No Surprises: Highest Murder Rates in the World

Latin America has the highest murder rates for young people in the world, according to a recently published study by the Brazilian research group - the Latin American Technological Information Network, Ritla

For youngsters growing up in crime-ridden countries like El Salvador, Colombia or Venezuela the chances of being murdered are almost 30 times higher than in Europe. The study looked at 83 countries across the world and depressingly Latin America came out as the region with most youth killings in proportion to its population. And the readings become even more depressing if you choose to include Caribbean nations - as this grim top 10 list of youth killings per 100.000 indicates:

1. El Salvador: 48.8
2. Colombia: 43.8
3. Venezuela: 29.5
4. Guatemala: 28.5
5. The Virgin Islands: 28.4
6. Brazil: 25.2
7. Santa Lucia: 24.5
8. Puerto Rico: 19.1
9. Guyana: 18.0
10. Ecuador: 18.0

A news article of this story can be found on the BBC website: "Latin America tops murder tables",

Venezuealan Regional Elections

The media spotlight was again on Venezuela this last weekend as regional elections were held. Would President Chavez consolidate power, would the opposition make significant gains, and would the perceived under-attack democratic norms be upheld?

In the end it was a case of both sides being able to claim some form of victory - Chavistas won the popular vote (53.5%) and 17 of the 22 states; the main opposition group won 5 states, amongst which were Miranda and Zulia, the country's two most populous states. The opposition was also able to win the mayoral elections in Caracas. As the map below shows, support for president Chavez remains on the face of it pretty solid throughout the country. However the fact that the opposition gained support in the highly populous and electorally crucial "coastal corridor", seems to suggest that the large sway of red Chavista support marginally overstates the extent of Chavez's popularity.

All in all these elections haven't told us anything that we didn't know before. Yes, Chavez remains popular throughout much of Venezuela. But also, the opposition support is gaining momentum, bouyed by the victory in the last referendum alongside good mobilisation of supporters in the country's larger cities. And of course the substantial downturn in oil prices has its effects on which way the votes swing. Drop any further and Chavez will be unlikey to dare push for a referendum that would allow him to run for re-election (again) in 2012.

As far as democratic norms are concerned the electoral commission described the conduct of voters as exemplary, and Hugo Chavez was almost magnamonious in defeat:

"We lost the governorship of Miranda and we recognise the triumph of our adversaries," he said. "How can anyone say there is a dictatorship in Venezuela? I, as head of state, recognise their triumphs and I hope that they'll recognise the head of state."

For a detailed, though slight pro-government, review of the election try the Venezualan Information Centre (VIC) Bloggers at Caracas Chronicles also have detailed reports, graphs and opinions on the outcome of the elections.

Financial & Economic Crisis hits Latin America

It was the turn of Latin America's stock market to take a nose dive this Wednesday - "Dark day for faltering LatAm stocks" . In Chile they dropped 6.3%, in Mexico by 7 %, in Brazil by 10%, and last but by no means least Argentina, where they dropped by 18%.

The magnitude of the drop in Argentina was provoked when President Cristina Fernandez announced plans to nationalise the private pension funds.

She said the nationalisation would protect retirement funds from the global financial crisis, but analysts said the move would drain company access to private capital. Argentina's Congress is expected to approve the proposal within weeks. BBC News: "Turmoil in Latin American Markets".

Privare investors have been upin arms, not least a Merrill Lynch executive who stated bluntly that his bank had now written off any investment plans in Argentina "for at least the next half decade." - AFP, "Latin America in Jaws of Global Crisis"

As I mentioned in an earlier post - "Global Depression: So What About Latin America" - much of the worry in Latin America on the back of the current world financial crisis, stems not so much from the so-called credit crunch, but rather the sharp recession that's meant to hit the world's major markets in the Northern hemisphere, and the decline in commodity prices that it will entail.

Correspondents say international demand is declining for many of Latin America's commodity exports, including oil, copper, iron ore and soy as global growth slows amid the current financial global crisis BBC News, "Turmoil in Latin American Markets".

Whilst demand may be faltering in the US and Europe, demand from the likes of China is still bouyant.

This is not to say that all is as gloomy as one could fear. Precious global recessions have tended to hit Latin America harder than most. The analogy of "when the US economy sneezes, the rest of the world cathces a cold, but Latin America catches phnuemonia" having proven to be quite fitting in th past. This time round things may be slightly different. According to former Mexican foreign minister, Jorge Castañeda:

the region would be largely impervious to the recent crisis. Mexico, Chile, Brazil and Uruguay should manage just fine, emerging with only bruises and scrapes, he argued. Colombia and Peru would weather the storm, though suffering greater harm. But he warned of "severe damage" for Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Central America and the Caribbean. BBC News, "Brazil squares up to an economic storm"

The severe damage awaiting Venezuela has much to do with the sudden drop in oil prices. Overdependent on oil revenues, Venezuela's extensive public spending could be seriouly affected if oil prices continue on this downward trend. It is therefore no surprise that Venezuela qill be pushing for oil output cuts at this week's hastily convened OPEC gathering in Vienna.

Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael D. Ramirez said the OPEC members "have to take some action now, now," adding that Friday's meeting will reach "consensus to take a very, very, very fast action." Xinhua, "OPEC members divided over oilput cut"

Last week I attended a public meeting at the Houses of Parliament here in London, where Venezuelan ambassador to the UK, Samuel Moncada, whilst almost gleeful in his depiction of the collapse of the world's financial system, had to admit that Venezuela faced difficult times ahead. So what about all the windfall funds from record-high oil prices that the Venezuelan had been meant to have store away for precisely those times when the oil prices were on the fall? Well, according to the ambassador this would only cover Venezuela's problems for a mere 2-3 months.

