Ideas Del Pueblo

Déspotas virtuales

2009-11-18T00:49:00.000-05:00

Por Moisés Naím

El Comité para la Promoción de la Virtud y la Prevención del Vicio ya tiene 500 miembros y está creciendo rápidamente. Lo puede encontrar en Facebook, el sitio de Internet donde todo es posible. Ahora les cuento más sobre el Comité Antivicio. Sitios como Facebook ayudan a reencontrar viejos amores y a hacer nuevas amistades, a organizar fiestas y buscar trabajo. También sirven para luchar contra las dictaduras, denunciar a políticos corruptos o recaudar fondos para salvar la vida de un niño enfermo. Con sus 300 millones de usuarios que se comunican en 68 idiomas, Facebook es el más popular de los nuevos vehículos creados gracias a Internet. Los micromensajes enviados por Twitter, los blogs, YouTube, Flickr y otras tecnologías similares también están cambiando el mundo. Es tentador pensar que todo esto no puede sino tener efectos liberadores y positivos. Los monjes budistas de Myanmar (antigua Birmania), los estudiantes antichavistas de Venezuela o los opositores a Ahmadineyad en Irán han potenciado su impacto político con estas nuevas tecnologías. Las utilizan para reclutar nuevos miembros, coordinar sus actuaciones, mostrar los abusos de los déspotas, llevar a miles de personas a la calle o recaudar fondos. La Red es buena para la democracia y mala para los dictadores.

¿Estamos seguros de esto? No. Evgeny Morozov, uno de los más lúcidos analistas del impacto político de Internet, nos recuerda que "la historia demuestra que las nuevas tecnologías suelen ayudar a todas las fuerzas políticas por igual, no sólo a las que tienen las intenciones más nobles o democráticas". A pesar de esto, la suposición dominante es que los Gobiernos, especialmente los más autoritarios, están perdiendo terreno frente a redes de activistas cibernautas hambrientos de democracia. Pero la realidad es que Gobiernos como los de Rusia, Irán, China o Cuba ya no se limitan a leer subrepticiamente los correos electrónicos de sus ciudadanos, a bloquear el acceso a ciertos sitios de Internet, censurar la búsqueda en la Red de palabras o nombres de personas u organizaciones disidentes o simplemente suspender temporalmente el servicio de telefonía celular. Todo esto sigue pasando, pero las tiranías también aprenden y los Gobiernos autoritarios ya no son los cibertontos que eran tan sólo hace un par de años. La nueva sofisticación en el uso de Internet con fines represivos es espeluznante. El Gobierno chino cuenta con 280.000 personas dedicadas a identificar chats donde se discuten temas que el régimen cree inconvenientes. Estos funcionarios intervienen en los chats presentándose como simples participantes. Pero su misión es la de sabotear la conversación, introduciendo otros temas, confundiéndola o abrumándola con una avalancha de mensajes. El Gobierno les paga 50 centavos chinos por cada palabra que escriben. En Rusia, el Kremlin financia nuevas empresas de Internet que diseminan mensajes de apoyo al régimen o que sabotean los sitios en la Red que lo critican. Recientemente, un jefe policial en Moscú reconoció que él y sus colegas son ávidos lectores de los mensajes en Twitter. "Eso nos permite enterarnos de lo que está pasando, quién está diciendo qué, conocer sus planes y reaccionar inmediatamente", dijo.

Internet ha dado más posibilidades y aumentado la agilidad de los activistas democráticos, pero también les ha dado nuevos y poderosos instrumentos represivos a los regímenes autoritarios. Según Morozov, "el activismo en Internet es más fácil de estudiar y controlar que el activismo físico y en la calle. ¿Cuál es la ventaja de lograr, gracias a una convocatoria vía Twitter, que 100 jóvenes activistas iraníes se concentren en una plaza a protestar si el Gobierno lee esos mismos mensajes y así se entera de quiénes son estos jóvenes?". Además, los Gobiernos hoy pueden comprar las más avanzadas tecnologías para intervenir comunicaciones telefónicas o mensajes electrónicos, detectar patrones de conducta y estructuras sociales en la Red, así como penetrar los ordenadores de sus enemigos políticos.

Crecientemente, los activistas internautas terminan apaleados o encarcelados y, sin quererlo, sirviendo de valiosos colaboradores del régimen al suministrarle a través de los mensajes electrónicos interceptados los nombres e intenciones de sus aliados. Los cibertontos de hoy ya no son los Gobiernos autoritarios, sino los activistas cuya pasión por la libertad y desesperación ante los abusos de los tiranos los lleva a fiarse demasiado de la privacidad de sus comunicaciones vía Internet. ¿Y el Comité para la Promoción de la Virtud y la Prevención del Vicio? Es la iniciativa en Facebook de la policía religiosa de Arabia Saudí.

Moisés Naím es director de la revista de Foreign Policy. Se publicó este articulo en el diario español El País.

Dinero contra burócratas

2009-11-03T22:39:00.001-05:00

Por Moisés Naím

Sucedió de nuevo. La recuperación económica se produjo antes de lo esperado y fue tan sorprendente como el súbito colapso financiero. El trimestre pasado, la economía estadounidense creció al 3,5%. A comienzos de año, los titulares anunciaban que estábamos a punto de entrar en una depresión peor que la de los años treinta y que el estancamiento duraría una generación o más. Ahora sabemos que los expertos, los gobiernos y los inversionistas que no vieron venir el crash tampoco vieron venir la recuperación de la economía mundial. Claro, los pesimistas creen que la recuperación no es tal y que una nueva caída es inevitable. Los alarman -con razón- los enormes déficit fiscales, la deuda pública, las altas y crecientes tasas de desempleo y un sistema financiero aún muy frágil. Pero mientras los preocupados se angustian, las economías más importantes del mundo están creciendo más y mucho antes de lo que ningún experto había anticipado. Lo mismo sucedió durante los muchos accidentes financieros de la década de 1990. En Asia, América Latina y en Rusia, la recuperación fue tan rápida y tan sorprendente como los accidentes mismos. Pero si bien es obvio que la reanimación económica es preferible a la recesión prolongada, una rápida recuperación también tiene su costo: le quita a los políticos las ganas de hacer cambios necesarios para evitar futuras crisis.

Así pasó en las crisis financieras anteriores y me temo que volverá a ocurrir ahora. En el clímax de la crisis, los gobernantes de los países más influyentes se reunieron de urgencia y declararon que "fortalecer la arquitectura del sistema financiero mundial" era una prioridad. También anunciaron su compromiso de "reducir los riesgos de crisis recurrentes en el futuro y mejorar nuestras técnicas para responder a las crisis cuando ocurran". ¿Suena bien, verdad? Lástima que éste es el texto exacto del comunicado emitido por los líderes del mundo hace una década, cuando se reunieron en Reino Unido para decidir cómo responder a la crisis financiera asiática.

Poco después de esa cumbre, las economías asiáticas sorprendieron a todos cuando comenzaron a crecer a gran velocidad, eliminando la presión de reformar el sistema financiero. Así, diez años y una gran crisis después, los líderes de ahora siguen prometiendo reformar las finanzas globales. Y, al igual que a sus predecesores, a ellos también la recuperación les está quitando las ganas de ir a fondo con las reformas. Esto no significa que no habrá cambios. Los bancos estarán más controlados, los pagos a sus directivos tendrán topes y los paraísos fiscales serán más vigilados. Pero estas y otras nuevas reglas no se aplicarán de la misma manera en todas partes. Cada país tendrá su propia legislación, interpretará las reglas a su manera y las ejecutará con distintos niveles de entusiasmo. Los reguladores de la banca en Alemania, por ejemplo, tendrán motivaciones algo distintas que las de, digamos, sus colegas de Mónaco. O de Rusia.

No va a haber una nueva arquitectura financiera global, sino una combinación de pocas y tímidas iniciativas multilaterales y muchos cambios a nivel nacional. Esto será así porque, si bien el dinero responde cada vez más a incentivos globales, los gobiernos siguen dependiendo de sus realidades locales. Y la regulación bancaria no sólo la determinan criterios técnicos, sino que, en todas partes, resulta de un proceso esencialmente político. Por tanto, el resultado será un sistema financiero mundial, donde el dinero seguirá operando sin fronteras mientras que los gobiernos seguirán operando primordialmente dentro de sus jurisdicciones nacionales. Este irregular mosaico mundial de reglas creará extraordinarias oportunidades para los especuladores. Los gobiernos podrán controlar a los bancos tradicionales y a otras empresas financieras. Pero no a todas. Ni todos los banqueros serán empleados de empresas reguladas por los gobiernos, ni los más ambiciosos y talentosos de entre ellos se quedaran trabajando en los bancos donde el Gobierno limita su remuneración. Va a aparecer, por tanto, un nuevo sistema financiero "en la sombra" que, sin ser ilegal, va a obtener inmensas ganancias gracias a las nuevas reglas. Un sistema mundial de regulación financiera formado por diferentes sistemas nacionales inevitablemente tendrá brechas, contradicciones e incongruencias. Aprovechar, por ejemplo, una oscura e ininteligible regla contable en Tailandia que crea oportunidades en Holanda, donde la regla es distinta, será un negocio muy lucrativo. O crear fondos de capital destinados a "arbitrar" las distorsiones producidas por las incongruencias regulatorias entre distintos países. Y hay muchos expertos financieros con el conocimiento, los contactos, las tecnologías y el capital que sabrán encontrar y aprovechar estas oportunidades para hacer mucho dinero. Hasta la próxima crisis.

Moisés Naím es director de la revista de Foreign Policy. Se publicó este articulo en el diario español El País.

El excremento del Diablo

2009-10-12T23:00:00.000-04:00

Por Moisés Naím

El petróleo empobrece. Los diamantes, el gas y el cobre también. Los países pobres que cuentan con abundantes recursos naturales suelen ser subdesarrollados. Esto ocurre no a pesar de sus riquezas naturales, sino debido a ellas. ¿Cómo puede ser que la riqueza natural de un país perpetúe la pobreza de la mayoría de sus habitantes? Debido a un fenómeno conocido como "la maldición de los recursos naturales".

Hay países que logran conjurar esta maldición. Noruega o Estados Unidos, por ejemplo, son a la vez petroleros y desarrollados. Pero son excepciones que no sólo confirman la regla, sino que también ilustran los antídotos contra esta maldición: democracia e instituciones que limitan la concentración del poder. Además, para neutralizar la maldición también es necesario mantener la estabilidad económica, controlar el gasto público, ahorrar para los años de vacas flacas, diversificar la economía, impedir la concentración del ingreso y evitar que la moneda del país sea demasiado costosa comparada con las de otras naciones. Los países exportadores de recursos naturales que no adoptan estas medidas empobrecen y maltratan a la gran mayoría de su población. La tragedia es que pocos logran evitar estos nocivos efectos. ¿Por qué?

La maldición de los recursos es como una enfermedad adictiva: le quita a la víctima la voluntad de curarse. Los grupos más poderosos de estas sociedades no tienen muchos incentivos para luchar contra los efectos perversos de la excesiva dependencia de los recursos naturales. Los efectos son perversos para el resto de la población, no para las élites. Éstas, por el contrario, se benefician de la situación.

El venezolano Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonzo, uno de los fundadores de la Organización de Países Exportadores de Petróleo (OPEP), fue el primero en llamar la atención sobre esto. El petróleo, dijo, no es oro negro; es el excremento del diablo. La intuición de Pérez Alfonzo ha sido rigurosamente confirmada. Desde 1975, por ejemplo, las economías de los países ricos en recursos naturales han crecido menos que las de los países que no exportan principalmente materias primas.

Peor aún, en los países afectados por la maldición, los beneficios del crecimiento económico se concentran en pequeños grupos políticos, militares y empresariales. Además, su moneda se encarece con respecto a las de otras naciones, lo cual frena las exportaciones de todo lo que no sea el recurso natural que tienen en abundancia. Esto, a su vez, inhibe la diversificación de la economía y condena a los países a depender cada vez más de las exportaciones de su principal materia prima. En el caso del petróleo, el crecimiento que este genera no crea puestos de trabajo en proporción a su peso en la economía. Así, en los países cuya principal exportación es el petróleo, esa industria genera más del 80% de los ingresos totales, pero tan sólo el 10% del empleo. Inevitablemente, esto aumenta la desigualdad económica.

Dado que los gobiernos de los países exportadores de materias primas no dependen de los impuestos de su población para financiarse, sus líderes pueden darse el lujo de ignorar las exigencias y necesidades de sus ciudadanos. Éstos, a su vez, desarrollan relaciones tenues y parasitarias con el Estado. Además, cuando mucho dinero público es controlado por pocos individuos que no rinden cuentas al resto de la sociedad, la corrupción es inevitable. Las similitudes de países tan diferentes como Rusia, Irán o Venezuela no son una casualidad. Son el resultado de la maldición.

Es muy difícil sacar del poder a gobiernos ricos en petróleo que, además, tienen la posibilidad de usar sus vastos recursos financieros para comprar o reprimir a sus opositores. Las estadísticas demuestran que es mucho menos probable que un país petrolero autoritario se transforme en una democracia de lo que resulta para una dictadura que no cuenta con abundantes recursos naturales. Las estadísticas también confirman que, en todas partes, las autocracias petroleras gastan más en armas y ejércitos y son más propensas a tener conflictos armados.

Esto no quiere decir que los países pobres con abundantes recursos naturales estén condenados al subdesarrollo. Chile y Botsuana son extraordinarios ejemplos de países menos desarrollados que a pesar de ser exportadores de materias primas han escapado de la maldición. Sus experiencias confirman cuáles son las vacunas que protegen a un país contra sus efectos. Pero ¿por qué estos países estuvieron dispuestos a vacunarse y otros no? Nadie sabe. A quien encuentre la respuesta a esta pregunta habría que darle el premio Nobel. No el de Economía. El de la Paz.

Moisés Naím es director de la revista de Foreign Policy. Se publicó este articulo en el diario español El País.

Europa: ¿museo o laboratorio?

2009-10-05T22:09:00.001-04:00

Por Moisés Naím

Ésta no es la pregunta que aparece en los referendos en Europa. Pero es la pregunta que los europeos se están tratando de contestar.

¿Serán su cultura y sus tradiciones las principales fuerzas que impulsarán a Europa? ¿O lo será más bien su capacidad para inventar nuevas formas de gobernarse, integrarse entre sí y relacionarse con el resto del mundo? ¿Dependerá la Europa del futuro más de sus museos, orquestas y restaurantes o de sus fábricas, laboratorios y universidades? Ésta es por supuesto una caricatura de los dilemas y posibilidades de Europa. Europa siempre será una potencia cultural y también seguirá teniendo fortalezas científicas, industriales y militares. Pero como toda caricatura, la visión de una Europa museo en contraste con una Europa laboratorio sintetiza dos futuros muy diferentes. La Europa laboratorio no se refiere principalmente a sus capacidades científicas sino a su capacidad para experimentar con nuevas formas de gobierno; con nuevas instituciones, políticas públicas y reglas de conducta.

