Is Obama right to object to Colombian FTA?

In my previous post, I mentioned how US Presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain had a relatively heated exchange on the pros and cons of a free trade agreement with Colombia. McCain came out in favour of it, with Obama arguing against it due to Colombia’s problematic human rights record, especially with regard to trade union members.

The Wall Street Journal published an editorial - "Obama makes it up" - strongly criticizing Obama’s stand and eluded to the fact that he is backed by the very same US trade unions that are perhaps not to keen to see a FTA with Colombia. Here is a video excerpt that shows columnist Mary O’Grady explaining why Obama’s objection to the FTA is nonsensical and based on facts that just don’t add up.



To counter her argument Benjamin Gaden on notes:

Neither O'Grady nor the WSJ editorial make note of a new 140-page report from Human Rights Watch, released last Thursday, that accuses Uribe of "jeopardizing efforts to secure justice for crimes committed by paramilitaries and their accomplices in Colombia." The report also points out that international pressure, such as delays in passing the Free Trade Agreement, "has in some cases prevented the government from trying to let paramilitaries’ accomplices off the hook." "Colombia’s justice institutions have made enormous progress in investigating paramilitaries and their powerful friends," José Miguel Vivanco, the Americas director at Human Rights Watch, said in a press release announcing the report. "But the Uribe administration keeps taking steps that could sabotage these investigations."

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.

Putting Those 1978 Ghosts to Bed

Whilst the Spaniards were ending 44 years of hurt with their victory over Germany in the Euro 2008 final this past Sunday, a different kind of ‘hurt’ was being put to bed in Buenos Aires.

30 years had passed since the Argentine national team lifted their first ever World Cup trophy. It was a tournament they hosted and should have gone down as a glorified moment in Argentine folklore. However it remains forever blighted by the dark military dictatorship and the so-called “Dirty War” it inflicted upon its people. The way in which the regime purposefully used the staging of the World Cup as propaganda tool, à la Hitler’s 1936 Olympics, and as to distract a population’s worries about the continuous desaparecidos has cast a black shadow over what was at the time Argentina’s greatest ever sporting triumph. Moreover, though slight in comparison, the military have been accused of bribing the Peruvian national side to lose heavily to Argentina, when the Argentines needed at least a 4-0 victory to guarantee their place in the final (they beat Peru 6-0).


This Sunday ex-members of the World Cup winning team, human rights activists took part in a memorial match - "La otra final: el partido por la vida y los derechos humanos" - for the 30,000 Argentines who lost their lives during this dark chapter of Argentine history. Many of the ex-players had wanted to put to bed once and for all that they in someway had been used by the military regime. As young football players they had little idea of the horrors being perpetrated by their leaders and little understanding of how their success was being manipulated to make a population turn a blind eye towards the atrocities.

Perhaps most chilling of all is the stories of the imprisoned opponents in the military detention and torture that was situated only a short distance from the main stadium in Buenos Aires during the World Cup. Here prisoners told how, chained to their beds, they could hear their guards listening to the game on the radio and the crowds celebrate as the goals went in. The 1980 Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, who was imprisoned at the time recalls how

En la prisión, cuando ponían el partido en los altoparlantes, era muy contradictorio. Porque los ejecutores, aquellos que nos torturaban, y nosotros, las víctimas, gritábamos juntos '¡Gol de Argentina!'. Y sabemos que sacaban afuera a prisioneros cuando había distracciones por la Copa Mundial y les disparaban (source BBC Mundo "A 30 años de un triunfo empañado" 30/06/2008)

When they played a game over the speakers, it was very contradictory - because the executioners, those who tortured us, and us the victims both cried 'Goal Argentina!' And we know that they took prisoners out when there were distractions caused by the World Cup and shot them (source BBC News, "Football match evokes Dirty War", 30/06/2008)

Thankfully for Argentine and Argentine football only a few years would have to pass before the dictatorship crumbled and Maradona could restore national pride with the his glorious one-man show in the 1986 World Cup in Mexico.

Another President in the Dock

Turn the clock back some 20 years ago and much of Latin America was a murky world of dictatorial, authoritarian regimes where human rights abuses were common place. Military regimes had come to power under the belief that they were legitimately holding back the spread of Communism and the social revolutions that were supposedly threatening to overrun the region.

In Latin American economics we talk of the 1980s as the ‘lost decade’ where economic growth stagnated or went backwards. Along those same lines the late 1970s and much of the 1980s can be looked upon as the decade of the desaparecidos (the ones who disappeared). The hundreds of thousands who literally disappeared in the ‘dirty wars’ fought by military governments against those guerrillas and left-leaning movements that opposed them.

One by one though, many of those political leaders who stood at the forefront of these dirty wars are being brought before national courts and sentenced. The Southern Cone countries of Chile, Uruguay, and most notably Argentina have been, and continue to be, at the forefront of confronting their murky pasts. These weeks though the attention has switched to Peru where its former head of state, Alberto Fujimori, has been put on trial for the supposed massacres he ordered at the height of the war against Sendero Luminoso (The Shining Path) in the early 1990s.

There are some notably differences that make his trial noteworthy. First of all, that he was extradited to Peru from Chile and neighbouring country with whom they have never had the most cordial relations in the world (but then which neighbouring South American countries ever have sincere cordial relations one may ask?). Regional cooperation with regards to dealing with past human rights abuses seems to be an important step forward. Secondly Fujimori must be one of the first democratically elected, civilian Presidents to stand trial for crimes against humanity in South America. Former Presidents in both Argentina and Chile have stood trial but they were both military dictators. So questions may be asked as to which currently elected civilian presidents should be quaking in their boots? Please feel free to nominate any...

At the moment though Fujimori has been found guilty for some relatively minor abuses of power which will see him spend the next years in prison. In the coming months he will face further charges of the more serious accusations with regards to his role in the massacres of civilians in the Peruvian Andes.

Given so many of the problems Latin America faces on a day-to-day basis and how it lags behing the world on so many issues, it is nothing short of impressive how their otherwise weak and seemingly corrupt judiciary systems have been successful in bringing to court some of the most powerful figures of Latin American history. It's perhaps no surprise then that when the International Criminal Court was set up to pursue crimes against humanity on a worldwide basis that they chose Luis Moreno-Ocampo, an Argentine with experience their own dealing with human rights abuses to be the court’s Prosecutor.