Latin America Debated in the US Presidential Debates

Latin America has been notable only its absent from the US Presidential debates.

In the first two debates between Barack Obama and John McCain and the VP debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin Latin America was mentioned fleetingly, Hugo Chávez denounced as a demagogue and Palin accusing Obama of wanting to have sit down in direct talks with the ‘Castro Brothers’. Nothing very substantial at all.

To everyone’s relief the 3rd debate proved a whole lot more invigorating and most noteworthy, for this blog, a couple of important issues relating to Latin America were discussed - dependency on Venezuelan oil, NAFTA, FTAs with Peru and Colombia.

Here is a transcript excerpt from the debate:

SCHIEFFER: All right. Can we reduce our dependence on foreign oil and by how much in the first term, in four years?

MCCAIN: I think we can, for all intents and purposes, eliminate our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and Venezuelan oil. Canadian oil is fine. By the way, when Senator Obama said he would unilaterally renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Canadians said, "Yes, and we'll sell our oil to China." You don't tell countries you're going to unilaterally renegotiate agreements with them.

[…]

OBAMA: I think that in ten years, we can reduce our dependence so that we no longer have to import oil from the Middle East or Venezuela. I think that's about a realistic timeframe. Now I just want to make one last point because Senator McCain mentioned NAFTA and the issue of trade and that actually bears on this issue. I believe in free trade. But I also believe that for far too long, certainly during the course of the Bush administration with the support of Senator McCain, the attitude has been that any trade agreement is a good trade agreement. And NAFTA doesn't have -- did not have enforceable labor agreements and environmental agreements.

[…]

MCCAIN: Now, on the subject of free trade agreements. I am a free trader. And I need -- we need to have education and training programs for displaced workers that work, going to our community colleges. But let me give you another example of a free trade agreement that Senator Obama opposes. Right now, because of previous agreements, some made by President Clinton, the goods and products that we send to Colombia, which is our largest agricultural importer of our products, is -- there's a billion dollars that we -- our businesses have paid so far in order to get our goods in there. Because of previous agreements, their goods and products come into our country for free. So Senator Obama, who has never traveled south of our border, opposes the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The same country that's helping us try to stop the flow of drugs into our country that's killing young Americans. And also the country that just freed three Americans that will help us create jobs in America because they will be a market for our goods and products without having to pay -- without us having to pay the billions of dollars -- the billion dollars and more that we've already paid.Free trade with Colombia is something that's a no-brainer. But maybe you ought to travel down there and visit them and maybe you could understand it a lot better.

OBAMA: Let me respond. Actually, I understand it pretty well. 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. And what I have said, because the free trade -- the trade agreement itself does have labor and environmental protections, but we have to stand for human rights and we have to make sure that violence isn't being perpetrated against workers who are just trying to organize for their rights, which is why, for example, I supported the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement which was a well-structured agreement. But I think that the important point is we've got to have a president who understands the benefits of free trade but also is going to enforce unfair trade agreements and is going to stand up to other countries.

And here's a video excerpt from the debate that highlights Obama's and McCain's differences regarding a possible FTA with Colombia:

South American World Cup Qualification - 10th Round

In a brief post here are the results from matchday 10 of South American qualifying competition for the World Cup.

• Chile vs. Argentina: 1-0
• Bolivia vs. Uruguay: 2-2
• Paraguay vs. Peru: 1-0
• Brazil vs. Colombia: 0-0
• Venezuela vs. Ecuador: 3-1

These results leaving the qualifying table looking like this:

1. Paraguay: 23 pts.
2. Brazil: 17 pts
3. Argentina 17 pts.
4. Chile 16 pts.
5. Uruguay 13 pts.
6. Ecuador 12 pts.
7. Colombia 11 pts.
8. Venezuela 10 pts.
9. Bolivia 9 pts.
10. Peru 7 pts.
    

Paraguay are seemingly running away with the qualification campaign leaving the region's giants - Brazil and Argentina - to fumble about, scrapping points against teams they should normally be able to put away with ease. For Argentina, their defeat away to Chile, the first time this has happened in absolute eons, marked the end for Argentine coach Alfio Basile. The writing had supposedly been on the wall for a good few months now. Lacklustre performances, an endless procession of drab draws in recent matches was not want the Argentine public were demanding. Especailly since Argentina stormed to a gold medal at the Olympics, sweeping aside Brazil along the way. But, this under the guidance of the younger a more attack-minded Sergio Batista - Basile having opted of a leading the young Argentine squad at the Olympics.

Here is what BBC's Latin American football specialist Tim Vickery of Basile's legacy:

But as Basile leaves the scene, he deserves to be remembered. He is one of the game's romantics, for whom the joy of expression speaks louder than the fear of defeat - a philosophy that might be old fashioned, but which should never be out of date.

He remains the last Argentina coach to win a title at senior level - the 1991 and 93 Copa America triumphs from his first spell in charge, which ended with one of the great World Cup matches of recent times, the 3-2 defeat to Romania in 1994. It was a classic tie of attack versus counter-attack, made attractive by the fact that Argentina accepted the risks of taking the game to their opponents.

