Weekly Debate: Unemployment and Latinos

Yesterday we looked at an International Labor Organization report that concluded that Latin American youth was the regional group “hit hardest” by the global economic crisis. The same phrase may be apt for people of color north of the border. A report released today by New York State Comptroller found that the unemployment rate for Latinos between December 2007 and December 2009 climbed to 13%. Compare that to the statewide unemployment rate during that period of 9% and it’s no wonder that DiNapoli observed that it “has not been an equal opportunity recession.”

Much like in New York Latino unemployment rates nationwide have been unequally high compared to the national average. A recent National Institute for Latino Policy study linked to by former contributor Maegan la mala found that the “seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for Latino households in January was an estimated 12.6 percent, compared to 8.7 percent for non-Latino Whites.” It is a situation “that should call attention to policymakers and for the general public” as National Institute of Latino Policy president Angelo Falcon recently mentioned in an NPR interview.

The need to tackle the disproportionately high unemployment rates for blacks and Latinos is something that has not been actively tackled by those in power. Perhaps NYU assistant professor C. Nicole Mason said it best earlier today:

In general, the (Obama) Administration has been reluctant to respond to the way the economic crisis has unevenly impacted racial and ethnic communities. Before the recession hit, the unemployment rate for Black and Latinos hovered around 8 percent and has nearly doubled since then. With fewer assets and savings compared to their whites, recovery and regaining some sense of economic normalcy is far off for many Blacks and Latinos.

Any re-tooling of the current stimulus bill and future legislation to spur job creation will have to take seriously the disproportionate impact the recession is having on racial and ethnic minorities. To do anything less would be irresponsible or essentially like using a sponge to assuage a flood.

So what do you think? Why do you believe people of color have been among those hit hardest by the recession? Can anything be done to lower Latino unemployment rates? Has the government done enough to confront the problem?

Let us know what you think by leaving a comment to this post (play nice!) and/or voting in our weekly poll. Let your voice be heard!

Image- Modesto Bee
Online Sources- The Latin Americanist, New York State Comptroller’s Office, Vivirlatino, Huffington Post, NPR

Weekly Debate: Health care reform & immigration

As we mentioned over the weekend, the U.S. House of Representatives approved by a narrow margin a landmark health care reform bill (H.R.3962). There has been plenty of controversy about the proposal including an amendment barring federal funds for insuring certain forms of abortion. Largely unnoticed amid the hullabaloo is the clause on immigrant coverage:

(A) REQUIREMENT- No individual shall be an affordable credit eligible individual (as defined in section 342(a)(1)) unless the individual is a citizen or national of the United States or is lawfully present in a State in the United States (other than as a nonimmigrant described in a subparagraph (excluding subparagraphs (K), (T), (U), and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act).

In other words, undocumented immigrants won’t be covered under the prospective public health care scheme.

Currently illegal immigrants are ineligible for all forms of federal health care and H.R.3962 may force them to privately purchase their own health care. (It has been estimated that approximately half of all illegal immigrants already pay for their own health insurance.) This may be a very big problem for the Latino community; a Pew Hispanic Center survey recently found that “six out of 10 U.S. Hispanic illegal immigrants lack health insurance, more than twice the rate for legal Latino residents and citizens and three times the average for the population as a whole.”

Opponents of the clause have argued that it would unfairly “delay or deny access to healthcare for citizen children because of their parents’ status.” Yet much like the abortion compromise in H.R.3962 may've helped it pass the House, the tougher language on illegal immigrants in the Senate’s version may help that bill get passed. (This appears to be part of the Obama administration’s risky strategy to garner legislative support for health care reform).

What do you think? Should the health care reform bill include a clause to exclude undocumented immigrants? Should Congress approve the proposal or reject it? How do you think Latinos will be affected by the possible changes to health care?

Let us know your opinion via the comments and/or voting in our poll. Let your voice be heard as long as you keep it civil please!

