn't already know. Yet a big chunk of it is still blacked out.
The U.S. government has been obsessed with blacking out lots of stuff related to U.S.-Uruguayan relations in the 1970s as well, but the blacking out is just lazy. It's unclear whether the censors even know the material. The State Department Office of the Historian has complained about the ridiculous attitude of secrecy toward the 1954 Guatemala invasion. Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress actually voted not to release documents related to U.S.-Argentine relations in the 1970s.
The bottom line is that much of this secrecy is some combination of laziness and embarrassment. The U.S. government does not want to admit what everyone knows, namely its support for repressive governments and its complicity in serious human rights abuses. We'd be well served, however, by owning up to them and committing not to repeat them.
Monday, April 20, 2015
Jonathan Bernstein had a recent column in Bloomberg about frustrations political scientists have when non-political scientists persist in certain beliefs (like, say, the importance of presidential debates). Check out the Twitter hashtag #PSFrustration for more.
But all of his examples, along with a blog post by Julia Azari at The Mischiefs of Faction are from U.S. politics, so I would want to add a few that relate to U.S.-Latin American relations. I wish people understood that:
1. There is no united "left" in Latin America.
2. The image of the United States is quite positive in Latin America.
3. The United States is deeply engaged in Latin America.
4. Unilateral sanctions by the U.S. will not achieve their desired goals in Latin America.
5. The so-called "Drug War" in Latin America has been lost for a long time (though the fact that there will be a bipartisan look at this is encouraging).
I won't even bother with immigration, where Americans are so misinformed that the list is almost endless.
There is a proposal in the American Political Science Association to create a new, online-only open access journal. I am not sure we need a new journal, but the only way this one will have any real purpose is if it makes relevance more central.
The promotional strategy will draw on the combined strengths of APSA and Cambridge University Press, and take full advantage of the open access nature of the content. A dynamic social media strategy will be a key component to this plan, engaging with key blogs, media commentators, NGOs, think tanks, and government organizations with the goal of bringing cutting-edge political science research to the attention of groups that do not have the time or depth of knowledge to engage with the original articles. The provision of non-technical summaries with articles will support the work of translating academic work to a much broader audience. In addition, another important part of the promotional strategy will be to flag the journal to institutions at all levels as a key teaching resource.
The highlighted part needs more work. I am not sure what the "dynamic" strategy will be, but I hope authors go beyond merely a summary and are required to write something more akin to an op-ed or blog post. The problem in political science is not research, and not even necessarily firewalls. I don't think many people would read the American Political Science Review even if they could do so without restriction. Instead, we need to have brief and well-written analyses that go beyond just summarizing and instead contextualize the argument to demonstrate why anyone should give a damn about it.
My concern is that the journal's emphasis will be on open-access as an end to itself. Indeed, the conclusion doesn't mention relevance and lack of jargon at all.
APSA is one of the largest academic social science associations in the world. Consequently, it has a responsibility to provide intellectual, leadership for the social sciences around the world. Academic publishing is moving in the direction of more open access formats and social science scholars are facing higher expectations for openness and calls for greater diversity and innovation in research methods. The academy and political science in particular is more diverse on many different dimensions. An online-only open access journal will allow APSA to play a critical leadership role for the discipline and the social sciences that will redound to the overall benefit of the discipline, the study of politics and policy, and the engagement of the discipline in the public sphere.
This journal should not be just a showcase of disciplinary diversity. It needs to be a message to the world that we actually matter, and we can prove it.
Saturday, April 18, 2015
Sometimes, good policy just means not overreacting. Here is the State Department response to the deadly FARC attack.
The United States government offers condolences to the families of the eleven Colombian soldiers killed and the 20 soldiers wounded in Cauca on April 15. We reaffirm our continuing support to the government of Colombia in its efforts to end the nation’s 50 year conflict.
We condemn the brutal attack in Cauca orchestrated by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The offensive was in direct violation of the unilateral ceasefire they committed to last December. We support President Santos’ decision to continue negotiations but also lift his halt of aerial bombardment of FARC.