The highlight of his second spell, before the breakdown in relationships started corroding performance, came last year in the Copa America.It ended in tears, stiffled and picked off by Brazil in the final. But the previous matches were an exhibition of passing football, patient and audacious, hypnotic and dazzling. Being there in Venezuela to watch Alfio Basile's side in action was an immense privilege

Qualification games take a bit of a break for the next few months, with the next not taking place until late March. Plenty of time I'm sure for the Argentine media to get hyped up about the return of the prodigal son, Maradonna, as a possible successor.

Global Depression: So What about Latin America?

In the midst of the financial turmoil that has swept ominously across North America and Europe, news how this may affect Latin American economies – traditionally so dependent upon the state of the U.S economy – has been somewhat hard to come by in the British press.

Nevertheless, last week’s The Economist did have an article highlighting the numerous pessimistic scenarios that may be played out in Latin America as a result of the financial turmoil in the world’s credit markets – “Keeping their fingers crossed”. True to its right-of-centre, pro-market editorial line it predicted that the “badly behaved” economies (i.e. overly statist and anti-neoliberal), such as those in Venezuela and Argentina, are the one that are most vulnerable.

Their vulnerability stems not so much from the lack of credit available to them, but their overreliance on commodities: Venezuela on oil, Argentina on agricultural produce. The belief being that a downturn in the world economy would naturally lead to a slump in commodity prices.

Other Latin American countries look set to be hit by a decline in commodity prices as they have fallen to the age-old temptation of overspending when times have been good and consequently saving little for when times worsen. Bucking the trend, as is so often the case when it comes to perceived sound economic management, is Chile where its copper stabilization fund should insolate the economy from a slump in copper prices.

Fortunately for the likes of Brazil, Colombia and Peru – “the well-behaved countries” in The Economist’s tinted eyes – their trade surpluses and balanced budgets, records of year-on-year growth, and lack of dependency on the increasingly limited sources of foreign credit should offer their respective economies the means to avoid the recession that has so often followed in the wake of U.S. downturns.

But all isn’t rosy in the case of Mexico, and indeed with most Central American and Caribbean nations. By remaining so dependent on US markets and remittances from relatives working in the US, the severity of the economic crisis facing the US will have the inevitable effect of casting a long murky shadow over their economies. Perhaps this will nail home the argument that despite the lure of the US market Latin American nations can only benefit from diversifying trading partners, increasing regional trade and so on.

In the aftermath of all this financial mess it seems likely – especially if the Democrats retake the White House – that all proposed free trade agreements with Latin America are to be put firmly on hold; furthering the need for Latin America to look towards China and the rest of Asia.

Despite the relative upbeat tones, The Economist makes sure to hammer home that it will be the Bolivarian following of Chavéz et al and their economic populist policies that have most to fear from the global credit crunch.

Anti-Americanism Alive and Well in Latin America

An e-mail in my inbox asked me to part with a few hours of my time last Wednesday, standing outside in the Autumn cold and picketing the US embassy here in London. US ambassadors to Bolivia and Venezuela were in the space of a couple of days sent packing amidst accusations of fomenting regional violence in Bolivia and plotting to overthrow Chávez. According to the protesters:

US President George W Bush has made it his top priority to overthrow the new left-wing governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and others before he leaves office at the end of the year (www.handsoffvenezuela.org)

Whilst I have no doubt that the US would shed no tears if either Evo Morales or Hugo Chávez were finally toppled, the recent expulsions of the respective US ambassadors has far more to do with Morales' and Chávez's populist support to a large extent consolidated by their anti-US positions.

With Russian battleships on course for Venezuelan waters for joint exercises, US may indeed have cause for concern regarding Chávez's strategic alliances - "Russian navy sails to Venezuela." Is this yet more evidence of yesteryear's Cold War battle lines being redrawn as Russia strengthens its ties in and increases its presence in Latin America - just as it did in Cuba in the 1960s? And then there are continuing anti-democratic measures taken by Chávez; the most recent being the expelling of human rights activists after having accused Chávez's government of "openly endors[ing] acts of discrimination" - "Venezuela expels two human rights activist" But are these legitimate causes for concern enough for the US to reattempt its misguided foray into overthrowing democratically elected leaders?

And what does the US gain from further destabilising Bolivia? Aside from the issue of Morales' government not doing enough to cut down on coca production, there is very little his government can be accused of that directly goes against US interests. The US has little interest in Bolivian gas reserves and their recent nationalisation. And surely they must realise that the toppling of a President that only weeks was strengthened his mandate with 67% of the popular vote in the recall referendum.

The history of US interventionism etched into the Latin American psyche, the extent to which it imbues populist rhetoric, ultimately renders the need for sound reasoning behind these anti-US conspiracies completely unnecessary. Even with George Bush at the helm, this mode of politics should not play a central role in any Latin American nations' foreign policy. Yes, the USA is by no means the 'Good Neighbour' it had once set itself up to be. But far more stands to be lost in the long-term by doing your utmost to strain relations with USA, merely for the purpose of short-term populist/nationalist gains.

This is not to say that the US are wholeheartedly innocent either. Failing to show strong enough support for the democratically-elected leaders of both countries is seen as a green light for opposition movements in Venezuela and Bolivia to challenge their Presidents in any way they see fit - as was the case with the failed coup in Venezuela in 2002 and with the violence in Bolivia right now.

Needless to say I did not spend last Wednesday afternoon picketing the US embassy.