Image- ABC News (“A Hispanic patient undergoes radiotherapy treatment for cancer.”)
Online Sources- The Latin Americanist, Guanabee, Open Congress, factcheck.org, thehill.com, CBS News

Weekly Debate: CNN’s “Latino in America”

Tonight and tomorrow CNN will be airing a special on the impact of Latinos in the U.S. “Latino in America” will examine the main issues facing Latinos, the community’s future, and includes interviews with Latinos from different walks of life. Here’s a quick sneak peek:

The special has not been without some controversy, however. Some activists have noted that while the network praises Latino culture one of its most prominent commentators is staunch anti-immigrant commentator Lou Dobbs. “The hypocrisy of a network that poses itself as a fair and balanced news leader, airing a series on Latinidad while paying the salary of a the hateful Dobbs…grows” mentioned former The Latin Americanist contributor Maegan la Mala recently.

So what do you think? Is CNN being open-minded regarding Dobbs or hypocritical? Will you watch the “Latino in America” special? What does being Latino in the U.S. mean to you?

Please give us your opinion via commenting to this post. (A corresponding poll will soon be placed on the sidebar).

Let your voice be heard!

Online Sources- Clipser, AP, Vivirlatino

Weekly Debate: Evo’s immigration op/ed

In an article written in Monday’s Guardian UK, Bolivian president Evo Morales advocated that the European Union (EU) refrain from enacting harsh anti-immigration laws. In the piece, Morales gives several of the usual immigrants’ rights arguments including that immigrants do the jobs Europeans don’t and that billions of Euros in remittances are sent to Latin America. However, he also invokes a historical lesson to back his perspective:

European citizens arrived in Latin and North America en masse, without visas or conditions imposed on them by the authorities. They were simply welcomed, and continue to be in Latin America. They came to exploit the natural wealth and to transfer it to Europe, with a high cost for the native population. Yet the people, property and rights of the migrants were always respected.

Contrast the European "return directive", to be voted on in the European parliament this week. It imposes harsh terms for detention and deportation of undocumented immigrants, regardless of the time they have spent in European countries, their work situation, their family ties or their achievements in integrating themselves into local society.

• So what do you think about Morales’ argument?
• Does his perspective make sense or is he clutching at straws?
• Is the EU acting hypocritically or justly towards immigrants?
• Should the EU follow Italy’s lead in cracking down on immigrants or are those measures too harsh?
• Is immigration policy in Europe better or worse than the U.S.?

If you want to participate in this debate please leave a comment to this post and/or vote in our poll.

Let your voice be heard!

Sources- Guardian UK, Bloomberg, boston.com

Image- BBC News (Thousands of illegal immigrants line up in an attempt to take advantage of an amnesty in Spain in 2005).

Weekly Debate: Five months until Election Day

It’s no secret that political pundits have tapped the Latino vote as being crucial in the race to the White House between Barack Obama and John McCain. During the Democratic presidential primary what we heard from the media was a drumbeat of rhetoric boiling down to the alleged “black-brown divide”. While she certainly had some support among most Latinos and her primary victories were in several states with notable Hispanic populations, Obama did have some appeal within the Latino community.

Furthermore, several polls have shown that moist Latino voters would choose Obama over McCain by the time Election Day comes around in about five months:

A new Gallup Poll summary of surveys taken in May shows Obama winning 62 percent of Latino voters nationwide, compared with 29 percent for McCain. The pro-Democratic group Democracy Corps compiled surveys from March through May that showed Obama with a 19-point lead among Latinos. And a Los Angeles Times poll last month showed Obama leading McCain by 14 points among Latinos in California.

The above numbers indicate strong Latino support for the Illinois senator. Yet one representative for McCain’s campaign countered by saying that McCain will make inroads in the Latino community between now and November, and that the percentage of Latinos backing him was nearly as much as that won by President Bush in the last two elections.

• So what do you think?
• Will the numbers hold up between now and November?
• Which candidate needs to campaign harder for the Latino vote?
• For that matter, is there such a thing as a homogenous “Latino vote”?
• Could blocs voting in the Latino community switch parties? (i.e. Cuban-Americans to Democrats or Mexican-Americans to Republicans).
• Could third-party candidates like Bob Barr or Ralph Nader find widespread appeal among Latinos?

If you have an opinion on this topic then please leave a comment and/or vote in our poll.

Let your voice be heard!

Sources- CNN, The Latin Americanist, Reuters Los Angeles Times, azstarnet.com

Image- current

Weekly Debate: The future of Colombia’s conflict

It’s been nearly nine months since our last weekly debate, so without further ado we’ll return to posting a debate every Monday.