It is our sincere hope that negotiators reach an accord soon to bring peace to all Colombians.
When you read about the U.S. being disengaged, isolated, etc. then remember this. Negotiating the end to a long-term insurgency is delicate and difficult. This is a setback but we have no idea why it happened. The proper course is to keep the negotiations going.
Remember this too when you read about the U.S. supposedly turning its back on allies. This is difficult for the Juan Manuel Santos, who faces intense domestic criticism from the right, and the Obama administration is backing him.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Orlando Pérez and Mike Allison weigh in on the importance of history for understanding current U.S.-Latin American relations. I talked about this precise issue in my U.S.-Latin American Relations class this week, using this quote from President Obama:
Leftist leaders also celebrated Cuba's inclusion at the summit, even as they continued to complain about past abuses by the United States. Many of the events they cited took place before Obama was born.
"I always enjoy the history lesson," Obama said wryly during the summit's long-winded plenary session.
"I'm certainly mindful that there are dark chapters in our own history," he said. But while bashing the U.S. may serve some leaders' political needs, Obama added, "that's not going to bring progress. That's not going to solve the problems of children who can't read, who don't have enough to eat. It's not going to make our countries more productive or more competitive in a global economy."I made about the same point as Mike, though he sums it up more neatly: "necessary but not sufficient." In class we discuss all those abuses brought up by Latin American leaders (especially those on the left) and how U.S. policies have too often tended to have unintended and counterproductive effects. This is important for a better understanding of causes and effects.
But it does not mean, for example, that every discussion with Guatemala about child migrants must include lengthy analysis of the 1954 invasion. Or that dialogue between Barack Obama and Raúl Castro must get hung up on the Bay of Pigs. It's not that these things aren't important, but rather they are not always useful for solving any given problem.
On the other side of the ideological spectrum, it's not helpful to view current leftist leaders in a Cold War lens. Raúl Castro in 2015 isn't Raúl Castro in 1965. The FMLN in 2015 is not the FMLN in 1985. Insisting on that lens distorts current realities and makes solutions unnecessarily difficult to reach.
However, history does help us understand why U.S. sanctions on Venezuela make it more difficult for Latin American leaders to criticize the Maduro government. Past abuses generated a lasting belief in both non-intervention and disinclination to support the US when it targets particular Latin American governments. History does help us understand Cuba's obsession with particular issues that it sees as central to national dignity.
The mere fact that Obama continues to acknowledge that dark past is refreshing. Ideally, U.S. policy makers can use keen understanding of that past to forge current policies that won't repeat them.
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
I'm quoted in this story about the decision to remove Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. This is one of those rare issues where I write about some unchanging thing for years and then it actually changes in a common sense direction.
I think John Kerry made a good point:
While the United States has had, and continues to have, significant concerns and disagreements with a wide range of Cuba’s policies and actions, these concerns and disagreements fall outside of the criteria for designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.
This is not endorsing the Cuban dictatorship, or anything it does. It's just saying the years where Cuba actively supported terrorist groups are in the past. It was labeled a state sponsor in 1982 and the world is a very different place. Now this opens up more avenues for Cuba to get financing, which in turn will help its private sector, and that is precisely what the U.S. should want.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Check out Telesur's take on Marco Rubio's announcement of his presidential campaign. It offers a mix of fact and paranoia. Yes, he rants about leftist governments and supports sanctions against Venezuela. Yes, he's close to the anti-Castro lobby in Miami. Yes, he's banned from entering Venezuela and Nicaragua, to the extent that anyone cares. Then we have:
The Florida Senator met recently with Colombian former president and current Senator Alvaro Uribe to plot against the Venezuelan government, journalist Jose Vicente Rangel claimed Sunday.
Rubio has assumed the chairmanship of a Senate subcommittee on the Western hemisphere, which has given him full oversight of U.S. foreign policy across the Americas.You're in trouble as soon as you write "Jose Vicente Rangel claimed" because he is the King of Conspiracies.