South American World Cup Qualification - 6th Round

Whilst Brazil's former coach was getting knocked out of Euro 2008 with Portugal, his former side weren't making much progress back in South America. Brazil played out a dreary 0-0 draw against arch-rivals Argentina in the so-called clásico. A result that now leaves them in 5th place in the South American qualification table for the 2010 World Cup. Of course the Brazilian press were quick to pile the criticism on Brazil's coach Dunga

The Brazilian media were in no doubt as to who was responsible for the Canarinha's unsatisfactory showing. The harshest criticism came from Lance!, which ran with a cover featuring Dunga's head inside a noose and topped by the headline "Hung". "Brazil draw with Argentina as the fans vent their fury on coach - Zico now the popular choice," fumed the sports daily.O'Globo also registered its displeasure on its website. "Dunga gets the donkey treatment as off-key Brazil draw 0-0 with Argentina," ran the merciless headline. Publishing a photo of Ronaldinho in the stands at the Estadio Mineirao, the website added that the Barcelona man and Kaka were sorely missed, stating that "without them the future looks bleak". With Brazil's other stars having another off day, O'Globo also remarked on the warm applause Lionel Messi received when he was substituted.Running with a front page photo of a closely marked Adriano trapping the ball on his chest, Jornal do Brasil opted for a short but no less powerful headline: "270 minutes without a goal". The online version of the paper was just as critical: "Even with the Mineirao right behind them, Brazil were incapable of beating Argentina. To cap it all, the fans chanted 'Dunga out' as he made his way off the pitch. All in all, a sad goodbye for a coach who had stakedeverything on this game."Joining in the chorus of disapproval was Folha de Sao Paulo. "What a miserable clásico", it complained before highlighting the fans' displeasure: "The crowd whistled the team and demanded Dunga's sacking." (source: fifa.com)

Otherwise results of note included group leaders Paraguay losing 4-2 to Bolivia. Bottom spot in the group now belongs to Peru after being 6-0 thumping by Uruguay. And Chile have now displaced Brazil from the important 4th place spot - the top 4 teams qualify for the World Cup -with an exciting 3-2 away win to Venezuela.

Results:

• Brazil vs Argentina: 0-0
• Venezuela vs Chile: 2-3
• Ecuador vs Colombia: 0-0
• Uruguay vs Peru: 6-0
• Bolivia vs Paraguay 4-2

Table:

1. Paraguay.....13 pts
2. Argentina....11 pts
3. Colombia.....10 pts
4. Chile.............10 pts
5. Brazil.............9 pts
6. Uruguay........8 pts
7. Venezuela.....7 pts
8. Ecuador.........5 pts
9. Bolivia............4 pts
10. Peru...............3 pts

Here is a good youtube video with all the highligts from this weeks' games. Disfrutenlo!

Latin America Pays for the Price for Fuel Subsidy

Before sitting down in the library, to get on with my dissertation reading, I quickly paged through the Financial Times – one of the few, if only, British newspapers that tends to print interesting Latin American politics/economic articles. Today there was an interesting analysis piece about how Latin American governments are facing increasing pressures to cut fuel subsidies in the face of the ever-increasing oil prices. “Latin America pays the Price for Fuel Subsidy.”

Here in the U.K. a day doesn’t go by without further doom and gloom reports about the negative effects oil price increases are having on the average Brit, especially as they go to fill-up at the petrol station. A news story that is being played out across much of the world.

However in Latin America - as had been the case, up until recently, in Asia – governments have been subsidising petrol prices to tune of some ridiculously large billion-dollar sum. In this way Latin American motorists can still enjoy petrol prices a little as 5p a litre, whilst the rest of the world’s motorists have to dig deeper and deeper into their pockets to fill up their cars.

source: The Financial Times 17/06/2008

Why are they doing this? Perhaps Latin American governments are aware of the vital importance access to cheap petrol is for so many of their citizens. Any sudden increase in prices will surely effect these nations in more ominous ways than we in the West would be effected by such price changes. The FT rarely does economics with a ‘human face’ so these issues don’t get much of a mention in the FT piece. However what they do focus on are the possible consequences a sudden increase in petrol prices may have on inflation.

The reason for the lack of reform is pretty clear. Of all regions in the world, Latin America has most reason to fear the effects of inflation. During the 1970s, 80s and early 90s the pace and scale of price rises corroded the social fabric of many countries. Inflation rates of 100 per cent a year were commonplace, wrecking the ability of governments and businesses to plan for the future. As Guillermo Ortiz, the governor of the Mexican Central Bank, said: “Latin America has gone through high inflation for so long. Lowering the rate has been a cherished achievement.” In Chile, which imports almost all of its fuel needs and where annual inflation was running at 8.9 per cent in May – three times the central bank’s target – the new price subsidies will cut that rate by 0.3 percentage points, according to Angel Cabrera, a local consultant.

An interesting point.

However as the price for oil rises, the subsidies have to increase, and are subsequentlybecoming a conseiderable fiscal burden, which in itself may well curtail government spending in other important areas. The question is whether this outweighs the threat of higher inflation and the problems that would arise from that?

The FT ends by highlighting how cheap access to petrol does little to motivate a lower use of petrol in the long-run, something which mus be a desirable end in itself - be it to combat climate change, to free up some of Latin America’s clogged up innercity roads etc.

More seriously, the subsidies are distorting incentives. While higher oil prices have stimulated many developed countries to save energy and make more efficient use of resources, there has been no sign yet of this happening in Latin America. In Venezuela, for example, domestic petrol consumption is estimated to have doubled over the last five years to around 600,000 barrels a day. The low cost also creates incentives for smugglers, who sell petrol across the border in Colombia, where fuel is much more expensive.