Sobre esto acaban de votar los irlandeses. La primera vez que se les preguntó - el año pasado- dijeron que no. Ahora dijeron que sí. ¿Pero a que dieron el sí? A que Europa tenga un líder a tiempo completo, en vez de depender, como hasta ahora, de una presidencia que se rota cada seis meses entre los jefes de Estado de los 27 países miembros. El nuevo presidente durara dos años y medio en el cargo y podrá ser reelecto una vez más. Felipe González y Tony Blair son fuertes candidatos a ser los primeros en ocupar este cargo. También votaron a favor de tener un sistema más justo de votaciones para la toma de decisiones colectivas, para que cada país miembro tenga un representante en la Comisión Europea, para mejorar el funcionamiento del Parlamento Europeo, para que haya un represéntate de Europa ante el resto del mundo con un mandato más claro y con mayor autoridad y varios otros cambios por el estilo, todos los cuales le darán algo más de eficiencia y transparencia al funcionamiento de la Unión Europea. Muchos de estos son cambios burocráticos aburridos, complicados de entender -y de explicar-. Por eso es que los opositores irlandeses prefirieron basar su campaña para el referéndum en enfatizar que de votar a favor se estaría apoyando la rebaja del salario mínimo, la legalización del aborto y el envío de militares irlandeses a Afganistán entre otras maldiciones escondidas en el Tratado de Lisboa, el acuerdo que contiene las reformas propuestas. Los votantes no les creyeron y apoyaron abrumadoramente al sí.

Este voto tiene menos que ver con el entusiasmo por los cambios institucionales propuestos que con la convicción que a Irlanda le va mejor cuando se alinea con Europa y que a Europa le va mejor cuando se integra más intensa y eficientemente. Pero el referéndum irlandés no culmina el proceso de adopción del Tratado de Lisboa, ya que aún falta que Polonia lo ratifique y que las tácticas dilatorias del presidente de la República Checa, Václav Klaus, no prosperen. Pero de ser aprobado, Europa tendría un nuevo diseño institucional en 2010. Estas innovaciones no son el equivalente político al descubrimiento de la cura contra el cáncer ni la formula mágica que resolverá los graves problemas estructurales que tiene que enfrentar Europa. Pero será un paso positivo para enfrentar mejor lo que le viene a los europeos. Y lo que les viene no tiene precedentes.

Según las estimaciones del historiador y premio Nobel de Economía Robert Fogel en el año 2000, en Europa vivía el 6% de la población mundial y su economía abarcaba el 20% del total mundial. En China e India vivía el 38% de los habitantes y sus economías representaban el 16% del total. Fogel estima que para el 2040, Europa albergará sólo el 4% de la población mundial y su economía será un minúsculo 5% del total. En cambio, China e India llegarán a tener al 34% de la humanidad y sus economías se habrán expandido hasta alcanzar el 52% de la actividad económica mundial.

Desde esta perspectiva, el garantizar que Europa enfrente de manera unida, eficaz e innovadora sus relaciones con el resto del mundo es un requisito indispensable. Y el menor de sus problemas.

Moisés Naím es director de la revista de Foreign Policy. Se publicó este articulo en el diario español El País.

Sorpresa: ¡Irán miente!

2009-09-28T17:31:00.000-04:00

Por Moisés Naím

Durante décadas un pequeño grupo de científicos defendió la idea de que fumar no dañaba la salud. Gracias a las dudas que estos científicos sembraron la industria del tabaco logró posponer las iniciativas destinadas a alertar a los fumadores de que el tabaco mata. Inevitablemente la verdad prevaleció y hoy ya nadie discute que el cigarrillo es nocivo para la salud. Finalmente, también nos enteramos que muchos de los científicos que defendían al tabaco eran en realidad mercenarios pagados por la industria del cigarrillo. Este debate entre científicos contribuyó a que millones de fumadores murieran. Muchos se hubiesen podido salvar si las políticas que hoy ya son comunes se hubiesen adoptado hace 20 o 30 años. Lo más triste es que los verdaderos expertos conocían los males del tabaco mucho antes de que la opinión publica y los políticos aceptaran que, en realidad, no había tal debate y que fumar era malo para la salud. La controversia provocada por los expertos a sueldo de la industria era tan solo una treta para ganar más tiempo y más dinero.

Lo mismo está pasando con Irán y su programa nuclear. La diferencia es que en este caso la controversia puede costar muchas más vidas de las que se cobra el tabaco.

Según el Gobierno iraní su programa nuclear solo tiene fines pacíficos: producir electricidad. Otros en cambio están convencidos que Irán está tratando de construir bombas atómicas.

El presidente Mahmud Ahmadineyad ha explicado que “nuestra religión nos prohíbe tener armas nucleares y nuestro líder religioso las ha prohibido”. Ahmadineyad también ha dicho que “la bomba atómica es un concepto del siglo pasado. Hoy no tiene aplicación alguna”. O sea, que no sólo su religión se lo prohíbe sino que, según él, las armas nucleares tampoco sirven para nada. Él lo que quiere es energía nuclear pacífica; paz y progreso para todos. ¿Cómo no estar de acuerdo con Ahmadineyad?

Hay muchos que apoyan a Irán en este sentido. Uno de ellos por ejemplo, es el presidente del Brasil, Lula da Silva. Después de reunirse con Ahmadineyad en Naciones Unidas, Lula explicó al mundo que su colega le había asegurado que el programa nuclear Iraní era sólo para usos civiles. Lula no sólo le creyó sino que además lo apoyó con gran entusiasmo: “Defiendo el derecho de Irán de tener energía nuclear”. Y Lula es tan sólo uno de muchos.

El pequeño detalle que seguramente ha irritado a Lula y Ahmadineyad es que los líderes de EE UU, Francia y Reino Unido revelaron la existencia en Irán de una planta secreta de enriquecimiento de uranio. La fábrica está dentro de una montaña excavada al interior de una base militar cerca de la ciudad sagrada de Qom. La planta es demasiado pequeña para producir electricidad pero adecuada para la producción del tipo de bombas que, según Ahmadineyad, están prohibidas por su religión. Las pruebas de los fines militares de esta planta secreta son tan contundentes que hasta convencieron de ello a los líderes de China y Rusia, aliados de Irán, que hasta ahora se habían opuesto a un aumento de la presión internacional.

Esto no quiere decir que el debate acerca de cuáles son los propósitos del programa nuclear de Irán se vaya a acabar. Para muchos éste no es sino otro caso en el cual las potencias mundiales inventan una excusa para agredir a un país que no acepta su dominio. Y que tiene mucho petróleo. Pero, al igual que los expertos que sabían que la controversia sobre los efectos del tabaco era una distracción artificial para ganar tiempo, los expertos en materia nuclear —de diferentes países e ideologías— se desesperan cuando uno les pregunta si es verdad que Irán no está buscando tener bombas atómicas. Entre quienes saben de eso no hay dudas. Como no parece tenerlas el jefe de Gabinete del ayatolá Alí Jamenei quien acaba de anunciar que “Dios mediante, la nueva planta pronto comenzará a operar y cuando eso ocurra va a enceguecer a nuestros enemigos”. No pareciera que esté pensando cegarlos con luz eléctrica.

La manera en que el mundo reaccione al programa nuclear de Irán va ser muy importante para todos. Aún para quienes viven muy lejos de ese país. El día que Irán tenga la bomba, Arabia Saudí, Egipto, y otros países de esa volátil región se verán obligados a tener la suya. Y mientras más países tengan bombas atómicas mayor es la probabilidad de que sean usadas o vendidas o donadas a quienes la quieran hacer estallar en alguna gran ciudad. Ese no es un mundo en el que usted quiere vivir. Y sobre eso no debería haber debate.

Moisés Naím es director de la revista de Foreign Policy. Se publicó este articulo en el diario español El País.

Tres preguntas con futuro

2009-09-21T17:24:00.001-04:00

Por Moisés Naím

¿Tendré trabajo? ¿Tendré atención médica si me enfermo? ¿Morirán mis parientes y amigos en Afganistán? El futuro de la presidencia de Barack Obama va a depender de las repuestas que los estadounidenses obtengan a estas tres preguntas. La economía, la reforma del sistema de salud y la guerra en Afganistán dominan la conversación nacional.

La economía de los Estados Unidos se está recuperando antes de lo esperado pero no así el empleo. Los despidos siguen y conseguir trabajo no es fácil. Mientras tanto, los grandes bancos están ganando muchísimo dinero. Y sus ejecutivos siguen pagándose sueldos astronómicos que en épocas normales son ofensivos y que durante una crisis constituyen una agresiva provocación a una golpeada población cuyos impuestos fueron usados para rescatar a los bancos de estos aprendices de brujo. No hay evidencia de que el crack financiero haya extinguido la codicia, la arrogancia y la ignorancia en Wall Street. Pero sí la hay de que los estadounidenses están furiosos con Wall Street y que los políticos no pueden darse el lujo de ignorar este clamor popular. Obama y sus ministros han prometido ponerle límites a los excesos financieros y limitar las ganancias de los bancos y los sueldos de los banqueros. La opinión pública es escéptica y está a la espera de las medidas que tomará el Gobierno. Otra parte de la opinión pública -muy azuzada por la oposición- cree que al final todo llevará a un aumento del papel del Estado, posibilidad que aborrecen. No hay dudas de que habrá más regulación del sector financiero. Pero tampoco hay dudas de que no será suficiente para impedir nuevos excesos.

Reformar el sistema de salud de Estados Unidos en medio de una crisis económica es a la vez más fácil y más difícil. Es más difícil porque, obviamente, la crisis impone fuertes restricciones económicas. Pero también es más fácil porque la crisis estimula el apetito por los cambios, aun aquellos que no tienen nada que ver con esta crisis.

Bush usó los ataques del 11 de septiembre como excusa para invadir Irak. Obama utiliza la crisis financiera para cambiar el sistema de salud. Pero mientras que invadir Irak no era necesario, reformar la salud es indispensable. La reforma sanitaria toca tantos y tan poderosos intereses encontrados que sólo la crisis y Obama lograron destrabar el proceso de cambio. Lo que un joven necesita y espera del sistema de salud es muy distinto de lo que pide un anciano. Un granjero de Iowa se relaciona de manera diferente con el sistema que un comerciante de California. Los sindicatos de enfermeras exigen cosas distintas a las que demandan el lobby farmacéutico o el de las compañías de seguros. Los conflictos entre generaciones, regiones, profesiones e industrias son enormes y paralizantes. No es de extrañar que encontrar un compromiso político aceptable para todas las partes esté resultando tan difícil. Pero después de muchos sustos, retrocesos y aparentes fracasos la reforma del sistema de salud va a pasar. El sistema que resultará será peor del que hace falta y del que Obama hubiese deseado. Pero será mejor que el sistema actual.

Y luego está Afganistán. El número de bajas aumenta y los talibanes resurgen. El general a cargo de la expedición fue despedido y su sucesor Stanley McChrystal quiere más tropas. Washington ha perdido confianza en el presidente Hamid Karzai quien es visto como demasiado complaciente con la corrupción y quien además es acusado de haber trampeado las recientes elecciones. Mandar a morir a los jóvenes estadounidenses en nombre de una democracia representada por Karzai no es una idea fácil de defender.

Además, una guerra que comenzó como una acción antiterrorista para quitarle a Al Qaeda sus refugios se ha transformado en una vasta operación de contrainsurgencia. Y la nueva doctrina de lucha contra la insurgencia dice que hoy es imposible ganar a menos que se le dé seguridad y trabajo a la población civil. En otras palabras: hay que construir el Estado afgano y propiciar el desarrollo económico y social. Todo esto en un país con un 70% de analfabetismo, cuya principal actividad económica es la exportación de narcóticos y cuya sociedad está fragmentada en mil pedazos.

Cuando Obama ganó las elecciones, hace menos de un año, nadie hubiese imaginado que en tan poco tiempo la economía iría tanto mejor y Afganistán tanto peor. Pero así es, y el remoto país asiático se ha convertido para este presidente en un reto más amenazante que Wall Street.

Moisés Naím es director de la revista de Foreign Policy. Se publicó este articulo en el diario español El País.

Buenas Noticias

2009-09-16T22:20:00.004-04:00

Por Moíses Naím

El mundo tuvo un buen verano. Claro que no fue tan bueno como para hacer desaparecer las desdichas que nos acosan. En Congo y Darfur continúan las atrocidades, la guerra en Afganistán se ha intensificado, y el desempleo en Europa y Estados Unidos es alto y está aumentando, por sólo citar unos pocos ejemplos de la larga lista de enfermedades que siguen afectando a la humanidad.

Pero, a pesar de todo esto, el verano fue bueno para el mundo. Para poner esto en contexto basta recordar los temas y expectativas que dominaban la conversación mundial hasta hace pocos meses. La crisis económica duraría años, y quizás una década, la gran recesión se transformaría en una depresión como la de los años treinta, o peor. El sistema financiero estaba herido de muerte y era sólo cuestión de meses que los bancos colapsaran. Los países más grandes y más pobres como China, India o Brasil no sólo no podían ayudar a paliar la crisis mundial, sino que se verían arrastrados por la debacle económica de EE UU y Europa.

Pero nada de esto pasó. De la misma manera que el mundo fue sorprendido por la crisis, ahora ha sido sorprendido por las noticias de la recuperación económica. Durante el verano las economías de Estados Unidos y de varios países europeos, incluyendo las de los más grandes (Alemania, Francia y Reino Unido) comenzaron a crecer de nuevo. Y en contra de todos los pronósticos, en China, India, Brasil, Polonia, Australia, Canadá y varias otras naciones, el impacto de la crisis fue mucho menor de lo esperado y su vitalidad económica contribuyó a la reactivación global. Además, un buen número de países menos desarrollados, como por ejemplo Chile, Perú, Ghana, Indonesia, o Turquía, supieron navegar por esta crisis mucho mejor que como lo habían hecho durante las crisis financieras de los años ochenta y noventa.

La economía mundial sigue muy débil y los pesimistas piensan que va a sufrir una recaída. Para millones de desempleados la recuperación es una abstracción o un chiste cruel. Esto se debe a que sabemos que las tasas de empleo suelen recuperarse más lentamente que la actividad económica. Además, en países como España el desempleo ha alcanzado niveles dramáticos. Pero el hecho incuestionable es que este verano nos enteramos que la enfermedad es menos grave y va a durar menos de lo que nos decían a comienzos del año. También nos decían que una grave amenaza era que para proteger los puestos de trabajo en sus industrias los gobiernos caerían en la tentación de imponer barreras a las importaciones provocando así una oleada proteccionista que profundizaría aun más la crisis mundial. O que habría masivas extradiciones forzadas de inmigrantes. Nada de esto ha ocurrido de manera significativa.

Pero éstas no fueron las únicas buenas nuevas que tuvimos durante este verano. También nos llegaron buenas noticias de Irán: el régimen de los ayatolás está fracturado y es menos solido y monolítico de lo que parecía. Ni siquiera el líder supremo, Alí Jamenei, ha salido incólume de las luchas por el poder que se están dando entre las distintas facciones del régimen. La mala noticia por supuesto sigue siendo que la facción de Jamenei y Mahmud Ahmadineyad tiene la ventaja y está aprovechándola para reprimir, encarcelar y hasta torturar a sus rivales, incluyendo a algunos que hasta hace poco formaban parte de la élite gubernamental y religiosa. Pero no hay que desdeñar el hecho de que ésta es la primera vez desde su ascenso al poder en 1989 que el régimen iraní muestra tal grado de fractura interna. Y hay que recordar que el ingrediente más potente en el proceso de resquebrajamiento y eventual caída que sufren los regímenes autoritarios es el faccionalismo y la lucha entre grupos rivales que están en la cima del poder. Quizás aún falte mucho tiempo para que el corrupto e ineficaz grupo que ahora manda en Irán sea reemplazado por otro que anteponga los intereses de todos los iraníes al enriquecimiento personal de sus líderes. Pero por lo que pudimos ver este verano quizás el fin de este terrible Gobierno esté más cerca de lo que jamás habíamos anticipado.