Over the weekend it was revealed that the head of Colombia’s FARC guerillas died nearly two months ago. A spokesman for the country’s rebels confirmed on Sunday that Manuel “Sureshot” Marulanda died of a heart attack on March 26 and that a new leader was chosen in alias Alfonso Cano.

Despite the change in leadership, it’s very difficult to guess at what their future will be. Militarily the FARC have been severely weakened and politically they’ve made few inroads. As analyst for the Center for International Policy and Plan Colombia and Beyond blogger Adam Isacson said to the AP :

…the group is at a "fork-in-the-road moment".

"For about the past six years, you've seen nothing different, no changes in political strategy," he said. "It's hard to say in what direction the FARC will go but it seems certain there will be a different direction."

Isacson considers it a positive sign that the FARC's leadership did not choose as its new chief a member of the rebels' military wing, which is thought to be more resistant to the idea of talks with the government.

Furthermore, Isacson mentioned on his blog three likely scenarios which could occur in the post-Marulanda period including the complete disintegration of the FARC and further fragmentation of the guerillas.

Regarding the FARC and the future of Colombia's armed conflict there are numerous questions to consider:

• Does the death of Marulanda signal the “final nail in the coffin” of the FARC? (Analyst Vicente Rangel used that quote extensively in interviews with Colombian TV).
• Will the FARC have no other choice but to negotiate with the Colombian government?
• What will be the immediate fate of hundreds of hostages held by the guerillas? (See this week’s poll).
• How will this affect other guerilla groups such as the ELN?
• How will other countries- especially Colombia’s neighbors- react to Marulanda’s death?

So what is your opinion?

Please feel free to leave any comments to the topic as replies in the comments section of this post. If you wish you can also vote on our poll located on the sidebar.

Your opinion counts!

Sources- Plan Colombia and Beyond, The Latin Americanist, MSNBC, BBC News, CNN

Image- ABC News

Weekly Debate: 9/11 – 1973 and 2001

In terms of tragedies the date September 11^th is most closely associated with the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in the U.S. Nothing can erase the images in our collective conscience on that day; whether it is recalling the skyscrapers falling, seeing people jump hundreds of feet to their death, or the acrid smoke rising into the sky. As we observed one year ago, the consequences of those attacks have been far reaching and have led to major social, economic, and political changes in the U.S. as well as around the world.

Yet lost amongst the grief and commemoration of the incidents in 2001 is that on this day in 1973 Chile’s democratically elected government was toppled in a coup led by Augusto Pinochet. President Salvador Allende was one of thousands who died during the insurrection and the recently-deceased Pinochet would become Chile’s leader for sixteen years.

The effects of the coup would be felt in Chile and the Americas; for some the coup was needed and the new government signaled the start of economic growth and stability for Chile:

“Emilio Humarez, a self-proclaimed “Pinochetista”, was a member of the extreme right-wing political party, Patria y Libertad, when Allende won the election in 1970. During that time, his mother was national secretary of the Christian Democrat Party, which came to oppose Allende during his presidency.

Humarez claims that he and many others with similar political beliefs, suffered harassment and violent threats from leftist radicals during Allende's presidency.

When asked if the violence of the military coup was justified, Humarez answered, ‘Yes, I saw so clearly that we needed a change. In the years of Allende we were terrified. When Pinochet arrived we were very relieved.’”

For others like Alvaro Acevado the coup was the beginning of a dark period of repression, suffering, and injustice:

“Our neighbours and us celebrated after we knew what happened, but my grandfather was a socialist doctor, who spent all of his life working in poor rural areas. He told my mother, "There is nothing to cheer about, soon you'll regret this coup". He died from cancer a week later.

After all these years and having spent all my youth under Pinochet, I know he was right. My parent's generation was lost. No matter what their political creed was at that time, illusions, dreams and friends died in 1973. And the wounds still hurt us.”

Several questions come to mind in retrospect of the events six years ago in the U.S. and in 1973 in Chile:

• Who is most to blame for the events of those days?
• Could they have been avoided or where they inevitable?
• What lessons have we learned from those two days?
• Are coups justifiable? Was the 1973 coup right?
• Can coups be classified as “revolutions” despite their support not coming from the grassroots levels?

What do you think?