South American World Cup Qualification - 5th Round

So whilst the major European soccer power (minus England, I guess) slug it out for the European championship this summer, South American nations took another step in their long and arduous qualifying campaign for the 2010 World Cup. Up until now, after 4 games, the story had been of Paraguay leading the way with 10 points, and I guess of Brazil still not having started to fire on all cylinders, with only 2 wins from 4 games.

Well yesterday’s 5th round of qualifying matches emphasised those points with Paraguay stunning the Brazilians with a 2-0 victory in Asuncion. With plenty of games still to go and the first 4 teams guaranteed qualification there is no need to push the Brazilian panic button quite yet, but still…

Otherwise it’s a case of ‘as you were’ with all 3 of the ties ending in draws and Bolivia predictably losing to their age-old enemies Chile in La Paz – so much for the advantage of altitude. And also of note is Venezuela's progress. They're normally the team cemented to the bottom, given how Baseball probably overrides football as their national sport.


Bolivia vs. Chile 0-2
Argentina vs. Ecuador 1-1
Peru vs. Colombia 1-1
Uruguay vs. Venezuela 1-1
Paraguay vs. Brazil 2-0

_______________________

The table now looks a bit like this:

1. Paraguay 13 pts

2. Argentina 10 pts

3. Colombia 9 pts

4. Brazil 8 pts

5. Venzuela 7 pts

6. Chile 7 pts

7. Uruguay 5 pts

8. Ecuador 4 pts

9. Peru 3 pts

10. Bolivia 1 pt

________________

Below are a few youtube video highligths of the differetn games. The quailty isn't great but the audio commentary is as outrageously South American as one could hope for. Enjoy...

Paraguay vs. Brazil: 2-0

Argentina vs. Ecuador: 1-1

Bolivia vs. Chile: 0-2

Peru vs. Colombia: 1-1

Uruguay vs. Venezuela: 1-1

The next round of games take place later this week with the obvious highlight being the battle of the titans- Brazil vs Argentina. Paraguay should also be looking to consolidate thier lead at the top of the table with a relatively easy game against the Bolivians. But I'll make sure to let you all know how they got on.

Hugo Chavez and the 'U-Turn'

So there I was in my previous post - "Good News, Bad News; from the Havana-Caracas Axis" -trying to paint Hugo Chavez into a less than agreeable corner. Well this weekend the news coming out of Caracas is that Chavez has made significant, positive U-turns on two contentious policy issues.

First off he has called upon FARC to end their struggle and release all their hostages. Quite a turn around from a few months ago when he was trying to get the rest of the international community to see FARC, not as terrorist organisation but as a legitimate army. This, of course, did little to help Venezuelan – Colombian relations.

Mr Chavez, whom Colombia has accused of financing the Farc, said they were "out of step" and their war was "history". In his weekly television and radio programme on Sunday, Mr Chavez urged the Farc's new leader, Alfonso Cano, to "let all these people go". "There are old folk, women, sick people, soldiers who have been prisoners in the mountain for 10 years," he added. The Venezuelan president said ending the rebellion could lead to a peace process between the rebels and the Colombian government. "The guerrilla war is history," he said. "At this moment in Latin America, an armed guerrilla movement is out of place." ('End Struggle, Chavez urges FARC', BBC News 09/06/2008)

Secondly Chavez has agreed to change the so-called ‘spy law’ that had proven so controversial.

He acknowledged "errors" in the newly enacted Law on Intelligence and Counterintelligence and will fix them to assure it fully complies with Venezuela's Constitution. He gave examples and cited Article 16 that cites the possibility of prison terms for persons not cooperating with intelligence services. It's a "mistake," said Chavez and "not a small (one)." The new intelligence services won't oblige anyone to inform on others. Doing so is "overstepping," and "I assume responsibility" for the error and will fix it. He continued: "Where we make mistakes, we must accept this and not defend the indefensible....I guarantee to the country, in Venezuela (this law will assault) no one! And no one will be obliged to say more than they want to say....(We) will never attack the freedom of Venezuelans, independently of their political positions. Liberty....is one of the slogans of our socialism." ("Chavez Revising, Not Revoking Venezuela's New Intelligence Law" - Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel 09/06/2008)

This is all very well, but what I think is most worrying about Chavez’s running of Venezuela has more to do with his mismanagement of the Venezuelan economy. An economy which should be booming given the state of record-high oil prices. He may wish to redistribute wealth and create as much social justice as he want, but this is no good without the sound management of an economy that ist as inflation-hit and unattractive to investment as is the case right now.

With the country's most recent statistics showing consumer price rises of 29.1% in the 12 months to the end of March - the highest rate of increase in Latin America - now might not be the best time for inflation-busting pay deals. But on 1 May, Mr Chavez gave public sector workers an across-the-board salary increase of 30%. [...] GDP grew at a rate of 10.3% in both 2005 and 2006, but this slowed to 8.4% in 2007, while the respected survey organisation Consensus Economics forecasts that it will grow by just 5.6% in 2008. [...] Instead of investing in PDVSA to increase production, the government has used the firm as a cash cow, milking its funds to finance social programmes. [...] There is strong evidence that Mr Chavez's nationalisation programme, which has also extended to electricity, telecoms and the cement industry, is frightening off foreign investors. None of this appears to be doing ordinary Venezuelans any good. The lack of investment has left industry unable to keep up with growing consumer demand, while price controls imposed by Mr Chavez on about 400 basic goods have led to food shortages. ("Chavez in pre-election cash spree" BBC News 26/05/2008)

As the age-old saying goes, "it's about the economy stupid!" So whilst we can argue back and forth about his democratic credentials, his ability to do the right thing with regard to terrorist groups in neighbouring countries, his ability to maximize Venezuelan growth as a means to enhance sustainable development is what really mattes. And on that front he does seem to be someway off the mark for now.