Y hubo más buenas noticias: el comienzo del retiro de las tropas estadounidenses de Irak, cosa que muchos decían que jamás ocurriría. O la pérdida de las elecciones del partido que gobernó Japón desde 1955, cosa que también muchos creían imposible. Claro está que el verano de 2009 no sólo nos trajo buenas noticias. Pero esa lista, la de las malas noticias, la conocemos demasiado bien y es la que se discute a diario. Lo que vale la pena rescatar es que, en términos relativos, en 2009 el mundo tuvo un buen verano. Y ésa es una gran noticia.

Moisés Naím es director de la revista de Foreign Policy. Se publicó este articulo en el diario español El País.

Chavez: Unchecked and Unchallenged

2009-08-22T13:08:00.008-04:00

By Roger Noriega

Venezuela's growing threat to U.S. security.

As with any bully, to Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez, weakness is a provocation. A self-defined enemy of the U.S., Chávez is running amok and challenging us at every turn--testing whether we care enough to defend our principles or stand by our allies. Congress is right to insist that the Obama administration prove that it understands the Chávez threat, and it is putting a policy in place to protect our interests close to home.

Chávez's latest assault on U.S. security interests centers on Colombia's plans to allow our security personnel to use Colombian bases as part of our long-standing anti-drug cooperation. With great fanfare, Chávez has threatened trade ties with Colombia and instructed his military to be prepared for a confrontation, declaring on Aug. 9, "I call on the people and the armed forces, let's go, ready for combat!"

Chávez must know that ordering his corrupted, politicized and badly outnumbered military into what would be a humiliating confrontation with battle-hardened Colombian troops would likely be the last command Lieutenant Colonel Chávez ever barks. But he has other objectives. By rattling sabers in the direction of a traditional rival, Chávez hopes to distract his countrymen from his legacy at home: a budding dictatorship, deadly streets, thuggish politics and a corrupted, disintegrating economy. By couching the U.S.-Colombia cooperation as "gringo" interference, he seeks to weaken the only government in the region that resists his aggressive agenda, rally anti-U.S. sentiments to his side and test whether the U.S. will finally push back.

Unchecked, Chávez's aggression has moved beyond bombast. Brushing off his crude insults against our country and its leaders is not a sufficient response to very real threats. Chávez has converted his once-proud nation into a personalized regime whose vast oil wealth and regional clout are used to drive his aggressive, antidemocratic vision in a region ripe for destabilization. His acolytes in Bolivia and Ecuador have followed Chávez's lead in gutting anti-drug cooperation and abetting narcoguerrillas. He has used petrodollars to buy influence in weaker states (El Salvador, Honduras and much of the Caribbean) and to meddle in the internal politics of powerful nations (Argentina, Peru and Mexico). Other regional powers, notably Brazil and even the U.S., have been so busy appearing unperturbed by Chávez's infantile antics that they have failed to check his growing influence.

Unchallenged in a growing number of nations, Chávez and his followers have dismantled institutions and concentrated power in the hands of unaccountable caudillos (strongmen)--replacing weak but nascent democracies with divisive, destructive regimes. Regional diplomats have refused to defend the rule of law against these thuggish tactics. But, when Hondurans sought to interpret and apply their own constitution to defend their institutions against one such would-be caudillo, Chávez herded regional diplomats to defend the right of his puppet to break the rules and grab power.

Chávez's aggression is more than political--it is tangible, and it is growing. He declared recently that the "winds of war are blowing" in Latin America. Of course, Chávez was not referring to the illegal proxy war he has been waging against Colombia for the better part of a decade or his relentless offensive against U.S. interests in the region. Instead, he has criticized Colombians for daring to defend themselves against his narcoterrorist chums by hosting U.S. law enforcement and security forces at a handful of military bases.

Chávez's agents have been caught red-handed providing anti-tank rockets, small arms, munitions and money to guerrillas waging an illegal war against a sovereign neighbor. Material evidence of Chávez's support for international terrorist organizations has been virtually ignored by the international community. However, those same governments have rushed to criticize Colombia's defensive moves. Brazil's President Luiz Inácio "Lula" da Silva said of the U.S.-Colombia accord, "I don't like the idea." Argentina's President Christina Kirchner said the arrangement represented "unacceptable belligerence." And Ecuador's President Rafael Correa called any U.S. presence in the region a "provocation." The sovereignty-conscious leaders appear to be suggesting that Colombia is the only nation on earth that does not have the right to make decisions for itself on how to secure its own territory.

Chávez is abetting Iran's illegal nuclear program by allowing that rogue nation to mine uranium in Venezuela's Bolivar province, helping it win diplomatic support in the Americas, and permitting it to evade United Nations sanctions by using Venezuela's corrupted banking sector.

Several U.S. senators have taken the lead to demand an appraisal of the Venezuela threat. Tasked by Ranking Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Sen. Richard Lugar, the General Accountability Office last month released a damning report confirming that Chávez's corrupt cronies are complicit in the deadly drug trade. Also last month, the Senate approved an amendment offered by Sen. Mel Martinez requiring the director of National Intelligence to assess and report on the impact of Chávez's terrorism ties, military buildup and subversion on U.S. interests in the region. Sen. Jim DeMint has used the nominations of several Obama appointees to lead the Senate in a thorough review of Latin American policy and the need for an effective response.

President Obama should use this congressional interest to leverage increased support for U.S. interests in the region. First, he should insist that the intelligence community deliver Congress and the American people a candid assessment of the acute and growing threat posed by Chávez's regime. Once his new Latin America team--led by able and experienced diplomat Arturo Valenzuela--is in place, he should instruct them to design and implement a tough strategy to deal with these troubling challenges. Second, he should press forward with plans to upgrade security ties with Colombia and should offer a mutual defense agreement to that and any other friendly country in the region.

Third, he should set aside narrow interests of labor bosses and press for urgent congressional approval of pending trade agreements with Colombia and Panama. Fourth, he should urge Congress to fully fund his request for aid to Colombia and the rest of the Americas. Fifth, he should take a personal role in urging his counterparts to work with the U.S. to save regional democracy from Chávez's divisive diplomacy--beginning with finding effective new leadership at the feckless Organization of American States.

President Obama's quest for conciliation and dialogue has been misread by Chávez as a lack of will. By putting a policy and a strong team in place that meets the Chávez challenge on all fronts, Obama will send a message to friends and foes alike that the U.S. will mount a vigorous defense of essential security, key allies and fundamental values.

Roger Noriega was a senior Latin America policy official in the Bush administration from 2001-2005 and is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Noriega is a member of HCP's Board of Directors. This Op-Ed was originally published in Forbes.

A New Recipe for Autocrats Around the World

2009-08-04T21:25:00.007-04:00

By Moisés Naím

The world no longer digests military coups as well as it used to. But now there's a new way for autocrats to cook up a grab for power.

This new recipe relies more on lawyers than lieutenant colonels, and uses referendums and constitutional amendments, rather than tanks and assaults on presidential palaces, as key ingredients. But the result is the same: a dictator who, while keeping up the veneer of democracy, retains power for a long time.

As with all dishes that sweep the world, each country prepares this feast with its own spices. The formula that led to elections in Zimbabwe that kept Robert Mugabe in power after 29 years, for example, was more pungent than the one used in Russia, where despite elections and a new president, Vladimir Putin continues to pull the strings.

In Iran, where they like their politics seasoned with religion and where the supreme chef, Ali Khamenei, described the overwhelming electoral victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as "a divine sign," civilian militias beating angry protesters are a key additive.

In the Latin American adaptation of this nouvelle cuisine, an essential flavor has been the manipulation of the constitution. In Honduras, Manuel Zelaya tried to follow this recipe by rewriting his country's laws to stay in power for a second term, but the result was indigestion and a genuine, if flawed, attempt to inoculate a nation against the ravages of this dish.

Here then is the new recipe for autocrats around the globe.

Ingredients

Millions of poor people.

Lots of inequality.

Unimaginable poverty coexisting with unfathomable wealth.

Injustice, social exclusion and racial discrimination.

Abundant corruption.

Complacent political and economic elites who are sure that "we are in control; nothing will happen here."

Discredited political parties.

An apathetic middle class, disillusioned about democracy, politics and politicians.

A parliament, judiciary and armed forces weakened by prolonged marinating in a brew of indolence, inefficiency and corruption. It should be easy to buy a judge, senator or general.

Media companies whose owners use them to promote their own commercial or electoral interests.

A foreign superpower neutralized or distracted by other priorities and congested with too many international emergencies.

An international public with a severe case of attention deficit disorder and general lack of interest in the details of how other nations are governed.

An external enemy easy to denounce as a threat to the nation. The CIA is ideal. A neighboring country also works. Or immigrants with a different skin color. If not, there are always the Jews and the Mossad.

"People's militias" that are well armed, well trained and ready to break the heads of those who dare to protest against the regime. These militias need not be numerous. It is enough for their thuggish members to intimidate the population through beatings, assassinations, kidnappings and other acts of violence.

Preparation

1. Shake well the poorest segment of the population with a fiercely polarizing campaign. Sprinkle in resentment, political rancor and economic populism. Rinse away harmony while bringing social conflicts to a boil.

2. Come to power through a democratic election. This can be facilitated by having corrupt and discredited political rivals and a good vote-buying team. Stress the need to root out corruption and recover the wealth that the rich have stolen.

3. After winning that first election, hold other ones, but don't lose any. Elections aren't about democracy -- they're the garnish on your dish.

4. Change the top military command by promoting officers loyal to the president. Reward loyal officers with material benefits and punish the unenthusiastic. Spy on all of them, all the time.

5. Do the same with judges and magistrates.

6. Launch a campaign to change the constitution through a popular referendum. Coerce public employees to vote and make sure that some in the opposition campaign against participating in the referendum. Convince members of the opposition that their votes are irrelevant.

7. The new constitution should guarantee any and all rights to its citizens, especially the poorest, while minimizing their duties and obligations. Promise to alleviate poverty and extinguish inequality. Bury inside the new constitution provisions, concocted in complex legalese, that weaken or eliminate the separation of powers, concentrate authority in the president and allow for his indefinite reelection.

8. Discredit, minimize, co-opt, buy and repress the political opposition.

9. Control the media. Tolerate a few tiny outlets that are critical of the government but have a limited reach. They will be your cover against accusations that there is no freedom of the press.

10. Repeat step number three. Indefinitely.

Bon appetit!

Moisés Naím is the editor in chief of Foreign Policy magazine. A version of this story was published in the Spanish newspaper El País and The Washington Post.

URGENT HONDURAS ANALYSIS: Overlooking Crimes Against a Constitution

2009-07-28T20:00:00.000-04:00

By Roger Noriega

Hondurans may have to accept that outsiders are ignorant about their constitution and about how Zelaya forfeited his legitimacy. But outsiders have no right to ask Hondurans to play dumb.

Images of Honduran soldiers sending renegade president Manuel Zelaya into exile late last month brought back bad memories, and regional diplomats might be forgiven their rush to judgment based on the most superficial impressions. What is inexcusable, however, is that most of them have used the last three weeks to level demands rather than to study how Zelaya, quite literally, forfeited his office under the Honduran constitution by trying to grab a forbidden second term. Willfully disoriented, the international community now is seeking to impose remedies that would compound the damage done by Zelaya to the rule of law in Honduras.

On Wednesday, the mediator, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, set today as a deadline for Zelaya to return to Honduras to lead a “government of unity and national reconciliation,” buttressed by a general amnesty for “political crimes.” A simple reading of the facts on the ground explains why this plan is unrealistic.

In the interest of unity and reconciliation, the plan proposes to replace an interim government that enjoys historic support among the country’s political parties with a polarizing figure who is less popular today than when he was voted out of office by a near-unanimous Honduran congress.

Zelaya said in an interview that he would welcome a constituent assembly that could afford him a second term—repeating the very offense that cost him his legitimacy in the first place.

In the interest of a democratic transition, an interim president who has pledged to turn over power to an elected successor in January would be replaced by a man who lost his job for refusing to make that commitment.

In the interest of democratic institutions, the proposed plan would discredit the lawful decisions made by Honduras’s free congress and independent courts to defend the constitutional order. It would presume to extend an amnesty to judges and other elected officials who did nothing wrong, as part of a deal to restore a president who committed the most grievous constitutional crimes.

In the interest of justice, a proposed amnesty would treat as moral equivalents soldiers who admit they may have broken the law and a caudillo (strong man) who just told a Brazilian paper, in an interview published this past Sunday, that he intends to repeat his crimes. Zelaya said that he would welcome a constituent assembly that could afford him a second term—repeating the very offense that cost him his legitimacy in the first place.

The possibility of mob violence, egged on by Zelaya and bankrolled by foreign meddlers, grows every day.

Yesterday, Zelaya began a dramatic march home from Nicaragua, in a move that could spark a violent confrontation and lead to his arrest. It is hard to imagine that many Hondurans would welcome Zelaya back to power after he wished economic sanctions, foreign military intervention, and violent “insurrection” upon his countrymen. The possibility of mob violence, egged on by Zelaya, grows every day. Frankly, if the man had an ounce of sympathy for his people, he would set aside his cynical quest for vengeance rather than risk one more Honduran life.

Ironically, at a time when U.S. journalists were wondering about the clout of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, she stepped forward to endorse a review of the facts and a negotiated solution. More than once, she has urged Zelaya and his sponsor Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to call off the dogs. Hondurans could seize this political space by taking measures that uphold their constitution and strengthen their democracy. Here’s how:

• One step may be advancing the scheduled November elections to September and inviting independent international groups to observe the process.

• The leading presidential candidates could be encouraged to launch a “campaign for national unity” and begin a healthy debate on their plans for the country’s future.

• The Honduran congress and the supreme court could form a commission of eminent Hondurans to hold individuals responsible for overstepping their authority in sending Zelaya into exile. These institutions could invite their counterparts from other countries to visit Honduras to study how Zelaya forfeited his legitimacy, and why the constitution should be interpreted to bar him from holding public office for at least 10 years.

• The interim president, Roberto Micheletti, could submit his cabinet and a national unity plan to a vote of confidence by Honduras’s democratically elected congress, offering to give up the job he never sought if the people’s elected representatives so decide.

• Honduras’s law enforcement agencies should reveal everything they know about Zelaya’s ties to drug cartels, rendering those arguing for his return complicit in his crimes.

Hondurans may have to accept that outsiders are ignorant about their constitution and about how Zelaya forfeited his legitimacy. But outsiders have no right to ask Hondurans to play dumb. On the contrary, before the international community abets mob violence, political polarization, foreign bullying, and economic sanctions to force Zelaya back into power, Hondurans have a right to ask if the international community has the good will to do the right thing and the good sense to know what that is.

Trial Lawyer Tactics Exposed in Latin America

2009-07-28T19:59:00.000-04:00

By Roger Noriega

The shenanigans cited by a California judge are typical of cases where U.S. 'multinationals' are shaken down by trial lawyers supported by populist, politicized foreign courts.

It is no secret that U.S. trial lawyers hear a siren’s song from the developing world in the form of massive claims brought against multinational corporations, which they drag into court as part of a lucrative crusade against globalization, exploitation, or some other alleged sin.

Last month the ugly truth behind several of these cases was exposed when a judge in California that a Los Angeles trial lawyer conspired with others to fabricate evidence in three multi-million dollar civil suits accusing Dole Food Company and Dow Chemical of causing sterility among male banana plantation workers through the negligent use of now-banned pesticide “DBCP.”