As for "full oversight," I do not think it means what you think it means. My sense is that the editorial sees this as having a lot of power. But oversight is much different than the actual power of policy making. Rubio, like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, can have endless hearings on conspiratorial topics but the president is making policy (which at this point is obviously frustrating him).
Much of the U.S. right and the Latin American left have distorted and inaccurate views of each other, mixing facts and fears into an unhealthy combination. The notion that this could become part of the U.S. presidential campaign is simply depressing.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Here's a funny editorial at Xinhua News Agency, which is the state agency of the Chinese government. It makes two points:
First, it criticizes the U.S. for pursuing its own interests in Latin America, basically saying U.S. policy is based largely on protecting itself. That's hard to argue, since no one has ever suggested otherwise. But the critical tone is odd because of course this is also precisely what China is doing in Latin America. Does anyone think the Chinese government is selflessly buying up commodities and loaning money for the good of Latin America?
Second, the solution it suggests for U.S. policy makes no sense.
Starting from the 1st summit, U.S.-Latin American ties have grown increasingly complicated, as the United States imposes one after another unpopular policies despite resistance from Latin American countries.
If the United States is a true believer of "Prosperity with Equity," the theme of this year's summit, the FTAA would have already taken shape, benefiting member states, and the summit would serve as a friendly forum, rather than an arena for Uncle Sam to exert authority.
In other words, the U.S. imposes unpopular solutions so the answer is to impose an unpopular solution! The FTAA, of course, was declared dead by Hugo Chávez a decade ago because the idea was so unpopular. Perhaps Xinhua editorial writers were just asked to pump out some anti-U.S. narratives for the Summit of the Americas, and some of them don't know much about the topic.
Friday, April 10, 2015
Lots of stories/posts/tweets on the Summit of the Americas, mostly focusing on trivia. I thought I'd give my quick rundown on what's important and what's not.
- Low-profile talks on regional issues--energy, education, etc.--that don't necessarily result in big agreements but spark ongoing engagement. These are the bread and butter of why the U.S. isn't losing Latin America.
- The ability of the highest level Cuban and U.S. officials to talk in private in person, which will facilitate normalization of relations.
- The fact that even leftist governments are taking this summit seriously. For all the talk of imperialism, boycotts, etc. this summit--which was the brainchild of the United States--is something Latin American leaders want to attend.
- Whether Barack Obama and Raúl Castro shake hands. Or give fist bumps. Photo ops are overrated no matter their symbolism.
- The exact wording of any final declaration, if there is one. Evo Morales is mistaken when he says that declarations are the equivalent of unity.
- The Venezuelan crisis. For better or worse, this will be a lot of hot air, tied into clumsy U.S. policy. This doesn't mean the crisis itself isn't important, but that the summit won't likely be an effective forum for anyone.
- Rafael Correa, as one op-ed incorrectly claims. Though it might be weirdly entertaining to read his tweets.
Thursday, April 09, 2015
I mentioned in February that Jeb Bush had chosen Roger Noriega as one of his Latin America advisors. Noriega's current take is that President Obama is to blame for virtually everything in Latin America, and that we need to look to the model of Augusto Pinochet for inspiration. Why he consciously chose to mention Pinochet by name is beyond me, though he may well want to convey that the general is unfairly maligned.
Beyond that, he offers a tirade that at times is literally difficult to understand. For example:
Central American governments, whose promising economies were integrated into a free trade agreement with the United States just nine years ago, now are struggling to stem the tide of migrants fleeing poverty and drug-fueled violence.
He might be surprised to know that Central American governments are still integrated into the same free trade agreement; I don't know where he thinks it went. It actually makes more sense to ask what the correlation might exist between the two, but he chooses to blame Obama for...I'm not sure what.
Aside from that, he blames Obama in whole or in part for President Santos' negotiations with the FARC, Brazil and Mexico's economic problems, and of course Cuba and Venezuela.