For more on the issues I've mentioned, check out this piece in the International Herald Tribune, "Timely reversals show Chávez's political instincts"

Good News, Bad News - from the ‘Havana-Caracas Axis’

Not long after Bush, Rumfelds et. al., creation of the so-called ‘Axis of Evil’ it became commonplace to come up with a whole host of other minor axes that were concocting various threats to US power. The ‘Havana – Caracas’ Axis is a case in point. An axis that joined the scheming socialist plans of Castro and Chavez, into some form of simmering Caribbean cocktail of menace. For more on this do read this paper, The Cuba-Venezuela Alliance: “Emancipatory neo-Bolivarismo or Totalitarian Expansion?




However, things aren’t as simplistic as this. Instead of a single narrative that highlights the increasing reality of this ‘Havana-Caracas Axis’ it seems that in recent months two slightly diverging narratives are taking place. One that exemplifies that spate of positive reforms undertaken by Raul Castro in Cuba. The other where Hugo Chavez remains demonized as the leader-in-chief of the ‘Bad Left’ taking the continent down a dark and well-trodden path towards inevitable failure. Read Obama’s recent view on Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela

No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum. His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past. But the United States is so alienated from the rest of the Americas that this stale vision has gone unchallenged, and has even made inroads from Bolivia to Nicaragua (Remarks of Senator Obama: Renewing U.S. leadership in the Americas 23/05/08)

Every week now it seems as if yet another piece of Chavez legislation is branded about by the world press to exemplify his anti-democratic, anti-freedom credentials and entrench the ‘Bad Left’ narrative that Chavez personifies. This week for example it was all about,

a new intelligence law brought in by Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has caused concern among rights groups who say it threatens civil liberties (BBC News 07/06/2008)

On the flip side, a week doesn’t seem to go by without a tale ofet more Cuban reforms that vary from allowing ordinary Cubans access to mobile phones to the implementation of gradual free-market policies. This week, news coming out of Havana highlights the change in attitude toward gay rights,

with reforms that could give Cuba the most liberal gay rights in Latin America, says the BBC's Michael Voss in Havana (BBC News 07/06/2008)

This cobbled together with the reaching out of Presidential hopeful, Obama, towards the Cuban regime, indicates a narrative that emphasizes how Fidel’s little brother Raul is far more likely to bring Cuba back into the international fold, and how bit by bit he is transforming the country for the better.

Venezuelan Flags on London Buses

I have always found it slightly curious to see the Venezuelan flag plastered on the back of some of London’s red double-decker buses.

Travelling through Latin America you become accustomed to seeing little EU or Japanese flags dotted here, there and everywhere, announcing their financial support for the next important humanitarian project. But why should an already impoverished nation be making such an effort to help one of the richest cities in the world?

Well by means of subsidised Venezuelan oil some of the poorest people of London have been able to benefit from reduced bus fares. But what does Venezuela, or rather Hugo Chavez, get out of this? Well aside from the little Venezuelan sticker on the back of buses I guess it was no more than a slap in the face against Tony Blair, one of Chavez’s more vocal critics abroad. In the same essence Chavez has been providing cheap heating oil to poor inner-city neighbourhoods in the US.

I shouldn’t be so cynical, should I? This is how the deal was officially meant to look like:

“This was a mutually beneficial agreement through which Venezuela had assisted 80,000 of the poorest people in London who receive half price bus and tram fares as a result of a reduction in the price of fuel for London's bus fleet. In return, London provided Venezuela with specialist technical expertise and assistance in areas such as transport, town planning and protection of the environment and other issues related to developing a modern world city. The main beneficiaries of this technical aid would have been the poorest residents of Caracas”(Venezuela Information Centre 27/05/08)

However with the election of a new – conservative - London mayor, Boris Johnson, the deal has been scrapped. Despite how much I would have liked to have believed the official rhetoric, that there was some altruistic motive behind Chavez’s donation to the disadvantaged people of London, and that the world could indeed have benefited from such examples of North-South collaboration, it’s probably makes sense to end this deal. Surely the Venezuelan people are in more need of subsidized oil than us here in London. And Chavez really shouldn’t be playing such cheap political games with the very assets that are needed to develop Venezuela.

Still I have to say I’ll miss seeing those little Venezuelan flags on our buses here. They always bring a wry smile to my face with the realization that ripple effects of change in Latin America have is some strange and peculiar way reached us here in London.

Chávez Tightens Grip on Venezuela Economy

Here's another interesting account of what the Venezuelan economy under Chavez and his socialist experiment looks like at the moment (Chavez tighthens grip on Venezuela economy).

The present situation isn't looking to good with food shortages and an ever-present high inflation rate hurting the people Chavez was meant to help in the first place.

Naturally Chavez, not one to back-track, is continuing his socialist experiment with a yet a new wave of takeovers of private companies in whole range of sectors. Some would argue that he is merely reversing some of the privatisation that took place in the 'dark neoliberal ages' of the 1990s, and that the Venezuelan economy is still made up of a healthy mixture of both state- and privately-owned companies.