L.A. personal injury attorney Juan Dominguez is a self-styled crusader for the little guy against, as he describes them on his website, “big corporations and insurance companies that routinely trample, abuse, and exploit the rights of the less fortunate, pollute our environment, and violate basic human rights for their nefarious goals of corporate greed.”

According to L.A. Superior Court Judge Victoria Chaney, Dominguez took his crusade to the extreme by concocting a “blatant extortion” against Dole and Dow. Aided and abetted by Nicaraguan judges, Dominguez and his team coached plaintiffs (many of whom never worked for Dole), doctored employment and medical records, and threatened witnesses and Dole’s defense team. Supposedly sterile fathers were even told to deny their paternity to keep up the ruse.

Our societies are best served by sound laws, ethical lawyers, and fair courts. If these things are not available to the world’s largest companies, they will not be around for the rest of us, either.

After seeing evidence of the fraud, Judge Chaney declared, “this court questions the authenticity and reliability of any documentary evidence presented by plaintiffs that comes out of Nicaragua . . . I can’t believe in government documents . . . I can’t believe the laboratory reports, I can't believe medical reports.” She noted that these misdeeds cast a doubt on all DBCP claims pending in Nicaraguan and U.S. courts—including a $1.6 million judgment that Chaney herself blessed 18 months ago, before Dominguez’s scheming came to light.

The shenanigans cited by Judge Chaney are typical of cases where U.S. “multinationals” are shaken down by trial lawyers supported by populist, politicized foreign courts. Another example is the ongoing case in Ecuador, where indigenous groups supported by the government are suing Chevron-Texaco for $16 billion in environmental and health damages; the U.S. firm questions the evidence and contends that any blame rests with the prime operator, the inept Petroecuador.

The lack of impartial justice thwarts progress in the developing world, starting with national governments that are either too ineffective, corrupt, or both to protect their own people. Because of dysfunctional judicial systems, genuine victims—and even responsible companies looking to defend themselves from unfounded claims—are denied justice in local courts.

In the case of Nicaragua, the government spawned this scandal by passing “Law 364” in 2000, which imposed egregious disadvantages that leave foreign defendants in DBCP cases in a no-win situation. If a defendant argues for dismissal of the Nicaraguan proceedings, it may force the matter into a U.S. court. Playing by unfair rules may lend credence to outrageous claims. Not defending itself may invite default judgments, with exorbitant damages presented in U.S. courts. In all, Nicaraguan courts have issued more than two dozen DBCP judgments against Dole and others totaling over $2.1 billion.

Because of dysfunctional judicial systems, genuine victims—and even responsible companies looking to defend themselves from unfounded claims—are denied justice in local courts.

Harvard Law School professor Hal Scott, writing in the Harvard International Law Journal in January 2009, exposed Law 364 as part of a “clear and cunning” strategy of passing laws that discriminate against U.S. defendants so that U.S. judges are left with little choice but to open our courts to foreign plaintiffs. Scott argues that Congress should deny access to U.S. courts in cases where a foreign government has rigged its judicial system to prey on foreign defendants. Such a law, he says, would promote reform and greater fairness in overseas courts.

In the meantime, the Dominguez scandal may nudge justice along here at home. There are 31 DBCP-related cases—with thousands of plaintiffs from Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama, Honduras, and the Ivory Coast—pending against Dole nationwide. Judge Paul C. Huck, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, may soon decide whether a $98 million judgment, which was approved by a Nicaraguan jurist implicated in the Dominguez scandal, is enforceable in the United States.

It would be both unwise and unjust to suggest that any personal injury claim against a multinational corporation is without foundation. However, our societies are best served by sound laws, ethical lawyers, and fair courts. If these things are not available to the world’s largest companies, they will not be around for the rest of us, either.

As OAS Stumbles on Honduras, Give Diplomacy a Chance

2009-07-28T19:55:00.001-04:00

By Roger Noriega

On Sunday, July 5, Honduran authorities rejected the ultimatum issued by the Organization of American States (OAS) to reinstate ousted president Manuel Zelaya. Shortly after, the defiant government was suspended from the regional body. This impasse does not reflect a failure of diplomacy, but exposes a lack of it.

In the past week, most objective observers conceded that Zelaya's aggression against Honduran Congress and Courts coupled with his willful violations of the Honduran constitution spawned this crisis. An international chorus questions the legality of Zelaya's ouster. Since I am unschooled in Honduran law, I am forced to rely on the unanimous decisions of the independent Supreme Court blessing Zelaya's replacement.

Common sense is useful here too: If a traffic cop roughs up a drunk driver at the scene of an injury accident, I doubt anyone would argue the importance of getting the drunk back behind the wheel as the best way to chastise the policeman.

The international community is so fixated on the car wreck that they have failed to notice that Hondurans have put their own legal house in order. Although the duty fell to the military to enforce a court order against Zelaya, no soldier ever held power. The duly constituted Congress--about half of whose members are from Zelaya's own Liberal Party--reviewed Zelaya's crimes and voted almost unanimously to remove him from office. Respecting the constitutional order of succession, the Congress elected its own president, Liberal Roberto Micheletti, as Zelaya's replacement. Micheletti has pledged to turn over power next January to a successor chosen in this November's regularly scheduled elections--a pledge that the democratic paragon Zelaya was unwilling to make.

While Honduran authorities have opened an inquiry into Zelaya's treatment, the Supreme Court has held its position that the military acted properly. Zelaya has been indicted on many crimes--including treason--and some of his associates with ties to corruption and drug trafficking are finally facing justice.

Hondurans are convinced that Chavez's puppetry at the OAS abetted Zelaya's illegal campaign for re-election and is now driving the rush to judgment and calls for Zelaya's return. Chavez's media outlets are whipping up internal mobs, and he has even threatened military action against Honduras to back up his demands. Astonishingly, neither the U.S. nor the OAS has called upon the Venezuelan bully to temper his rhetoric. In any case, his comments have merely served to stiffen Honduran resistance to Zelaya's return.

The credibility of the OAS and of its Secretary General, José Miguel Insulza, is shot. The organization's refusal over the last few months to review Zelaya's provocative actions is a failure to use the graduated approach dictated by the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which was designed precisely to defuse crises. By contrast, its zealous rush to judgment after Zelaya's ouster bypassed the process of study and reflection called for under the Democratic Charter.

But Honduras is hardly an isolated example of the OAS's abject failure. For months, it has ignored Chavez's aggressive maneuvers to deny Caracas Mayor Antonio Ledezma the ability to assume the office he won last November; this weekend, Ledezma began a hunger strike in the OAS office in Venezuela to dramatize the group's hypocrisy. Insulza and the OAS have done nothing to confront the stealing of dozens of mayoral races in Nicaragua (including in the capital city of Managua) last fall. And the OAS has turned a blind eye to the aggressive measures deployed by Chavez himself as well as his allies in Bolivia and Ecuador running roughshod over government institutions, media critics and political opponents.

Insulza's unyielding defense of Zelaya and his lethargy where political rights are being trampled in a half a dozen other countries have only one thing in common: That's the way Chavez wants it.

With the OAS's leadership so thoroughly disgraced, individual governments must step forward to forge a diplomatic approach to protect the rights and freedoms of all Hondurans. A "Friends of Honduras" group could support a national dialogue or help accompany a review of Zelaya's alleged crimes and subsequent ouster. Presidential elections held in November or earlier could be monitored by the U.N. or by other independent observers. Individual nations must be counseled to cease their threats against Honduras and to stop meddling in its internal affairs.

Canada's foreign minister, Peter Kent, has been willing to speak good sense in this case, and his country is one of the few in the region that has the independence and heft to do what is right for Honduran democracy and not necessarily what Hugo Chavez dictates.

Latin America and the Economic Crisis

2009-07-28T19:53:00.001-04:00

By Roger Noriega

Most Latin American governments, which, in the last decade, came to recognize the benefits of orthodox economic policies coupled with targeted antipoverty programs, have managed to prevent a free fall in their economies and appear to be on their way back to decent growth next year. Key Latin American economies were growing at near double-digit rates before the economic crisis--driven by high commodity prices and reinforced by responsible economic policies. That ground to a halt after the economic meltdown last fall, and only a handful of countries are expected to record any growth this year. Brazil, Colombia, Chile, and Argentina are expected to shrink by up to 2 percent in 2009, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and independent analysts; Mexico's U.S.-dependent economy (hit hard by panic over drug violence and the flu pandemic earlier this year) may suffer a historic contraction.

High commodity prices (oil and gas, copper, and soybeans) had fueled growth in many regional economies. Reduced demand for these goods due to the global downturn has hurt export revenues. For example, Venezuelan oil is down to $61.30 a barrel, down from a peak of $129 in July 2008--although crude oil prices have rebounded by over 30 percent since April. Copper prices are at $4,569 a ton today, compared to a peak of $8,443 at this time last year. Soybean prices have been a bit steadier, but today they are about 20 percent below the average price they commanded in 2008.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) also poured into the region over the last several years, posting substantial gains just before the crisis. The brakes were put on late last year, and FDI peaked at about $130 billion in 2008--a 13 percent increase from the previous year. But this rate of growth was down sharply from the 52 percent gain recorded in 2007. The United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean predicts that FDI may drop by 45 percent this year. Inasmuch as the United States accounts for about a quarter of FDI to the region, a prolonged recession and uncertainty in the financial markets may threaten the nascent Latin recovery.

Mexico and Central America will be hit hardest by a significant drop in remittances sent home by immigrant workers in the United States. In April 2009, Mexico received 20 percent less cash from remittances compared to the same month last year. For these nations, remittances have become the second largest source of hard currency, following only oil or tourism revenues, depending on the country. It remains to be seen whether or how quickly remittances will bounce back, as workers forfeited jobs in the face of a slowing U.S. economy and a crackdown on illegal immigration.

The performance of regional stock markets suggests that the economic downturn may have bottomed out last month. For example, in late May, Brazil's benchmark stock index Ibovespa registered eight-month highs, with strong gains by the country's largest steelmaker. Since the nadir in early March, the Brazilian and Mexican stock markets have recovered over 40 percent of their value. Others have recorded healthy gains, although analysts predict a correction in regional stocks. Meanwhile, currencies that lost significant value against the dollar have recovered substantially and stabilized. Only Venezuela's inflation rate seems to have galloped out of control, but that trend predated the current crisis and was caused by President Hugo Chávez's incompetence, corruption, and statist policies.

In the several years ahead, each country will have to contend with resurgent poverty brought on by the current slowdown and tame inflation that might stem from stimulus spending and growing debt. Mexico and Venezuela--for very different reasons--are facing deeper crises, but the way in which those two governments respond will prove, once again, that sound market policies pay dividends and socialism leads to bankruptcy.

The region's principal economies are undergoing very different tests, but most are mustering free-market responses. Only Venezuela appears to be compounding its troubles with wrong-headed policies.

Brazil

Back in March, Brazilian president Luis Inacio Lula da Silva said that the global economic crisis was "caused and encouraged by the irrational behavior of white people with blue eyes." Yet despite such bombastic rhetoric, Lula has governed responsibly during these turbulent months. Latin America's largest economy will likely shrink by around 1 percent this year, but the government predicts growth of 3-4 percent in 2010--driven by a strong internal consumer demand and countercyclical measures applied by the Brazilian government. The country also announced that it would buy $10 billion in IMF bonds in order to diversify foreign currency reserves and gain leverage over global financial policies. Nevertheless, unemployment is expected to climb to over 9 percent before the economy recovers its footing. Conditional cash transfers, supplementing the income of millions of the nation's poorest families, have softened the blow of the economic crisis and may keep millions from sinking back into dire poverty.

Brazil has vowed to continue the $235 billion in capital improvements announced during the last two years, targeting modernization of logistics (railways, roads, ports, and airports), energy (generation, grids, oil and gas, and renewables), and social infrastructure (sanitation, housing, potable water, and electrification). In March, Lula announced a $15 billion low-cost housing program to create jobs and affordable homes.

The federal government's decision to suspend an industrial tax on cars, paired with the decision by banks to extend the auto loan maturities to six years, produced an 18 percent increase in General Motors sales in May, compared to the previous month. Fiat and Volkswagen logged lesser gains, helping the industry as a whole boost its sales to last year's levels. (That car tax break is set to expire at the end of June, although there is some talk of an extension.)

The substantial modernization of Brazil's productive infrastructure will likely make the country even more competitive after the global economy recovers. Moreover, the massive oil reserves discovered in recent years will be an extraordinary boon to the economy as international capital markets return to such ambitious projects and as oil prices increase enough to make the costly production profitable.

Mexico

Perhaps no country is more tied than Mexico to U.S. finance, trade and remittance flows, and unease over a stubborn recession north of the border. Prolonged uncertainty in the United States has made it difficult to peg the depths of Mexico's expected recession. President Felipe Calderón had clearly hoped to reassure the country regarding the severity of the crisis, and government analysts predicted that the damage to the economy would amount to less than 6 percent of GDP. In early June, however, a private survey of independent analysts predicted that the economy will shrink by as much as 9 percent in 2009--the largest contraction in nearly eighty years.

Even before the global recession and the financial uncertainty in the United States reached their peak, Mexico had been confronting remarkable challenges in the last twelve months in the form of falling oil prices, antidrug violence, and the H1N1 flu scare. The dramatic reduction in petroleum and tourism dollars took a big bite out of government revenues, and the flu pandemic sucked an estimated $2.3 billion out of the Mexican economy and required costly public health measures. Falling remittances from U.S.-based workers cost the economy another $2 billion in 2008, and that critical number is expected to drop again this year. In the important automobile sector, car and light-truck production fell nearly 40 percent in May, compared to the same month last year.

The state of Mexico's economy has led to some speculation that its debt rating might be downgraded. During the last year, the IMF has issued a series of increasingly negative estimates of the depths of the crisis in Mexico but insisted in an appraisal early this month that Mexico is "very well positioned to weather the global economic crisis."

The Mexican Treasury and development bank have moved decisively on many fronts to meet the multifaceted threats to their economy. Since 2008, they have targeted about $80 billion to support small and medium enterprises, housing, antipoverty programs, and the pork-producing sector; to bolster oil prices to around $70 per barrel; and to prevent the collapse of the Mexican peso. In mid-April, Mexico was the first nation in the world to access the IMF's new Flexible Credit Line, designed to help otherwise sound countries fortify their economies against a currency crisis. In late May, the government announced savings and austerity measures, ordering agencies to reduce personnel costs by 3.5 percent and administrative overhead by 6.4 percent; social programs and other stimulus spending were not affected.

Consumer prices in Mexico are fairly stable. With inflation under control at around 6 percent, Mexico's central bank is said to have the green light to continue reducing benchmark interest rates--as it has in the last five consecutive months--with the aim of boosting production and consumer spending and giving the economy some lift.

Additional measures and reforms will likely have to await the July 5 congressional elections. The opposition Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI)--which governed Mexico for over seventy years before losing power to the National Action Party (PAN)--has a narrow lead over the PAN in recent polling, although the PRI is expected to fall short of an outright majority in the lower house, where spending is approved. Central bank governor Guillermo Ortiz suggested that reforms might include improvements in tax collection and modernization of the nation's labor code.

Venezuela

Venezuela's oil-dependent economy is staggering as inflation soars to 30 percent and government revenue is sapped by lower oil prices, massive corruption and inefficiency, unaccounted social spending, growing debt, and Chávez's costly support for a coalition of client states. The politicized state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, is unable to pay its bills, with production very inefficient and revenue disappearing into so-called social funds managed by Chávez and his cronies. The flagship of Chávez's social "missions" is a chain of popular grocery stores intended to offer staples to the very poor at affordable prices, but currency controls limit the importation of such basic goods, which Venezuelans are unable to produce internally.