Noriega and those who agree with him are usually referred to in terms of having a permanent Cold War mentality. Perhaps even more importantly, they reflect the firm belief that the U.S. must "fix" Latin America whether the region wants it or not. The U.S. knows best how to run your economy, deal with your internal conflicts, and run your government. If you disagree and certainly if you resist, you're an adversary.
Wednesday, April 08, 2015
In another sign of policy mismanagement, the Obama administration has come out and said it does not consider Venezuela a national security threat. At the time the policy was announced, the administration was comparing the Venezuelan situation to Iran and Syria, then later Roberta Jacobson wondered why no one in Latin America saluted when the sanctions flag went up.
What this boils down to is lack of foresight about how the new policy would be received in Latin America. Otherwise this walking back never would've been necessary in the first place. At the time I was reminded that all this threat language was just statutory, and my response was that words matter anyway--now the Obama administration seems to be waking up to that fact, belatedly realizing that regional leaders have to deal with the words and can't explain them away in legal niceties.
As a result, the U.S. goes to the Summit of the Americas under a cloud, and by its own words and actions has made Venezuela into a victim, which is the opposite of what the Obama administration wanted.
I read Chris DeRose's The Presidents' War: Six American Presidents and the Civil War That Divided Them (2014). I like the idea behind the book, because I had never really thought about how former presidents related to the civil war (as in, we need to think more about how John Tyler was a traitor). While entertaining, in my opinion the book falls short for two reasons.
First, there is no framework or main argument to make things hang together. There is no exploration of how ex-presidents function in the United States, or precisely how the civil war shaped that. In the absence of a main argument, we just have a description of presidents and former presidents doing things. Further, as I read I realized there was another theme that DeRose depicts but never acknowledges, which is Abraham Lincoln's genius in ignoring former presidents. Indeed, DeRose periodically mentions how Lincoln assuredly received such and such letter from Fillmore or whomever, but didn't respond.
This is important because the former presidents had all kicked the can of slavery down the road in one way or another, and Lincoln was the first to refuse the same response. Lincoln was so much more farsighted than the others that he knew their advice would likely be bad. Making this the central theme of the book would've provided much greater clarity to the narrative.
Second, the book feels rushed. Major events get skipped over, so the narrative moves from John Tyler not feeling well to a funeral. He died somewhere in there of something but it never actually gets mentioned. Sometimes battlefield description are detailed and sometimes not, without any clear sense of why. Then the book ends very abruptly. I was left with the impression that DeRose had this neat idea and just wanted to get it into print as quickly as possible. This impression was reinforced by the acknowledgments, which indicate DeRose first go the idea in 2012, and the book came out in June 2014.
That said, it's well-written and still fun to read how the ex-presidents dealt with/felt about the civil war.
Tuesday, April 07, 2015
Joel W. Johnson, "Presidential Elections and Corruption Perceptions in Latin America," Journal of Politics in Latin America 7, 1 (2015): 111-142.
Abstract (full text available):
This paper argues that perceptions of corruption in Latin America exhibit predictable fluctuations in the wake of presidential turnover. Specifically, presidential elections that result in the partisan transfer of power are normally followed by a surge-and-decline pattern in perceived corruption control, with initial improvements that fade with time. The causes are multiple and stem from the removal of corrupt administrations, public enthusiasm about administrative change, and the relative lack of high-level corruption scandals in the early phases of new governments. A statistical analysis of two widely used corruption perceptions indices demonstrates the pattern for eighteen Latin American democracies from 1996 to 2010. Both indices exhibit a temporary surge (of about two years) after turnover elections, while no such change follows reelections of incumbent presidents or parties. The theory and results are relevant for understanding public opinion in Latin America and for the analysis of corruption perceptions indices.
This made me think of Brazil. Dilma Rousseff is drowning in a corruption scandal and trying to send bills to the legislature to convince people she's serious about fighting it. It's fair to say that few Brazilians will respond positively. At some point there will be presidential turnover and the new president will trumpet new anti-corruption measures. Public confidence will increase, then likely fade again. Wash, rinse, repeat.