Please feel free to leave any concerns, comments, and/or replies to this post via the comments section. If you wish, you can also vote in our poll located on the sidebar to the right.

Your opinion counts!

Image (left)- BBC News (“In New York, the families of those who died after two planes ploughed into the World Trade Center paid their respects once more”)

Image (right)- La Tercera (Chilean president Michelle Bachelet lays flowers at the memorial for Salvador Allende)

Sources- BBC News, Australian Green Left, The Latin Americanist, International herald Tribune, Monsters & Critics

Weekly Debate: El Sueño Americano

Today being Independence Day in the U.S. I ponder about the idea of the “American Dream.” From a personal standpoint, I think back at the stories my dad used to tell me when I was a child regarding the ups and downs of leaving his family behind in Colombia, immigrating to New York, and trying to acclimate to a new culture. One of the main things he would emphasize in his anecdotes was that the main reason he left for the States was to provide the “American Dream” for his children and grandchildren. This notion has served as a strong impetus for my brothers and I, and we hope to fulfill it. This hope and faith is something I see with first- and second-generation American friends of mine, though making it is not always the case.

Is the “American Dream” a realistic concept or just a pipe dream? If it does exist, will future generations have an easier or more difficult time obtaining the “dream”? If it’s a myth, then why bother discussing it?

So what do you think?

Give your opinion either by commenting to this post or by voting on the poll located on the sidebar.

Source- Wikipedia

Weekly Debate: E.U. diplomacy and Cuba

Recently, the European Union (EU) has gradually established closer diplomatic ties with the Cuban government, especially after the transition of power from Fidel Castro to his brother Raul almost a year ago. The latest news is that the EU invited Cuban officials to meet in Brussels as way of opening a “new dialogue” with the Castro regime. Despite disagreements between several EU states over how far to normalize relations with the island, the EU itself has feels that the transition of power makes up “a new situation.”

• So what do you think?
  
• Is the EU correct in getting closer to Cuba’s government?
  
• Is it too soon to try to normalize relations or is the time just right?
  
• Does it represent a step forward or backward compared to the U.S.’ continued hard-line stance?
• Will the EU goes as far as Spain’s recent overtures towards the Cuban government or will they hold back?

Let us know what you think by commenting to this post and/or voting on the poll located on the sidebar. (Poll closes next Monday, June 25^th).

Sources- BBC News, The Latin Americanist, International Herald Tribune, Reuters, CNN

Image- Safe Democracy Foundation

Weekly Debate: Immigration reform

Note: Originally, our debate was going to look at the finals of the Copa Libertadores soccer tournament. We will post about it later this week.

As we mentioned last week, the bipartisan immigration reform bill was on life-support in Congress. Senators voted against ending debate on the proposal and the House has refused to examine the bill until it possibly gets assed by the Senate. Several key politicos, such as President Bush and leaders for both the Republican and Democrat parties, have vowed to continue working hard for immigration reform.

Still, the failure of the latest proposal has had serious repercussions in Mexico and for local leaders in the border states. Here is what Arizona governor Janet Napolitano had to say in yesterday’s Washington Post:

“If we have no comprehensive immigration reform this year, and if we do not deal rigorously and openly with those already here, silent amnesty will continue. As a border-state governor who has dealt with immigration issues more than any other governor I know of, I am certain that continued inaction by Congress -- silent amnesty -- is the worst of all worlds."

• So what do you think?
• Did you support the bipartisan reform bill that was considered by the Senate? Why or why not?
• Will an immigration reform bill be considered or ignored by Congress before 2008?
• Is immigration reform that vital a topic to begin with or is the status quo fine as is?
• Will the consequences of the bill’s failure hurt relations with Mexico and other Latin American countries?

Let us know what you think by leaving a comment to this post and/or voting in our poll located on the sidebar.

Let your opinion be heard!

Image- The Irish Times (Pro-immigration reform protestors gather in front of the U.S. Capitol in March 2006)

Sources- The Latin Americanist, Yahoo! News, Bloomberg, Washington Post, ABC News

Weekly Debate: Supply v. demand in the “war on drugs”

As we noted yesterday, Mexican President Felipe Calderon faulted “demand for narcotics in the U.S. market” as the main cause for drug gang violence in Mexico. Though Calderon acknowledged the state was being “challenged and questioned” by organized crime, he claimed that violence will continue due to “a market” north of the border.