One report paints a bleak picture: "Prices for home appliances have skyrocketed, pharmacies are reporting shortages of drugs, and General Motors is planning to stop car production here next month, as measures by the Venezuelan government to conserve dollars ripple through the weakening economy. 'Today, there's no milk, no rice, no beans, no chicken, no meat, no butter and no cooking oil,' Francisco Quintero said as he shopped at a government store that sells subsidized staples for the poor."

Despite record oil revenue, Venezuela's economic growth slowed to about 5 percent in 2008, the lowest rate in five years. The economy is expected to contract by more than 2 percent this year, according to the IMF; others predict a contraction of nearly twice that. Moreover, analysts project no growth in Venezuela in 2010, while other Latin American economies are expected to recover respectable growth rates.

Even with oil prices high, analysts say that the Venezuelan government has been running fiscal deficits for years. In the first quarter of this year, as demand for its lower-grade crude oil dropped, Venezuela experienced a $15.3 billion balance-of-payments deficit--about four times the deficit in the same period last year. With oil prices back down to earth, Chávez has been forced to tap funds reserved for foreign solidarity projects, reduce government spending by nearly 7 percent, and hike a consumer tax to 12 percent to make ends meet. He also has been forced to humble himself before his Brazilian neighbors, seeking a $4.3 billion loan from Brazil's development bank.

Undaunted, Chávez's regime continues to increase the government's bite of what is left of the country's oil industry. In a bid to tame the private sector and pockets of political opposition, Chávez's energy and oil ministry recently announced the expropriation of thirty-five more oil field service firms--in addition to thirty-nine others taken over in recent months.

Peru

Peru's nearly double-digit growth in 2008 made it one of the fastest growing economies in South America. Growth of 9.8 percent last year is expected to be more than halved by the global crisis; still, it will likely be the only Latin country to be spared a recession this year.

Most credit the sound and stubborn economic strategy of President Alejandro Toledo (2001-2006) for putting Peru's house in order by reducing debt; controlling spending; driving down inflation; attracting investment and trade; and maximizing revenue from natural gas, farm products, copper, and silver. Toledo's successor, Alan García, has retained these macroeconomic policies and increased internal investments aimed at ensuring that the very poor share in these gains. In 2008 alone, the percentage of Peruvians living in poverty fell from 39.3 percent to 36.2 percent.

In response to the crisis, the government has implemented a stimulus package that includes public works programs, as well as aid to schools, local government, and poor families. Moreover, authorities say they are finalizing negotiations to attract over a billion dollars in foreign investment in infrastructure projects, with another $4.7 billion in projects out for bid in the energy, ports, telecommunications, and transportation sectors.

Colombia and Chile

Colombia's growth, which slowed to 2.5 percent last year and is expected to be flat in 2009, has been deeply affected by slumping exports to the United States and Venezuela. As far as the internal economy is concerned, housing construction and manufacturing are slowing dramatically, although the financial sector is functioning well. Colombia was the first country in the region to seek to spur the economy by lowering interest rates last December. Last month, the IMF approved a $10.5 billion line of credit, although Colombian officials have indicated that they took this step as a precautionary measure and do not expect to draw down on these resources. The decision by the U.S. Congress to shelve the U.S.-Colombia trade deal has stunted economic growth recently, and successful President Álvaro Uribe may decide that he has no choice but to renew his bid for a third term in order to reassure the nation and consolidate the remarkable gains of the last decade.

Chile's economy has been in a six-month slump, and the 3.5 percent contraction expected this year will be the worst performance in over a decade. With lackluster consumer demand, the central bank is expected to continue cutting interest rates to jump-start growth. The recent economic malaise will likely directly impact Chile's December 2009 presidential elections, with the ruling Concertación Democratica embarrassing itself in selecting a candidate to compete against popular entrepreneur Sebastián Piñera.

Resurgent Poverty?

Several Latin American countries have achieved and sustained sufficient growth--and invested in effective antipoverty programs--to help millions pull themselves out of poverty. As growth tumbles below 4 percent, it is likely that many who had benefited tangibly from such policies will lose these precious gains and feel more dispossessed than ever. According to Mexico's National Council for Evaluation of Social Development Policy, in 2006, 43 percent of Mexicans were living below the poverty line--down from 69 percent just after the last major recession in 1996. The World Bank's numbers were slightly different but confirmed progress, estimating poverty as falling from 45 percent in 1994 to 32 percent in 2006.

As unemployment rises and the economy contracts dramatically, one researcher says poverty could jump 10 percent. Even before the worst of the current crisis is felt, today, 25 percent of the nation's households count on small cash transfers (about $35 a month) under the government's "Opportunities" program. The Mexican government will be hard-pressed to maintain fiscal discipline and increase antipoverty spending during what is expected to be at least a two-year recession.

The United States: Little to Offer

The United States does not have the credibility to advocate fiscal restraint and open markets, nor does it have the resources to increase economic assistance in the region. If President Obama's critics are proven right, massive deficit spending and indebtedness may shake the foundations of the economy upon which many Latin American countries depend for investment and trade dollars, prolonging and deepening the recession in a region that was once our fastest growing trade partner.

Early in the year, brave talk by U.S. trade officials sparked some hope that Obama's campaign rhetoric was misunderstood and that he might exercise some leadership on pending trade agreements. But in the ensuing months, the administration has provoked something of a trade war with its two largest partners, Canada and Mexico. The indulgence of "Buy America" provisions has Canadians claiming that they have been disadvantaged despite language in the law that was supposed to protect our North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partners. The administration also has buckled under pressure from Congress and the Teamsters union to kill a pilot program unveiled in February 2007 as an overdue step toward complying with the NAFTA commitment to allow Mexican truckers to operate throughout the United States.

With those protectionist measures under the administration's belt, it took some measure of chutzpah for U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk to claim that Obama's trade team would be all about "enforcement." In a May 22 speech to the U.S. Meat Export Federation in Washington, Ambassador Kirk shocked his protrade audience by failing to make a solitary reference to pending trade agreements with Panama, Peru, and the Republic of Korea.

Democrats criticized Republican administrations for offering our neighbors "nothing but trade." In the absence of trade, what does a deficit-ridden United States have to offer the region? Well, it is accepted as conventional wisdom that the mere election of the charismatic President Obama would usher in a mutual respect and restored U.S. leadership in the Americas. However, two diplomatic encounters in the Americas in recent months give us a glimpse of the future of a U.S. regional policy that commands neither loyalty nor respect.

In April, President Obama sat quietly as Nicaragua's undemocratic president Daniel Ortega--fresh from stealing Managua's mayoral elections--delivered a fifty-minute lecture on the evils of the U.S. legacy in the region. Then, Obama managed a smile as Venezuelan dictator Chávez handed him a forty-year-old screed on the same subject entitled Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. President Obama might have impressed his counterparts if he cared enough to defend the United States or merely point to his own election as an example of a country that empowers and ennobles human beings from all walks of life. Alas, his silence must have emboldened U.S. adversaries and disheartened its friends.

In June, the general assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) provided another indication of Latin America's appreciation of the new U.S. president. Against strong U.S.U.S. friends) signed on to a resolution that would have opened the OAS to the Cuban dictatorship. The vast majority of our neighbors placed solidarity with a gasping dictatorship above the principled arguments mustered by the Obama team. objections, twenty-six nations (including key South American powers and erstwhile

Do No Harm, and Not Much Else

Latin American countries are making their way through the wreckage of the global economy almost in spite of the United States. Apparently, they realize that they can count on little in the way of genuine U.S. leader-ship on key issues, and they appear to be content with that arrangement.

As the United States' engagement and credibility recedes, Brazil's relatively stable economic performance and purchasing power will likely advance its ambitions to lead South America. Of course, Chávez can be expected to try to sustain his anti-U.S. coalition, which is making some new headway in Central America and at the OAS. One can only hope that U.S. political leaders will act soon enough to correct excessive spending and to reverse its unilateral trade policy so that the future of the hemisphere and U.S. credibility in the region do not suffer permanent damage.

Improving Hispanic Access to Health Care

2009-07-28T19:52:00.001-04:00

By Jordan Harp

Although health care reform is not the main issue on most people’s minds today, it is still one of the most important. This is particularly true for Hispanic Americans, who are disproportionately burdened with higher rates of diabetes, asthma, chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, strokes, and HIV/AIDS, among other illnesses. In order to address these disparities and the health needs of America’s fastest growing population, it is necessary to lower health care costs and increase health knowledge and awareness.

The expenditures in the United States on health care are by far the greatest in the world. In 2007, U.S. health care costs grew 6.1 percent, nearly double the rate of inflation, to $2.1 trillion, or 16.2 percent of the GDP. Health care expenditures averaged about $7,500 per person, almost double per capita health care expenditures of the next highest nation, Switzerland.

However, despite these expenses, an estimated 45 million Americans are without health insurance, the highest rate of industrialized countries. With an economy that shows no sign of improvement in the near future, the Obama administration has said that number could top 50 million. While the validity of those numbers is contested, the point still remains that the United States has an inefficient health care system. For the amount we invest in health care, we are not receiving adequate results with regards to health care coverage and education, which results in relatively poor health care indicators like life expectancy.

For Hispanics, affordable health care coverage is an especially important issue. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the prevalence of almost every disease is higher among Hispanics, yet Hispanics are less likely to be able to obtain medical care when needed: Hispanics under the age of 65 are 21 percent more likely to be uninsured than non-Hispanic whites.

One potential solution to improve health care access for Hispanics, as well as the general public, includes a renewed focus on primary care. Primary care is the first point of contact most people have with the health care system and plays preventative roles in a patients’ health. The scope of primary care is broad, addressing diverse health conditions like depression, urinary tract infections, and care for an aging population with increased incidences of chronic diseases. In a recent column in the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Benjamin Brewer, who has a family practice in Forrest, Illinois, wrote that “countries with better health care systems are all based on primary care.”

Despite its importance, however, the quality of primary care in the U.S. has deteriorated rapidly during the past decade. A 2006 report by the American College of Physicians says primary care is in danger of collapsing due to its dysfunctional financing and delivery system. Furthermore, the number of U.S. medical school graduates entering primary care has decreased by 50 percent from 1997 and 2005 due to relatively low compensation for primary care physicians and reports of job dissatisfaction.

Recommendations to improve the overall quality of primary care include revising Medicare payments to increase compensation for physicians, as well as encouraging the recruitment of nurse practitioners and physician assistants, who have smaller salaries but are still capable of dealing with many basic health conditions. This would help increase the amount of health care professionals in primary care. Having a physician, or another professional, whom people are familiar with and feel comfortable coming to would improve one's comfort with seeing a doctor. Getting primary care physicians in traditionally underserved Hispanic communities would have a positive effect on the overall health of the community.

While these revisions may help improve primary care in general, there will also be a need for complimentary measures specifically aimed at improving primary care for Hispanics. Improving Hispanic access to medical care includes strengthening that community’s relationship with health professionals. This can be achieved by increasing the number of Hispanic physicians by encouraging more Hispanic students to pursue medicine or other health-related professions.

The best way to increase Hispanic recruitment, however, is not by setting quotas at medical schools but through a comprehensive program that targets Latino students at an earlier age. In a recent interview with The Hispanic Community for Policy, Dr. Elena Rios, president and CEO of the National Hispanic Medical Association, outlined what could be done to help recruit minority students. This includes expanding Title VII, which helped recruit minority students into health professions, as well as health career opportunity programs and centers of excellence. In addition, providing Spanish speakers at health care facilities would benefit first generation Hispanics to better navigate the health care system. This can be done through the recruitment of Hispanic medical students, as mentioned above, as well as by providing Spanish-language training to English-speaking physicians and other health professionals.

Furthermore, there is a need for more health education campaigns aimed at Hispanics. There are already a few that are aimed at promoting health awareness among the Hispanic population through the National Alliance for Hispanic Health, including Proyecto Ciencia, Vive tu Vida! Get Up! Get Moving!, and Para un Corazón Saludable… for a healthy heart. Health education, as well as encouraging Hispanics to see a doctor regularly, and when they feel sick, can help prevent the more serious, acute conditions that drive medical care costs up.

Two other methods that can help reduce costs or increase access to care include greater focus on public health programs as well as implementing cost effective research. Public health, which is not the same as medicine, would function primarily as a safety net for the uninsured, many of which are Hispanics. Cost effective research is another method that would allow the effectiveness of treatments for the same disease to be tested, and would hopefully have the effect of lowering costs and therefore increasing access to health care among those who can’t afford it.

The main thing that should be cast away when dealing with health care is singular devotion to one ideology. The purely free market and the single payer proponents simplify a complex issue. Unlike a computer, car, or house, health care is a right. People need health care, they need medicine, and we need to ensure they can access it without going broke.

America may not have the greatest health care system, but it does have the most vibrant research community in the world. Research into medical technology, whether it’s pharmaceutical drug research or new medical devices, are one of the greatest contributors to improving quality of life. They save lives where previously it had been impossible. Those who are reworking the system must ensure the continued vibrancy of this great industry, as it benefits all.

There is no perfect solution to improve the U.S. health care system, but reform is necessary to close the health gap between Hispanics and America’s general population. General reforms of deteriorating areas, such as primary care, and ensuring the continued strength of medical research should, however, be complimented with targeted policies aimed at improving Hispanic health care access and knowledge of health issues. The question now isn’t what should be done, but rather, will lawmakers address these issues and help create a stable, more inclusive health care system?

Jordan Harp is a regular contributor to IDP. Mr. Harp is a Senior at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign majoring in Molecular Biology with a minor in Spanish. He is a premedical student.

A Message to Obama: How to Be a "Good Neighbor"

2008-12-08T19:37:00.005-05:00

By Roger Noriega

President-elect Barack Obama will soon have to confront urgent challenges and opportunities close to home in the Americas. His team can bury the paternalism and zero-sum thinking that have stunted the growth of our natural partnership with the Americas if it adopts energetic, respectful engagement. The new administration must listen and learn but be prepared to speak out when vital U.S. interests and values are at stake. The good news is that expectations in the region are high, but not unrealistic, and U.S. relations are in much better shape than the casual observer might assume. The bad news is that some challenges--such as the threat of drug trafficking and structural poverty--are worse than imagined. By avoiding some simple mistakes, investing political capital in trade and immigration, and getting serious about fundamental security and development challenges, Obama could be off to a promising start in the hemisphere.

Attitudes in Latin America today are shaped by new dynamics. The United States is no longer the only game in town. Economic actors from inside and outside the region (China, Europe, Brazil, Venezuela, and others) are competing for the Latin American market as never before. Furthermore, today's elected political leaders are empowered with the resources, popular mandates, and a broader choice of partners to shape their own destiny. And much of the work to be done to make their countries more governable and competitive requires internal political support more than foreign assistance. Finally, the consensus behind democratic capitalism itself has been undermined by the unrequited expectations of the region's very poor. As a result, few are waiting for made-in-Washington models.

Nevertheless, in the midst of a deep financial crisis, the stability and economic opportunities provided by our Latin American neighbors are critical to America's own recovery and security. After all, the Americas are home to three of the United States' top four foreign energy suppliers and our fastest-growing markets. Furthermore, we can never be genuinely safe in a post-9/11 world if nations with which we share land and maritime borders are unstable or hostile.