However desirable nationalisation may be - given your ideological stance - that fact is that foreign investment is running away from Venezuela. What's the point of investing in a country when a few years down the line you might find government officials at your factory gate with a piece of paper (signed by Chavez) that your assets now belong to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. And despite the government offering compensation, these are often far less than what would be deemed acceptable.

To bridge this investor gap, Chavez is seeking out joint ventures with the likes of Cuba and Iran. As much as I disagree with US paranoid-driven stance towards these countries, you're honestly not making life much easier for yourself when you specifically go out of your way to befriend Washington's arch enemies. And it's not like Cuba and Iran are the economic power houses of the world either.

Otherwise the article list a whole list of policy measures that signify the increased entrenchment Chavez.

Question remains: is there going to be a peaceful conclusion to all this?

Venezuela - An Empty Revolution?

Criticisms of Hugo Chavez, his authoritarian tendencies and mishandling of the economy, are numerous. Unfortunately many seem to be imbued with an inherent anti-Chavismo that blinds such commentators from any sound judgement based from an initial point of neutrality. Perhaps much in the same way Leftist criticisms of George Bush often stem from an unwavering contempt for the man instead of a detailed understanding of his policy failures.

Whilst reading for my ‘Economics of Latin America’ exam I stumbled across this article in Foreign Affairs by Venezuelan economist Francisco Rodríguex, ‘An Empty Revolution’. A nuanced critique of Chavez’s economic record founded upon a clear understanding of the macroeconomics of populism. And all from someone who actually was within the Chavez government from 2000-2004.

Here is a summary of his findings:

“Even critics of Hugo Chávez tend to concede that he has made helping the poor his top priority. But in fact, Chávez's government has not done any more to fight poverty than past Venezuelan governments, and his much-heralded social programs have had little effect. A close look at the evidence reveals just how much Chávez's "revolution" has hurt Venezuela's economy -- and that the poor are hurting most of all.”

I personally find quite enlightening his ability to frame his argument with a full appreciation for all the positive news that has come out of Venezuela with regard to the perceived poverty reductions, and how many (myself included at times) on the Left in the West try to turn a blind eye to some of the less than positive news that comes out of Venezuela.

”But perhaps an even more important reason for this success is the willingness of intellectuals and politicians in developed countries to buy into a story according to which the dilemmas of Latin American development are explained by the exploitation of the poor masses by wealthy privileged elites. The story of Chávez as a social revolutionary finally redressing the injustices created by centuries of oppression fits nicely into traditional stereotypes of the region, reinforcing the view that Latin American underdevelopment is due to the vices of its predatory governing classes. Once one adopts this view, it is easy to forget about fashioning policy initiatives that could actually help Latin America grow, such as ending the agricultural subsidies that depress the prices of the region's exports or significantly increasing the economic aid given to countries undertaking serious efforts to combat poverty.”

Cuba's aid programme in Bolivia

With regard to Cuba, it seems that no matter whatever the debate of the day may be about, its defenders always seems to respond by highlighting the country's phenomenal health and education indicators. As much as those achievements must be applauded, it can at times become tiresome to hear proponents of Castro's regime use those achievements as a way to deflect any form of reasoned criticism. And whatever noble ideals the Cuban Revolution may have based on it would definitely be fair to say that they have over the decades off the rails, with or without US continued embargo and antoganism

That said with the rise of the Castro-Chavez Bolivarain axis (axis of evil or axis of hope?), the creation of ALBA as an alternative cooperation organisation, Cuba has again found a way to promote its astonsihing health and education policies. And stories like this - Cuba's aid programme in Bolivia -, about how Cuban doctors, bankrolled by Venezualan oil profits are doing wonders for the poor of Bolivia, only reaffirms that whilst so many may wish to see the end of the Castro regime, acts of solidarity amongst Latin American countries may be dearly missed.

A Surprise Defeat

Perhaps unsurprisingly the first 15 minutes of class this Tuesday was dedicated to discussing the surprising constitutional defeat in Venezuela on Sunday. I don't think anyone really saw that one coming. With the well-oiled voting machine that makes up the Chavista movement, it seemed unfathomable that Chave would, come Monday morning, have to humbley admit defeat and congratulate the oppistion with their 'pyrrhic' victory. Chavez doesn't normally do humble and magnanimous. And I'm sure it's not going to last for no long either.

First of all what was the constitution all about? A series of amendments to the 1999 constitution which was also put forward to referendum by Chavez, but which one he was able to win convincingly. This constituion, through various amendments, was however to further set in stone some of the already highly criticised sections of the 1999 constitution along with further econimc and social reforms. One such amendment, and probably the most controversial, was the Presidents ability to be re-elected an endless amout of times and if that wasn't enough a Presidential term would have been increased from 6 to 7 years. The issue of presidential re-election in Latin America is always a touchy subject. In the acknowledgement of the region's tendency towards authoritarian, caudillo-style leaders in its past, constitutions have formally set to limit any single person's ability to stay in power for more than two terms. In Mexico, Presidents can only serve one term whilst other Latin American states in the belief that their democracies are maturing have allowed Presidents to stand for two terms. This was what Chavez was successful in doing back in 1999. But indefininte re-election? Perhaps this was a move too far by Chavez...


Other amendments included the demise of autonomy of the Central Bank (given the success of the Bank of England's autonomy here in the UK, I can only presume this would be a step in the wrong direction - but then things in Latin America aren't always that clear cut), the extension of social benefits to those who work in the informal sector (with the size of the informal sector being disproportionately large in Latin America this would have been a bold and progressive move), and most bizarrely of all the cut in maximum working hours per day from 8 to 6 hours (not even the French can manage that).