Certainly, steady supply from Latin America and constant demand from consumers can be blamed for the illegal narcotics trade. (One can also fault government policies, but let us not digress too much).

Yet who is most at fault on the “war on drugs” – supply or demand? Is Calderon accurate in placing most of the blame on the demand side rather than suppliers? Will a decrease in demand diminish the drug trade or is there sufficient supply to maintain a lucrative business?

What do you think?

Please let us know of your opinion via the poll located on the sidebar (closes on June 11^th) and/or leaving a comment to this post.

(Last week's poll results & debate on Venezuela and the media).

Sources- The Latin Americanist, Monsters & Critics, PollDaddy

Image- The Moderate Voice

Weekly Debate: Venezuela and the media

At midnight on Monday, Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) ceased operations (for all intents and purposes) after the Venezuelan government declined to renew the network’s broadcasting license. Hours after the RCTV shutdown, the government denounced CNN and Globovision for spreading “lies” and misinformation against Hugo Chavez. Venezuelans have spent days protesting for and against the measure, and anti-Chavez protesters denounced government troops that shot tear gas and rubber bullets at them.

So what do you think about Chavez' decision? Is his opposition to RCTV censorship or correct? Will he go after other media outlets or just this one time against RCTV? Will opposing media be more or less anti-Chavez due to the RCTV situation? Are the problems between Chavez and the Venezuelan media worse than conflicts with the press in other Latin American countries?

Please feel free to give your opinion by voting in the poll located on the sidebar and/or by leaving a comment to this post.

What’s your opinion?

Sources- CNN, Guardian UK, The Latin Americanist, BBC News

Image- BBC News (Pro-RCTV protester in Caracas, Venezuela)

Weekly Debate: The immigration compromise

Last Thursday, a bipartisan compromise was reached that would bring much-needed reform to the immigration debate in the U.S. The deal has several points including creating a guest worker program, increased border enforcement, and a special visa plan for some illegal immigrants.

However, passing the compromise in the Senate will be very difficult due to harsh opposition from both the political left and right; the former call it an undue burden on illegal immigrants while the latter consider it as an “amnesty.” Wrangling and disagreements over the bill amongst senators have already delayed work on the bill.

Depending on which source you read, immigrants are either deeply disappointed or ecstatic with the immigration agreement.

So what do you think? Is the deal on immigration fair or problematic? Did politicians opt for a Solomon-like solution that will backfire? If the bill is passed, will it be drastically different form the initial agreement? Which political party would be more at fault if immigration reform is not realized?

Express your opinion via the comments to this post and/or the poll located on the sidebar. (Poll closes on May 28th).

(Previous debates on rock en español, Latin American leaders, and presidential candidates).

Sources- Bloomberg, MSNBC, BBC News, Guardian UK, Christian Science Monitor, The Latin Americanist, PollDaddy

Image- Christian Science Monitor (According to the caption “Margarita Medina, a resident alien in Phoenix, gets assistance filling out U.S. citizenship forms”)

Weekly Debate: Reunited and it would feel so good

Yesterday, VivirLatino linked to an article last week from the New York Daily News which claims that classic Argentine rock en español trio Soda Stereo may reunite.

According to the article, ex-band member (and successful solo act) Gustavo Cerati alluded to the possibility of having Soda get together a decade after breaking up and bassist Hector Bosio said that "If they call me, I go."

Soda Stereo has been highly influential not only in the Americas but around the world and a reunion would be much loved by legions of rock en español fans. It would be sheer bliss to hear the again in concert singing tunes like “De Musica Ligera”, “Profugos”, and (my personal favorite) “Persiana Americana.”

So what do you think? Should Soda Stereo reunite or would that harm their legacy? If they do get together, should they record new songs or stick to their classics? Should other defunct rock en español groups reunite or make space for newer bands?

Let us know what you think by commenting to this post and/or voting in our poll located on the sidebar. (Poll closes on May 21st).

(Last week’s poll and debate on the Pope's visit to Brazil).