Solid, Respectful Ties

The vast majority of the political leaders in the region--even those emerging from the traditional left--remain committed to responsible, market-oriented economic policies, democratic governance, and political stability. Even if Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez's brand of authoritarian populism still finds a nostalgic audience in some quarters, his pyromaniacal rhetoric, militarism, and meddling have left him with only a small band of militant followers and a few more dependent clients. But Latin America is, after all, part of the "West." It has much more in common with the United States and Canada than it does with Chávez's Russian and Iranian chums. And Chávez's threadbare caudillo (strongman) style--which proposes that the poor sacrifice their freedom for food--has little appeal to leaders who know they must strengthen their institutions to thrive in the future.

What is more, the serious problems that the region has with drug trafficking and global competitiveness can best be resolved in close cooperation with the United States. And most nations--with leaders from across the political spectrum--have cultivated solid, respectful ties during the Bush administration. Therefore, an intelligent strategy will depend on putting aside some preconceived notions about the current state of relations--which are neither as bad nor as malleable as the Obama campaign has suggested. To cite but one indicator, in the last dozen years, U.S. aid to the region has tripled. While regional leaders are not waiting for Obama to deliver a regional agenda on stone tablets, they still hope for a partnership with the hemisphere's largest, most dynamic economy and the world's lone superpower. Below are some recommendations for our new president so that he can begin to meet these expectations.

Scrap Zero-Sum Formulas. Although neither candidate in the 2008 presidential campaign spoke much about the Americas, what Obama did say raised legitimate concern among most interested observers. His opposition to the free trade agreement with Colombia, a key U.S. ally, and his oft-repeated commitment to grant an early, unconditional audience to the region's most divisive leaders have left many wondering if he has weighed the consequences of such ideas. Indeed, U.S.-Latin American relations have been bedeviled for decades by zero-sum thinking. Chávez has spent years and billions of dollars trying to convince the rest of the region that the United States must lose for Latin America to win. Too many in the Latin and Caribbean political classes are historically skeptical of any U.S. initiative--preferring to fault our efforts rather than assume responsibility for their own fate. When the United States engages to defend our values, too many in the region are quick to criticize. When we hold back, we are accused of not caring. But because of Obama's personal story and what his victory says about the opportunities in a free society, he has a unique opening to encourage all sides to commit to finding win-win solutions. And he may prove to have the credibility and stature that will allow him to be the kind of earnest partner who can press other countries to help themselves.

Listen and Learn. Obama must demonstrate his openness at the scheduled Summit of the Americas, to be held in Trinidad and Tobago in April 2009. Every free nation in the Western Hemisphere will be represented, with the new president's counterparts hanging on his every word. He should be prepared to describe his vision of the future and to discuss our deep and abiding commitment to fighting poverty through the rule of law and an educated citizenry. Dialogue is a two-way street. The summit host and other delegations will need to lay the political groundwork for constructive, private, informal exchange among the leaders.

Stand by Freedom. The Obama administration should break the United States' silence regarding the troubling deterioration of democracy in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and elsewhere in the region to let our friends know that we stand with them and to encourage the region's democrats to defend their values. The United States also must continue to be a fierce advocate of economic freedom, in which government's role is to empower the individual and encourage entrepreneurial capitalism.

Empower a Special Envoy. Obama should designate a trusted, heavyweight political ally as a special envoy to the Americas and choose a seasoned political hand for the position of assistant secretary of state. The fine career diplomats deserve experienced, purposeful political leadership to carry out a bold policy in the region.

Consult with Heavyweights. Obama would be smart to commit to regular open channels and periodic meetings with the leaders of Brazil, Canada, and Mexico as the leading powers in the Americas. These private consultations will go far in coordinating effective responses to problems in the region and beyond.

Launch an Education Revolution. Another factor stunting the growth of Latin America is the substandard, ineffective, and underfunded education systems in most nations in the region; indeed, fourteen nations in sub-Saharan Africa invest a larger percentage of their per capita income in education than nineteen Latin American states, including Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, and Venezuela. It is hard to imagine the Americas reaching their full potential until primary education is overhauled, giving people from all walks of life the tools they need to hold their governments accountable and to take advantage of new and better jobs created by growing economies. Obama should focus personal attention and sufficient U.S. foreign assistance--matching local and development bank resources--to increase the effectiveness and reach of the region's educational systems, setting reasonable, measurable targets for eliminating illiteracy by the year 2020.

Reward Reform and Fight Corruption. Latin America has made significant progress in terms of economic growth and transitions to representative democracy in the last twenty-five years. Nevertheless, its relatively weak institutions and persistent corruption have conspired to hold back the very poor. The poorest people in Latin America enjoy a smaller share of their nations' wealth today than they did twenty years ago. While the United States touted sound macroeconomic policies and privatization as part of what became known as the "Washington Consensus," the benefits of these economic reforms were neither maximized nor shared equitably because of ineffective institutions, corruption, and other obstacles to social mobility.

Although the United States can hardly be blamed for the inherent weaknesses found in these countries, we have been identified with an agenda that left many of the poor unsatisfied and disillusioned. Today, key South American economies are experiencing positive growth. They have been hit by the global financial crisis, but the reaction has been to reject protectionism rather than scapegoat market economics. Particularly in response to the global downturn, these nations must press forward on implementing second-generation reforms--disciplined fiscal policies, effective democratic institutions, flexible labor codes, accessible financial sectors, independent courts, and adequate public security--in order to ride out the current slowdown and achieve sustainable, equitable growth.

To be sure, the foregoing challenges are daunting, and the Obama team will have to be especially creative in shaping innovative strategies for encouraging governments to press forward with the same unfinished reform agenda. Therefore, Obama should continue funding the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which channels U.S. assistance to low-income countries that govern democratically and fight corruption, and he should scrutinize programs in countries that are not meeting these commitments, such as Nicaragua and Honduras.

Carry Our Weight in the Drug Fight. Another significant and growing challenge is the cancer of transnational criminality driven by the drug trade, which corrupts and undermines governments and tears at the social fabric in the region. Colombia has made impressive strides, thanks in part to U.S. security assistance. Mexico's political leadership has shown unprecedented determination to take on the narcotraffickers, but that battle will likely get worse before it gets better. And the trend lines are decidedly negative in Venezuela, Bolivia, and some nations in Central America, where law enforcement does not even pretend to be able to control the threat.

President George W. Bush prioritized "Plan Colombia," which began as a bipartisan commitment during the Clinton administration. And the recent Mérida Initiative is channeling $500 million to Mexico and Central America to fight the drug trade. Perhaps even better news is that the region's principal states--with Colombia leading the charge--have recognized their own responsibility for confronting this program and are stepping up to coordinate a homegrown response. This sort of integrated, regionwide effort is essential to battling the lawlessness and instability that threaten governability in a growing number of states. Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico can play decisive roles in coaxing cooperation from governments that do not support the tactics of the U.S. drug war. The Obama administration should continue substantial U.S. support for Mexico and Central America and encourage integrated cooperation among regional civilian law enforcement to confront the deadly drug cartels.

Consolidate Success in Colombia. One of the pressing challenges for the incoming administration will be how to treat a key ally, Colombia, that is at the heart of U.S. policy to promote democratic governance, fight terrorism and drugs, and build economic partnerships. Unfortunately, U.S. labor leaders and many in Obama's own party believe that what is good for our Colombian ally is somehow bad for our own interests. And just as a bipartisan commitment to Plan Colombia has begun to bear fruit in many ways, the Democratic Congress has signaled that critical U.S. security aid may be drying up. The only mention of Latin America in any of the presidential debates found Obama heaping scorn on Colombia's labor rights record as a pretext for not supporting the pending free trade agreement with that nation.

Nevertheless, the new president's briefing papers will tell him that Colombia has eliminated virtually all of the opium poppy crop (the source of black tar heroin); that, since December 2006, cocaine prices have increased while purity has declined (evidence of the scarcity of the product); and that most of Andean cocaine is finding its way to Europe rather than running the gantlet of the U.S.-Colombian alliance. What few may have noticed is that Colombia has taken the initiative to aid Afghan and Mexican counternarcotics officials who have made a beeline to Bogota to learn how to battle these deadly cartels through intelligence and law enforcement, and that Colombian police are the driving force behind "Ameripol," a promising new tool for promoting police cooperation against this threat. Colombia also led eighteen nations in producing a "transit zone" strategy that has Latin and Caribbean states pulling together to "confront all the links" in the drug chain.

By its own force of will, and making the most of U.S. support, Colombia is making itself the hub in the wheel of the global fight against criminal drug syndicates. By opening up to U.S. investment and to its neighbors, its economy also has recovered. In short, turning our backs on Colombia--in terms of trade or aid--will have far-flung, dire consequences for U.S. credibility and tangible national security interests. Obama's bargaining skills, credibility, and commitment to the Americas will be measured in how he treats Colombia. He can avoid some early mistakes by stepping back from several positions he took during the heat of the campaign. He should ratify the languishing Colombia Free Trade Agreement and include substantial funding for Colombia's National Police and others who are doing our fighting for us.

Enrich the Agenda with Brazil. The Obama administration should pay special attention to our Lusophone friends. Brazil's leadership and institutions are demonstrating that democratic capitalism is the true remedy for moving millions out of poverty and can be a stabilizing force in the Americas and the world. Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva should also be encouraged to take a leadership role in brokering an end to the logjam in the World Trade Organization's Doha round, reiterating the U.S. commitment to eliminating agricultural subsidies in concert with European and Asian concessions.

Incentivize Private Capital. Obama should dispatch the secretary of the treasury to meet with counterparts to encourage economic recovery, to help remedy disruptions in lending to the private sector, and to initiate talks toward an investment accord that will secure and facilitate international business, encourage more competitive economies, and attract global capital.

Get Over "The Wall." Obama and the Democrats have a chance to modernize U.S. immigration laws to accommodate the natural ebb and flow of legal foreign workers who contribute to the U.S. economy and return home. In an economic crisis, it will be tempting to blame immigration for employment woes, but the new president should avoid such scapegoating and pursue real reform.

Remember the Caribbean. The Obama administration should accord special attention to the unique characteristics of the small island-states of the Caribbean and take steps to address their vulnerabilities to illegal migration and drug trafficking. A special coordinator for the Caribbean should be designated to consult with the region on a multiyear international development fund tailored to its unique needs; the Caribbean Community might accommodate dialogue by granting the United States observer status. Haitians must be able to count on international support, which requires consistent U.S. engagement; the slightest hint that former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide might be returned to power under the new Democratic administration would be dangerously destabilizing.

Put Regional Institutions to the Test. In the last several decades, the United States has been a good neighbor: granting access (in some cases unilaterally) to the U.S. market, advancing democracy and good governance, forgiving debt, lending a hand in financial crises, confronting the transnational drug threat, shaping a regional agenda in multilateral forums such as the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Summit of the Americas, and forging historically close ties with Brazil and Mexico. Obama can encourage bold new Latin-led initiatives that make countries accountable for antidrug, prodemocracy, and regional security initiatives, and he can help reinvigorate the OAS and the Inter-American Development Bank as more effective and adequately funded instruments for the region's common good.

Keep Faith with the Cuban People. During his presidency, Obama will likely see the dawn of a free Cuba. In the meantime, he should keep faith with the Cuban people by generating bold, creative efforts to support Cuba's democratic opposition on the island. He can demonstrate his commitment to that goal by conditioning the loosening of U.S. travel to Cuba upon the regime allowing unfettered travel by all Cubans (beginning with those who hold visas to enter the United States but are held hostage on the island today). Obama also should reiterate his pledge to maintain the U.S. embargo, as required by U.S. law, until Cuba is free and leverage it to extract deep, broad, and irreversible reforms from a transition government. There is no logic in the new president picking a fight with the growing phalanx of Democrats who have voted against making unilateral concessions to the ruthless Cuban dictatorship.

Engage in Dialogue, First with Our Friends. In the heat of a presidential debate, Obama pledged to meet with Chávez and Cuban leader Fidel Castro--without preconditions--during the first year of his presidency. Neither Chávez nor Castro has done anything to justify putting them at the head of the line for presidential summits. Moreover, such encounters will legitimize, embolden, and buy time for both men and demoralize the courageous democrats in Venezuela and Cuba who will end up paying the price for these meaningless gestures. Obama should not grant presidential meetings with Chávez or Castro before extending the same extraordinary courtesy to every friendly, elected leader. The world may be looking to Obama to initiate a new age of "dialogue," but it will forgive him for passing up aimless summits that will empower our enemies and harm our friends.

Burying Paternalism in Partnership

These recommendations contemplate a robust and creative U.S. partnership to help countries do what they must do for themselves. In light of the global financial crisis and the siren of authoritarian populism, this strategy of engagement and the vigorous defense of democratic capitalism are needed more than ever today. One hopes for a policy under the new president that is both pragmatic and principled--pragmatic enough to set aside preconceived notions to advance our interests and principled enough to defend our traditional values and stand by our trusted friends. This approach also assumes that our partners will accept responsibility for their own future and view their relationship with the United States in a more modern, mature way.

For too many years, U.S.-Latin relations have been dominated by a zero-sum formula, in which U.S. interests were weighed against regional equities. It is possible to turn the page and bury paternalism if Obama can lead his counterparts to invest political capital in a search for
win-win formulas and genuine partnership.

Roger Noriega was a senior Latin America policy official in the Bush administration from 2001-2005 and is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Noriega is a Member of HCP's Board of Director's. This Op-Ed was published today by AEI.

Preserving Fair Election Practices

2008-11-16T13:04:00.007-05:00

By Lily Guzman

The elections are finally over. But I am finding it increasingly difficult to go back to my regular life, pretending that “the American people have spoken”, period! Perhaps one of the reasons why these elections were so personally frustrating is because when I understood that corruption and greed permeated television broadcasting, I abandoned my established career as television producer. I gave up.

My father was a social activist, a lawyer, a judge, a representative and, above all, a responsible citizen in the Dominican Republic. I became an American by choice, for love of a country that embraces values and dignity in the political process, a country that rewards responsible behavior.

Long ago, my father told me that the noblest inheritance for one’s offspring is not wealth or anything that can be purchased; the legacy he was talking about is delivered by parents who live a life filled with honesty, dignity and respect for others. For as long as I can remember America stands for that legacy, crossing ethnic, social, political and religious differences.

Behaviors during the recent elections, however, showed decadence in the fiber of our society, listening to statements such as: “what is there for me?” “I will not have to pay for healthcare,” “I will not have to worry about paying my mortgage,” “my social security benefits will increase.”

I married a soldier stationed in North Carolina when I was 17 years old. Two years later, my parents came for the birth of my fist child. I was then caretaker of a KOA campground; after his morning walk, dad noticed a jar full of money on the table next to an open refrigerator located at the entrance of the building. Reasonably alarmed, he pointed at the astounding discovery. I calmly responded that the owners instituted the honor system, leaving essentials like milk, bread and other items in the refrigerator, readily available for late arrivals. My father jumped, “this is a trap! They are testing you….” When I explained that this was regular procedure and the money in the jar was usually a few pennies over, he literally fell down on his knees saying “This is a Country! I never expected to find a place like this…. If I die here, bury me in this land, a land that can sustain civility and a functional democracy in ways I never dreamt possible….I lived my life hating the United States as a symbol of imperialism, without getting to know her…you have found a real country…I hope you learn to appreciate it.” That was the beginning of my love affair with America.

Thirty five years later, during the elections, I was troubled by several things; above all, the realization that the media can and will dictate without remorse, who wins elections. This is wrong! The fourth power, as the print media was known before the French Revolution, suggesting its influence, has become the ruling power in America. The media, the production houses and the marketing agencies are the only winners in these elections. We, the people, are defeated and taken into account only as statistics for the evening news, at best. People are geared up to vote in The American Idol contest but ill prepared to decide about government; naively continuing to expect trustworthy information from media networks, newspapers and respectable magazines.