So why did he lose? Well supporters of Chavez are quick to point to the high abstention rate and the unwillingness of Chavez supportes to get out and back their man. Or perhaps it was a lack of urgency and lack of belief behind the sincerity and plausability of the social sweetners that the constitution would have allowed for. Or that despite Chavez's vocal pronouncements for the need of a yes vote to consolidate the "Bolivarian Revolution", supporters believed that the new amendments were mere sweetners as a means for Chavez to consolidate his own personal power.


So whilst the opposition were out on the streets celebrating victory, wasn't the real victor perhaps democracy itself? Whilst we had all been commenting on the gradual erosion of liberties in Venezuela and the move towards a centralisation of power, this vote and its acceptance, for now, by Chavez underlines that democracy has seemingly worked its magic and remains respected and guaranteed by both sides. Or am I just giving it the naive optimistic outlook. The 2002 coup saw how skin-deep the respect for democracy can be when push comes to shove. And perhaps Chavez was merely persuaded not to contest, or indeed fiddle with the numbers by the threat of a new coup by disgruntled military fractions.

So Chavez has no 'only' until 2013 to conclude his time as President. 'Lame Duck' presidency is not a term one could ever place on someone like Chavez even after such a setback. His supporters still control Congress, and many of the amendments will surely still be passed through those channels.

There is never a dull moment in Venezuelan current affairs and I'm sure the upcoming period will be no exception. Still it's very hard here in the UK, and never having been to Venezuela myself, to really be able to grasp what the atmosphere must be like, and how people see the future panning out. If nothing else, they can be sure the world will continue watching closely...hasta el fin.

Time To Move Beyond The Pointless Rhetoric

I would honestly love to move on from debating Hugo Chavez, or rather the pointless rhetoric and mud-slinging that follows him in his wake. It seems to me that this constant war of words between his supporters and opponents is getting to the extent that it blinds all serious analysis of what is actually going on policy-wise in Venezuela. Whether or not Chavez’s “Bolivarian Revolution” represents a credible, sustainable alternative of development Latin America? Notably last weeks' spat between Chavez and Spain's King Juan Carlos at the Ibero-American Summit in Chile seems to have dominated the news media outlets, much more so than say anything that was actually covered at the Ibero-American summit itself. "Por que no te calles" has seemingly taken on extraordinary levels of popularity, becoming a ring-tone hit alongside becoming the new the unofficial anti-Chavez slogan.

A media-war is brewing, but then again it always has done with regards to Venezuela, ever since the pivotal role the local media had in ousting of Hugo Chavez from power in the 2002 coup d'é·tat. Is their media bias for or against Chavez? Well in response to an earlier post I wrote on the student protests against Chavez I came across a document (student demonstrations in Venezuela) sent out by the Venezuelan Embassy in the US highlighting how those protests had been misrepresented in the press and basically saying how the whole event had been exploited by the mainstream media (as clueless blogger like myself) as evidence of government repression of students opposed to the government. Also that media reports had failed to report the many positive steps the Venezuelan government has taken to increase the level of university education in the country - university students now number 774,000 , an almost doubling of the number of students since 1998.

As I said it's hard to know what to believe really, when all that we hear is the latest Chavez rant. Opinions become so polarized and based on so much senseless rhetoric, all of which does little to defuse the situation and actual attempts to understand what is going on in Venezuela behind the headlines. Hopefully throughout the course of my current Master's degree we'll actually be able to tackle this topic in a seriuos academic way. So I'll keep you posted.

There's Something Rotten in the State of Venezuela

So after yesterdays student protests, Hugo Chavez now slings out almost nonsensical allegations that fascist conspiracies are behind this increase in voiceful protests (Venezuela's Chavez Condemns Opposition). Certainly opposition is mounting against him, but at least these seem to manifest themselves in far more peaceful and lawful ways than when Chavez counters the opposition against him. The recent silencing of a nationwide TV channel that openly opposed him springs to mind. As much as I would like to agree or indeed sympathise with the social changes he is trying to implement, all this may soon come undone by the increasing authoritarian stance his Presidency is starting to take. Yes it may seem very Latin American to be ruled by yet another caudillo clad in a military uniform. But when we yet again have to witness the gradual dismantling of the democratic system and civil liberties one can only fear that in the end this could yet again set Venezuela down a course which it most definintely doesn't deserve. Chavez's goal of social justice is all very well, but not when forced through at the expense of all other civil and political rights. That's my humble opinion for now anway...

More Protests in Venezuela

It's becoming more and more bemusing how Hugo Chavez seems to be letting things deteriorate in Venezuela. His answer to any unrest or protest now, is to crack down on civil liberties, the very same ones that enabled him to come to power and force the 2002 coup against him to eventually crumble. But perhaps he's finding it worrying that it's university students, the one demographic group you would have thought would be firm supporters of his left-wing, socialist policies, who are suddenly the ones out on the street protesting against him. So whilst this week's violence between gunmen and students was obviously nothing to do with Chavez (Gunmen fire on Venezuela protest), the atmosphere in the country seems to be of one where any protest against Chavez is fair game for any wannabe supporter of Chavez to go out and stop them. But I'm sure, with his controversial constitutional reforms in the works, this is something that will be worth commenting on for weeks & months to come. It could all end in a big mess if he doesn't watch out.