Links- VivirLatino, New York Daily News, PollDaddy, The Latin Americanist

Image- de-zarralequi.net (Soda Stereo)

Weekly Debate: Pope Benedict XVI‘s visit to Brazil

Last-minute preparations are wrapping up in Brazil in anticipation of Pope Benedict XVI's arrival there on Wednesday. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva will meet with the Pope to address social issues, though protests are planned by several groups dissatisfied with Vatican policies.

The Pope will face several daunting issues during his five-day trip to Brazil which were announced in February. They include:

• the rapid growth in evangelical sects, especially in Brazil
• the belief in liberation theology which the Pope once deemed as a “fundamental threat”
• social issues that have been viewed with contempt by the Roman Catholic Church such as abortion, marriage, and birth control.

So what do you think of the Pope Benedict XVI's sojourn to Latin America? Will he be successful in addressing some of the religious problems facing the region or will it be all for naught? Will Catholicism experience a revival in the Americas or are the problems facing it being blown out of proportion?

Feel free to leave a comment to this post and/or vote on our poll located on the sidebar. (Poll closes on May 14th, which is the last day of the Pope’s trip).

My take- Unfortunately, the Vatican has been largely ineffective in addressing pressing social issues and was shortsighted in selecting a conservative German cardinal to replace Pope John Paul II rather than one from the “Third World.” As a Catholic I applaud the Pope’s effort in visiting the Americas and hope that it may bring about a fruitful debate over religion, yet I seriously doubt that his presence will cause significant change.

Previous “Weekly Debate” polls:

Who is your most popular Latin American leader?

Which candidate do you support the most on the issue of immigration?

Links- Globe and Mail, CNN, Monsters & Critics, Zenit News Agency, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Wikipedia, International Herald Tribune, The Latin Americanist, PollDaddy

Image- willowheelers.ie (Front of Sao Paolo Cathedral)

Weekly Debate: How popular are L. American leaders?

Yesterday, Ecuadorian-based polling firm Cedatos released a report comparing the national popularity polls of several Latin American leaders. According to Cedatos’ figures the three most popular leaders are Ecuador’s Rafael Correa, Colombia’s Alvaro Uribe, and El Salvador’s Tony Saca with over 70% approval ratings. Meanwhile, the bottom three according to Cedatos are Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez (41%), Costa Rica’s Oscar Arias (39%), and Paraguay’s Nicanor Duarte (33%).

(Note that Cuban leader Fidel Castro was not included in Cedatos' report and the most unpopular leader of the Western Hemisphere is U.S. President George W. Bush with a paltry 29%).

So who is your choice for the most popular leader in the Americas? Do you agree with Cedatos’ findings? Is the data accurate? What do you think?

Let us know your opinion by leaving a comment to this post and/or by voting in our poll located on the sidebar (closes on May 7).

Links- El Tiempo, Cedatos, Angus Reid Consultants

Sporadic posting

NOTE: Posting for the next 48 hours will be very sporadic. We apologize for any inconvenience that may cause.

Gracias!

p.s. Don't forget to vote in our poll posted in this week's "Weekly Debate" on immigration and the possible candidates for the U.S. presidency.

Weekly debate: Evo = Chavez?

Last Friday, Associated Press journalist Dan Keane examined the similarities and differences between Bolivian president Evo Morales and Venezuelan chief Hugo Chavez. Keane notes that the policies of Evo and Chavez are very similar and both profess to admire ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro. However, Keane points out that it’s “a mistake” to suggest that Chavez is a catalyst for change in Bolivia:

"'The idea is homegrown,' said Jim Shultz, director of the Democracy Center, a Cochabamba-based nonprofit monitoring Bolivian politics. 'Whether or not it's being pushed farther or in more directions because Morales is following the model of Venezuela is known only to the backroom conversations between Evo and Hugo.'"

Let’s take a look at some similarities and differences between Evo and Chavez:

SIMILAR

• Pushed for assemblies to rewrite their country’s respective constitutions.
• Eager to redistribute unused and “wasted” land to the poor.
• Desire to nationalize the phone company.
• Critics in both countries claim that their policies will lead to a socialist failure.

DIFFERENT

• Bolivia’s push for a constitutional assembly preceded Venezuela’s by several years.
• Venezuelan nationalization projects were met by greater support than in Bolivia.
• Bolivia lacks the surplus in petrodollars that Venezuela takes advantage of.
• Evo is not as interested in a Pan-American alliance against the U.S. like Chavez emphasizes.