Media’s blatant resistance to question Obama is cause for concern; few have dared to discuss the inconsistencies in his memoirs and speeches. Joe Biden stayed unchallenged flaunting Marxist rhetoric and the portrayal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s television addresses during the great depression, despite the fact that television started broadcasting 10 years later. Katie Couric overlooked Biden’s mistakes, but later belittled Governor Sarah Palin, for hesitating during her questioning; incomprehensible double standards based on ideology, not logic.

In June 2008, now President-elect Obama reversed his earlier promise to use public funds in his campaign, thus tricking his opponents into a disadvantageous position from the get-go; while this is not illegal, it is unethical. People need open discussions on issues of concern; the public vents and learns in the process. To keep the public informed is the job of the media.

Candidates must be held accountable; and their campaigns must follow all election rules. I bet, however, that the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) is not going to audit Obama’s fund raising. Although I don’t want to embarrass our president-elect and I wish him well, FEC must be held accountable for keeping the virtue of the processes in place.

In the spirit of the law, why have Internet contributions with undisclosed IP addresses been allowed by FEC? Only U.S. citizens can contribute to presidential campaigns. Where are FEC and the media on this issue? Why aren’t more people demanding the list of donors? Citizens have the right to know who contributed to each presidential candidate. The rules can’t change in the middle of the game.

Campaign financing rules need to be enforced across party lines, assessing penalties on those who overlooked foreign contributions, accepted unlimited donations and disobeyed other election rules. Americans need to see these developments play in the media, in order to keep our hopes alive and be encouraged to obey the rules of the land, because in America the law applies to everyone.

In-kind contributions, including media promotions, have a cap. However, by its support, the media donated millions of dollars to Obama, unaccounted for. The only way the media could ethically get away with this is by giving other candidates the same consideration. All candidates should be treated equally. The media has the responsibility to objectively present the qualities and flaws of all candidates on the ballot; eight presidential candidates were listed in the November 4th ballot, only two were widely recognized, but from the start, the media rooted for only one, Barack Obama.

During the election we rarely heard about the community organizing group that was accused of committing voter fraud. Few mentioned the fact that this group, the Association for Community Organizers Now, or Acorn, is linked to the “media favorite” candidate, President-elect Obama, who represented Acorn in a 1995 lawsuit. We, the citizens, were kept in the dark. Acorn votes were counted anyway. Silence is the tip of the iceberg of distortion and foul play.

The same media that refuses to discuss Acorn’s voter registration practices goes to great length to destroy the character of a regular citizen who dares to ask the media’s candidate a simple question. Intimidation, therefore, becomes synonymous with repression. Right now, anyone has grounds to fear repercussions for expressing their opinion; I don’t know who will start a surreptitious investigation on me, for example, just for opening my mouth.

Candidates are not products like soft drinks or deodorants in a promotional campaign. We are talking about the presidency of the United States, every elected office in the land, and the fate of our democracy. When the public is swayed by advertisements, without anyone guarding the people’s opportunity to raise legitimate questions, it is time for concern. We cannot resign ourselves to be treated like cattle responding to the bell, we are not zombies; although we are acting like it. We are the bearers of the flame of democracy, trustees of the most admired country in the world. Are we willing to disgrace our inheritance by dismissing our obligation to be informed? Our democracy depends on our capacity to think, investigate and discern.

A major component of a healthy campaign in the United States, which has served as the model of democracy around the world since Alexis de Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America in the 1830’s, is whether the media is doing a good job conducting independent, unbiased investigations of the candidates. When issues are openly discussed, candidates don’t resort to embarrassing, misinforming and distorting forms of campaigning.

While I believe the election of a black person is a milestone in American history, the accomplishment becomes null and void in light of the premeditated detachment from basic ethics and election rules, murdering the trust of the American people in the process.

The Democratic Party’s elite betrayed women in America by denying the nomination of Senator Hillary Clinton based on popular vs. electoral votes, the same argument they used against President George W. Bush four years earlier. In a quest for political correctness the DNC elite capriciously tipped the balance because they saw a very attractive and eloquent African American and wanted to have the first African American elected, at any cost.

To improve conditions we need to institute strict campaign reforms, reinstate respect for ethics, election rules, and the constitution. We need to promote dignified campaigns for the sake of the American people and open forums during all campaigns, dispensing knowledge and doable solutions rather than rhetoric. This will provide the American people the opportunity to elect a president, rather than buy one under the pressure of the media.

Lily Guzman is an International Business Consultant in Orange City, FL.

U.S. Shouldn't Ignore Ortega's Power Grab

2008-11-14T18:19:00.006-05:00

By Roger Noriega

Ordinarily, whoever is elected mayor of Managua, Nicaragua, would not matter much in the grand -- or even moderately important -- scheme of things. However, it matters now, because if the Nicaraguan people stand up to the shameless attempt by Sandinista dictator Daniel Ortega to steal last Sunday's municipal elections, they will begin to turn back the tide of authoritarian populism that threatens the future of Latin America.

Ortega, who was elected president in 2006 with about 38 percent of the vote, has earned widespread international rebukes in recent months for disqualifying opposition political parties, harassing pro-democracy activists and manipulating the country's unscrupulous electoral authorities leading up to the balloting to choose mayors and councilmen in Nicaragua's 153 cities and towns.

The biggest stakes are in Managua's mayoral race between a decent democrat and Liberal Party candidate Eduardo Montealegre and Sandinista (and retired world boxing champion) Alexis Argüello. Montealegre was Ortega's opponent two years ago and, as mayor of the nation's capital, he could loosen the Sandinistas' iron grip on Nicaraguan politics.

Dubious Election Returns

The Supreme Electoral Council is standing by a partial count from about 40 percent of the polling places that gives the Sandinistas a six-point advantage in the Managua contest. However, Montealegre has shown international observers and journalists official copies of tally sheets from 93 percent of Managua's 2,107 polling places that reflect a decisive opposition victory in the capital city.

The Catholic Church has reviewed the opposition's evidence and produced a strong statement warning of a ''defrauding of the popular will.'' A Nicaraguan electoral watchdog, Etica y Transparencia, has criticized a process marred by the ''least transparency and most intimidation'' in more than a decade. The independent group's 30,000 observers reported ''irregularities'' at a third of the Nicaragua's 12,000 polling sites. Private-sector leaders have insisted on a nationwide recount of the ballots.

The opposition argues that the Council's dubious returns and machinations are intended to create an environment in which the Sandinistas can bully electoral monitors and opposition activists into accepting their victory. The Liberal leadership recently rejected the electoral council's puny offer of a partial, unsupervised recount. Although ''Ortegista'' thugs have hit the streets to cow their opponents, Nicaraguan democrats have answered the call to defend their vote. Violence might escalate if electoral authorities do not satisfy the simple demand for transparency.

What is at stake in that tiny, troubled country is whether the people's will can prevail against the authoritarian machinations of Daniel Ortega, an acolyte and beneficiary of Venezuela's polarizing imperialist, Hugo Chávez. The same tug-of-war is under way in Bolivia, Ecuador and El Salvador -- where Chávez's well-financed puppets are systematically attacking the democratic institutions that stave off violence and mayhem in these fragile, divided societies.

Resist Chavez's Puppets

The U.S. government should not be reticent about rejecting the naked power grab in Nicaragua, just as it must stand by friendly democrats who are resisting Chávez's puppets in upcoming congressional and presidential elections in El Salvador. The region's democrats have begun to read Washington's studied silence about all this as deliberate indifference. The OAS -- which failed to observe the Nicaraguan elections and has witnessed silently the construction of a dictatorship in Venezuela -- must be pressed to respond to the challenge to democratic institutions in Nicaragua, Bolivia and

Ecuador

-- where authoritarian populists are offering the poor bread in exchange for their political freedom.

Managua could prove to be Chavez's high-water mark -- but that will only happen if Nicaraguan democrats stand up for their rights and if the rest of the world's democrats can summon the courage to stand with them.

Roger Noriega was a senior Latin America policy official in the Bush administration from 2001-2005 and is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Noriega is a Member of HCP's Board of Director's. This Op-Ed was published today in the Miami Herald.

Banking on Obama with Open Eyes – I’m Voting for the Black Man

2008-11-13T15:19:00.009-05:00

By Nativo Vigil Lopez

The American people can now rejoice in one of the greatest blows against racism in its history – the election of President-elect Barack Hussein Obama. This is the culmination of a two-year campaign for the son of an immigrant African father and a white Irish-American mother born and raised in middle America Kansas. Obama qualified the election success as “a defining moment” for America in his victory speech.

No matter your take on his politics – either from the left or right – president-elect Obama will be considered an American epic figure. He has smashed the race barrier and the glass ceiling, and he did it not just with the black vote, but a quilt of votes from all races, national origins, ages, party affiliations, ethnic groups, and ideological inclinations. The vote count bears this out. But the story is also about white America that favored the Democratic candidate by 43 percent, a higher margin than that received by Senator John Kerry in his 2004 presidential bid. While blacks and Latinos can claim him as “our” president, the reality is that the combined votes of blacks and Latinos would not have been sufficient to sweep him into office. This speaks volumes for white voters who did not allow race to be a factor in their determination to select the new father of our country.

What mattered more to the voters, according to exit polls, was the economy – by a margin of 68 percent. Interestingly, the issue of immigration did not even rate as an interest of concern to the voters, notwithstanding the hardboiled anti-immigrant campaigning during the primary elections by the Republican Party.

The “Yes We Can” (Si Se Puede) slogan encapsulated the spirit of Americans across the board who wanted change, and fought for it with expressions of hope and reconciliation. It is a slogan taken straight out of the playbook of Cesar Chavez in mounting the movement to organize farm workers in California during the 1960s. It is a slogan now chanted by Americans across the country to reflect their optimism about creating a different country, about creating change. It is an adamant and defiant chant, repeated by Obama before half-a-million celebrants in Chicago last night, which poses a positive determination of what will come. This is how Cesar presented his case at a different historic juncture.

“We have overcome,” the words uttered by an African American woman celebrating in Chicago after the announcement of the results, and overheard by a television commentator. This is the past tense of those words declared in a televised speech by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 when he introduced the Voting Rights Act to the U.S. Congress – we shall overcome – words that he appropriately appropriated from the civil rights movement that demanded and struggled to obtain this legislation. It is said that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. openly wept when he saw and heard President Johnson on television repeat those words. He said that he never thought he would live to see a white man embrace this slogan. But King, like Obama 44 years later, was responsible for bringing together the political and social forces to create the opportunity and the moment.

This election reveals who we are as a people, and reveals this to the world. Does anyone ever remember when people throughout the world celebrated the victory of a U.S. presidential candidate as they did for the Obama victory as if to embrace him as their own president and their own victory? This is what the major media networks have reported.

Spike Lee characterized the moment as historic for the country, and that we will now reference U.S. history as BBO and ABO – Before Barack Obama and After Barack Obama. Doug Wilder, the first black governor of Virginia, said he was “proud of America, and especially proud of Virginia.” Pat Buchanan, an extremely conservative author and television pundit declared, “The Republican Party lost the Reagan Democrats in this election.” Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., (D- Illinois), observed, “The genius of the Obama campaign was that he ran as an American who happened to be an African American.”

The American electorate has grown as a result of this election cycle – an estimated 130.4 million people voted, about 8.5 million more than in 2004, 61.2 percent of eligible voters. Blacks increased their share of the electorate to 13 percent, 2 percent above their role in 2004. Some other figures help to understand the moment. Blacks voted for Obama by a margin of 95 percent, Latinos by 66 percent, and young voters also by 66 percent - in political parlance this is a super-majority. Latinos brought home the winning of the West by voting more than two-to-one for Obama in California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. The Latino support in Nevada – an important swing state - for the first black president of the nation was 76 percent. And, the united black and Latino vote in Florida was responsible for carrying that state. This Latino electorate performance smashes forever the racist myth rolled out by many media pundits after the Super Tuesday primaries in February that Latinos would never vote for a black man for president. Latinos proved them wrong – big time.

I’M VOTING FOR THE BLACK MAN

In December 2007, I attended an immigration conference in Houston, Texas. I took a taxicab to return to the airport, and struck up a conversation with the driver, an African American, and it eventually got to the elections. I asked him whom he was supporting for president. Without missing a beat, he responded, “I’m voting for the black man.” He added that “the first 43 presidents have been white men, so why not give the black man a chance, he couldn’t do any worst.” The logic was compelling. One month later the Mexican American Political Association (MAPA), for which I serve as national president, celebrated its endorsement convention and the hundreds of delegates unanimously voted to endorse Senator Barack Obama for president. The organization formed MAPA FOR OBAMA chapters and joined the campaign. The members resolved to cast their lot with our black brothers and sisters and look forward to the “change we need” – the Obama campaign slogan.

Many tears were shred, including my own, at the sheer delight of hearing president-elect Obama pronounce his speech at Grant Park in Chicago. I am proud of my president-elect, proud of white America, proud of the black community who demonstrated leadership, patience, and discipline moving towards this election, and proud of Latinos who showed the world that it is willing to support a candidate for the content of his character and not the color of his skin. The latter was a confirmation of what I have always experienced in life.

Obama’s victory speech was somber in my interpretation and he took great pains to lower expectations within the context of expressing optimism, accomplishment, gratitude, and reflecting on the historic moment in reference to Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He staked out a laudatory posture of reconciliation and reaching across the isle in a big way. This is how he intends on governing in a too-fractured America.

Like many other Americans, I too am banking on Obama just as Obama banked on Latinos to win the West. There is probably no issue of great import to the country that could not be considered a Latino issue. Everything in his platform speaks to our needs – the economy, financial markets, a more progressive tax policy, homeownership, ending the war in Iraq, re-building the infrastructure, global warming, the development of alternative energy sources and ending our dependence on fossil fuels, universal healthcare, and certainly, comprehensive immigration reform. We have everything to benefit from this presidency, but it will more likely occur by continued organizing, mobilizing, and being present, and being counted.

We should have no illusions about the speed of change we need and want, or about the ability of president-elect Barack Obama to deliver. There will be great difficulties. President Bush will hand over a basket-case of a country, two wars, a half-a-trillion dollar budget deficit, a doubled national debt of $11 trillion, millions of home foreclosures, one million jobs lost during the last twelve months alone, and an economic recession that will only deepen. These are overarching challenges for any new president. But, these too are our challenges. And, from crisis comes opportunity.

Nativo Vigil Lopez is the National President of the Mexican American Political Association (MAPA)

Why Don't Hispanics Vote... As Much?

2008-11-07T14:21:00.012-05:00

By Rob Fernandez

Much is made about the size of the Hispanic population in the United States, now at 45 million and often referred to as the “sleeping giant” in American politics. Everyone knows that Hispanics will be politically important; if not soon, certainly by 2050, when Hispanics will make up 25 percent to 35 percent of the U.S. population, according to various estimates.

Population size, however, has proven time and again to not be the most important factor when measuring the political power of an ethnic group. Rather, voter turnout is key. Cuban Americans are a perfect example: they have a population size of just over 1.5 million yet more than 90 percent are registered and 67 percent reported voting in a recent election, making them one of the most powerful groups politically in the U.S. over the last forty years.

However, despite the Cuban American vote, Hispanics overall vote in fewer numbers than their White and Black counterparts. Because votes are what politicians need to get elected, they naturally spend more time dealing with the issues of those who are likely to vote. Since Hispanics vote in fewer numbers, they have placed themselves at a serious disadvantage in affecting public policy, e.g. in creating laws and policy, and in deciding how the government will spend taxpayer dollars. If Hispanics want politicians to spend more time on public policy issues important to the Hispanic Community, they need to vote in larger numbers.

Over the past 14 national elections, since 1978, 56.4 percent of registered Hispanics voted, compared with 70.9 percent of registered Whites, 71.9 percent of registered non-Hispanic Whites and 65.6 percent of registered Blacks.

Why does this “voting gap” exist? Some might conclude that there is a high degree of apathy, or political laziness, or maybe a lack of national identity among Hispanics when compared to Whites and Blacks. However, these reasons ignore Hispanic’s past life’s experience, which is one of the main reasons for the voting gap, not apathy, laziness, or lack of identity.

Most of the nearly 20 million Hispanics who have immigrated over the past 30 years, calculated from census data, came from impoverished regions in their nations of origin, and are among the least educated and most marginalized within their societies. Immigration studies support these claims. “The poorest of society, please take care of them,” a Mexican friend living in Mexico City pleaded with me recently when urging support for comprehensive immigration reform.

During elections in their countries of origin, political parties would often reach out to the poor, providing them food and drink before driving them to the polling booths with the expectation they would vote for their party. After Election Day, economic circumstances rarely, if ever, changed. For generations, the poor remained poor, uneducated and would carry a larger share of the burdens of society.

In its essence, that is the lifetime political and voting experience for many Latino’s fleeing to the U.S., looking for the chance to feed their families and experience the American Dream. When they become citizens, many simply don’t vote. Should this be much of a surprise?

The truth is that it is hard to attach much importance to voting when issues like insufficient incomes, working two or more jobs, sharing a small apartment with several families to reduce costs, living in a new land without knowing the language, have been realities. Even over time, when Hispanic immigrants have learned English and adapted to American Culture, their political perspective is still framed by their experiences in their native lands - an experience filled with voter neglect, abuse, and comprehensive disenfranchisement which tell them that voting will not change anything.

However, therein lies the golden opportunity – first, in understanding that Hispanics have a different reference point when it comes to voting and politics, and second, in bridging that reference gap. After arriving, Hispanic immigrants are exposed to U.S. democracy in varying degrees, depending on their circumstance. It’s that period between arriving in the U.S. and becoming a citizen that holds an opportunity to achieve long-term increases in Hispanic voter turnout, and hence, achieve long-term Hispanic policy influence.

If Hispanic civic-minded groups and leaders target programs that make an effort to educate Hispanics on U.S. culture and democracy, more Hispanics will come to learn the positive impacts of voting and public policy on their lives and their communities. This will translate into more votes in the future. But this reference gap has to be changed first for there to be a long-term change in the voting gap.

In sum, the Hispanic voting gap is key to greater Hispanic influence in policy because politicians need votes to get elected and reelected to make policy. If Hispanics vote in fewer numbers than their counterparts, and make fewer political donations, politicians will spend less time on Hispanic needs. In the end, greater Hispanic votes mean greater Hispanic influence. It doesn’t matter the population size.

Upon arriving in the US, most Hispanics already have pre-determined views about voting that have been formed by experiences in their native countries –views that are likely to be passed on to their children. Unfortunately, it’s often not a positive experience. By helping Hispanics understand the positive impacts of voting on individuals and the community as whole and overcoming lifetimes of negative correlations with voting and politics, the Hispanic community can awaken itself out of its giant sleep and take control of its own fate.

Rob Fernandez is Chairman & President of The Hispanic Community for Policy (HCP).

A History of Mexico and It's Corn in the Globalized Economy

2008-09-22T15:55:00.008-04:00

By Miguel Contreras

Introduction

White corn, or maize, is Mexico’s staple crop, and an essential part of the country’s culture and identity. Corn production and consumption in Mexico are undergoing pronounced changes due to the ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994 and a recent demand for biofuels like ethanol.

U.S. & Mexico Corn Trade

The recent history of Mexican maize begins with the country’s economic deterioration following the 1973 and 1979 oil crises. Mexico became the world.s largest foreign debtor and was forced to seek aid from the International Monetary Fund to refinance its debt to the tune of $4 billion. As a result, former President Miguel de la Madrid began denationalizing government industries and banks in 1992, leading his successor, President Carlos Salina de Gortari, to negotiate NAFTA with the United States and Canada.

As part of NAFTA, de Gortari passed the 1992 Agrarian Law. The legislation was intended to reduce limitations of private ownership and dismantle ejidos, a program of collective farms designed after the Mexican Revolution to prevent the re-emergence of large private rural estates.

In 1992, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco reported that nearly half of Mexico.s total land mass was held in 28,000 ejidos, employing some 2.5 million farmers. Ejidos have been criticized as uneconomically small, undercapitalized farms, but they did allow predominantly poor maize farmers the ability to compete in Mexico.s domestic market.

Coupled with a policy to dismantle ejidos, agriculture trade liberalization linked to NAFTA has increased U.S. corn exports to Mexico. In 2003, the U.S. exported 7.7 million metric tons of corn, a 240 percent increase compared to the annual level from 1984 - 1993, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The USDA says this trend will continue, projecting Mexican corn imports to increase to 14 million metric tons per year by 2013.

Most of the U.S. corn exported to Mexico, however, is yellow corn and not in direct competition with white corn. Yellow corn is primarily used as animal feed and to manufacture ethanol while white corn is used for human consumption because of its nutritional superiority.

Amanda Gálvez, a nutrition expert at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, told The Washington Post in January 2007 that tortillas made from white corn provide poor Mexicans with more than 40 percent of their protein. Corn-based tortillas also help explain why few Mexican children have rickets, a bone disease caused from malnutrition that is common in developing
countries.

Corn & Ethanol

Following the 1973 oil embargo by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, U.S. Congress began promoting corn-based ethanol as an alternative fuel. In 2005, global ethanol production was 9.66 billion gallons, with 44.5 percent produced from U.S. corn.

In a 2007 Foreign Affairs article, Professors C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer of the University of Minnesota said the demand for ethanol will continue to increase as oil prices rise. They predict that U.S. ethanol production will reach 11.4 billion gallons by the end of 2008 and could reach 35 billion gallons by 2017.

The large volume of corn required for ethanol production in the U.S. has contributed to the increase in corn futures to $4.38 a bushel in March 2007, the highest level in 10 years.
A June 2007 article from the Canadian Foundation for the Americas explains that the high U.S. demand for yellow corn for ethanol production has resulted in lower corn exports to Mexico.
The decrease in Mexico’s yellow corn imports, which is primarily used in for animal feed, has caused a greater demand for white corn as a substitute. As a result, Mexico’s price of tortillas
has reportedly increased from 63 cents a kilogram, or 2.2 pounds, in January 2006 to between $1.36 and $1.81 in January 2007.

Conclusion

Agricultural trade liberalization and the demand for ethanol have greatly shaped the recent history of Mexican corn. On the one hand it has led to an influx of yellow corn to Mexico and on the other it has increased the price of white corn, decreasing the consumption of tortillas, an important source of protein and cultural symbol.

Miguel Contreras is a senior at the University of California, Berkeley studying Political Economy of Industrial Societies. His Op-Ed on Mexico's Corn first appeared in the May issue of Pueblo Hispano.

The War on Drugs: A New Approach for the U.S. and Mexico

2008-09-18T23:26:00.004-04:00

By Rhiannon Kucharski

Background

The implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994 led to explosive growth in trans-border commercial activity between Mexico and the U.S. However,the dramatic increase in the flow of trucks, cars, boats and people across the border has also provided greater opportunities for drug traffickers. Today, Mexican drug cartels are the primary suppliers of most narcotics, especially Colombian cocaine, for the U.S. market.

The focus of U.S. drug policy on interdiction has meant constant pressure from the U.S. government on the Mexican government to fight organized crime and capture illicit drug shipments. The Mexican government has consistently cooperated by spending more than 50 percent of the law enforcements PGR budget and more than 33 percent of the defence budget on anti-drug policies. However, these expenditures take away from the prosecution of non-drug and arms-related crimes as well as from other federal social and development programs.

Mexico and the U.S. would benefit if they worked together to redefine the war on drugs and negotiate mutual goals and strategies. This will lower tensions,foster cooperation and lead to effective strategies in both countries. The new approach should be two-pronged, with one prong to treat the symptoms of drug trafficking and another to address the source of the problem.

Mexico

First, Mexico must address corruption by creating internal police monitoring. Some calculations estimate that up to $500 million in bribes are paid every year to Mexican officials, including law enforcement agents at all levels. The U.S. could help Mexico design an internal affairs department which would prosecute corrupt officers.

Mexico must also continue to improve the rule of law and the judicial system. In 1996, the Mexican justice system only processed 2.36 percent of reported crimes and from 1996-2000, only 14.4 percent of arrest warrants issued at the state level were executed.

The Mexican judicial system can be improved by fostering inter-agency cooperation so local, state and federal law enforcement agencies can enforce laws and conduct collaborative investigations. This will assist overwhelmed law enforcement agencies and lead to higher costs for traffickers. A higher risk of arrest and prosecution will create disincentives to join organized crime and partake in trafficking. The U.S. can contribute by continuing to offer assistance to Mexico through joint training exercises and intelligence sharing.

Second, the new strategy will also have to address the source of organized crime, drug trafficking and the primary causes of drug abuse. To determine the best strategy, it is important to consider what factors lead people to participate in crime and violence.

A study by Mark A. Cohen of Vanderbilt University and Mauricio Rubio of the Universidad Externado de Colombia found that organized crime groups monopolize extreme violence among young people in Latin America. Common root causes of organized crime and gang membership include: 1) marginalization, 2) high levels of youth unemployment, 3) little access to education, 4) overwhelmed and ineffective justice systems, 5) easy access to arms and an illicit economy, 6) high levels of domestic violence and 7) dysfunctional families.

Economist Pablo Fajnzylber also found a causal link between income inequality (GINI index), GDP and violent crime within and across countries. In fact, one of Mexico’s poorest states, Guerrero, had the country’s highest crime index at 64.9 per 100,000 people from 1996 to 2000.

Mexico should therefore focus on economic and social development by targeting areas with high levels of crime and violence as well as marginalized and impoverished sectors.

The Mexican government has also been addressing inadequate access to education. It has made a serious effort to improve educational possibilities for children through the Oportunidades program (formerly Progresa).

This program has improved school attendance as well as child nutrition and health. However, it should be expanded to include all children in poor and marginalized areas while also improving teacher and curriculum quality. A better education gives children more career options and reduces the attraction of criminal activity and gang membership.

The United States

At the same time, the U.S. needs to do more to reduce its demand for illegal drugs. According to the 2007 UN World Drug Report, the U.S. is the world’s largest consumer of cocaine. Approximately 88 percent of the cocaine for the U.S. market transits the Central American/Mexican corridor.

There should be an improved effort to educate society about drugs and the repercussions of drug use,while focusing on rehabilitation for chronic drug abusers.

The U.S. also needs to focus more attention on preventing the flow of illegal arms from the U.S. to Mexico. This would make it more difficult for criminal groups to access weapons, thus reducing gun-related violence, including homicides. There were between 2,000 and 2,500 drug related homicides in Mexico in 2006 alone.

Conclusion

This comprehensive war on drugs strategy will not provide an immediate solution to the problems of organized crime, but it could lead to a significant reduction in drug trafficking in North America.

Rhiannon Kucharski served as an HCP Project Manager. Ms. Kucharski is a graduate student at the School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California San Diego and earned her BA in Spanish at the University of Oklahoma. Her Op-Ed on the War on Drugs first appeared in the April issue of Pueblo Hispano.

Subprime Mortgage Crisis

2008-09-17T14:11:00.003-04:00

The Effect of the Subprime Mortgage Crisis on Latinos

Introduction

With the recent economic slowdown, high gas prices, and the subprime mortgage crisis, Hispanic Americans have taken hard hits in their pursuit of the American Dream. The struggling economy and rising oil prices are obvious concerns for all Americans, but there is some evidence that the subprime mortgage crisis has had a disproportional effect on Hispanic Americans. The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies reported that in 2006, subprimes made up one in four mortgages for whites, but nearly half went to Hispanics. This disproportionate lending has led to high foreclosure rates, damaged credit, and exorbitant monthly payments that financially burden many Hispanic homeowners.

Targeting Latinos

An analysis by the Center for Responsible Lending found that Latinos were nearly 30 percent more likely to receive subprime mortgages than whites in part due to the lack of information they received from the lender or broker. Contracts are written in complicated legal jargon that is difficult even for a native English speaker to understand. In October 2007, financing experts at a homeownership conference sponsored by the California Latino Legislative Caucus concluded that contracts were often not properly explained to Hispanic Americans that have English as their second language, and little or no education with regards to finance, the daily San Diego Union-Tribune reported. With the growing Latino population and increasing income level, many Hispanic Americans used these low rates as a chance to purchase their first home and had no prior experience dealing with banks, loans, and mortgages.

According to the Union-Tribune, many Latinos traditionally feel more comfortable paying in cash rather than using credit cards, they frequently have low credit scores or no access to traditional credit. This made the subprime loans they were offered, that should not have been approved, seem very attractive and as a way to move forward with their pursuit of the American Dream. Brokers that were offered high commissions used this lack of experience, credit and information to target Latinos with ads in Spanish language newspapers offering zero down, 1 percent loans, with little regard to the Latino borrower’s ability to sustain payments given a shift in the market. The result was that Latinos and blacks were affected more than whites. It is expected to cost people of the minority communities close to $213 billion, according to Foreclosed: State of the Dream 2008, a report by the Boston-based United for a Fair Economy.

The Aftermath of the Mortgage Crisis

A further negative effect that can be attributed to this subprime mortgage crisis and the role it plays among Latino communities is the fact that many homes become vacant after a new homeowner can no longer afford to make payments. This attracts squatters, increases the risk of fire and generally brings down the value of other homes in the neighborhood, even if neighboring homeowners were not taking out bad, sub-prime loans. Given that people of Hispanic descent frequently live in the same neighborhoods, the domino effect of the disproportionate targeting of Latinos causes whole Hispanic communities to deteriorate and lose value.

Another effect is that with the stricter loan standards engendered by this wave of foreclosures, Latinos without much prior credit history now have even less chance of receiving a good loan than they had before the crisis. This hinders Hispanic access to new credit and homeownership, and is compounded by the fact that the credit scores of those who received these bad loans are now damaged forever.

New Market Opportunities

A positive aspect coming out of the subprime crisis is the devaluation of many homes that are now available on the market at affordable prices. This gives Latino families that did not jump at the offer of low interest mortgages a chance to buy homes in one of the best buyer’s markets in history, and get their piece of the American Dream at a good price.

Conclusion

In the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis rules have tightened so that bad loans will be less likely to be made in the future. However, the general precautions do nothing to adjust for the disproportionate effect this crisis had on Latinos. One thing that could be done to specifically aide Hispanic borrowers from accepting bad loans is to ensure complete transparency of information in the loan contracts. By requiring contracts to be available in Spanish for native Spanish speakers, or having a bilingual person on staff to fully explain the contract to a Spanish-speaking borrower, Latinos would have more equal access to information about the logistics and consequences of the loan.

Jesse Rubin is an Assistant Editor for HCP and is a graduate student at the Univesity of California San Diego's School of International Relaions and Pacific Studies. Mr. Rubin earned his B.A. degree with honors in Economics from the University of Oregon. His article on the effect of the subprime mortgage crisis on Hispanics first appeared in the August issue of Pueblo Hispano.