Are Evo and Chavez each copies of on another or are they too different based on the environments in each country? Are Evo and Chavez more similar to other Latin American leaders than each other? Will future regional leaders try to emulate or distance themselves from Evo and Chavez?

What do you think?

Links- Guardian UK

Image- truthdig

Weekly debate: U.S. hegemony and the Americas

Since the era of the Monroe Doctrine, U.S. influence over the Americas has reigned supreme. Though other countries have at times made inroads into Latin America they have been insufficient to knock the U.S. off its lofty pedestal.

However, with the advent of the era of globalization an increased number of countries have made significant steps in their relations with the Americas. Here is a brief look at some of the main players:

Venezuela

Hugo Chavez is deadest on becoming the antithesis of George W. Bush: attentive to Latin America’s concerns and more than willing to create pan-American unity as a counterweight to the U.S. (Case in point- Chavez’ shadow tour during Bush’s visit last month to Latin America). Chavez surplus in petrodollars is working well to his advantage, leading to anxiety by officials in the U.S.

China

China’s rapid economic expansion has relied on Latin America for help. It’s in the region where raw commodities are obtained and where China has been slowly expanding markets for their goods. China has quickly established stronger relationships with just about every Latin American country and has even exerted political pressure to defend their interests.

Russia

Russia lacks the political power of Venezuela and the economic clout of china, yet its key to Latin America revolves around arms sales. Russia is, for all intents and purposes, helping to militarize the region whether it is selling rifles for Venezuela’s army or fighter jets to Colombia. Foreign Policy magazine mentioned in January “more guns and less butter is the last thing the troubled region needs” though Russia is content to displace the U.S. from a vital piece of the arms market.

Iran

The dark horse in this new era of Latin American relations is Iran. Don’t be fooled thinking that Iran’s lone interest is in the relations between Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmenijad; Iran is keen on establishing closer ties to the region. For example, Brazil recently rejected U.S. requests to stop investing in Iranian oil projects and Mexico has gradually opened its market to Iranian goods.

Is the era of U.S. hegemony over Latin America waning or will it continue stronger than ever? Are there any other actors we are forgetting bout in our analysis such as Europe? Would it be premature to say that U.S. influence will decrease for good or are is it a small dent?

What do you think?

Links- The Latin Americanist, Bloomberg, Taipei Times, RIA Novotsi, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Foreign Policy, Bend Weekly, SignOnSanDiego.com, Guardian UK, Voice of America, Fars News Agency, Bloomberg, Mehr News

Image-Altiris

Weekly Debate: Bill Richardson and the path to the White House- yellow brick road or dead end?

Last January, the Hispanic governor of New Mexico- Bill Richardson- launched an exploratory committee to back a possible bid for the U.S. presidency in 2008. Several political analysts and bloggers have recently backed Richardson’s run for the White House and believe that he is not only the ideal candidate for the Democratic Party but should also be the next president. For instance, here’s what Matthew Yglesias had to say last month:

“Richardson is clearly more qualified for the White House than anyone else in the race, since everyone knows that doesn't matter. Just consider the bare fact that he's the popular, second-term governor of a swing state -- you know, the sort of person who back in the day used to win presidential elections. And it's not as if Richardson isn't getting attention because the field is crowded with popular second-term governors of swing states”.

Let’s take a quick look at some points for and against him:

Pros

• + Plenty of government experience not only as Governor of New Mexico, but also as a Congressman, Secretary of Energy, and Ambassador to the U.N.
• + Progressive views on areas like gay rights, the war in Iraq, and drugs could help him during the primaries.
• + Also has support from some right-wingers such as the Cato Institute and Instapundit readers.
• + In terms of Latin America, he highlighted the need for comprehensive immigration reform, democracy in Cuba and better relations with Latin America and the Caribbean in a recent speech.

Cons

• - Bill Who? The American public knows very little about him, especially with the media focus on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
• - Lack of exposure and subsequent difficulties in raising funds could lead Richardson to drop out of the race much like Tom Vilsack.
• - The latest Harris Poll has Richardson behind four other Democrats including John Edwards. Meanwhile, other polls show Richardson getting easily beaten by Republican favorites Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.
• -Three Words: Wen Ho Lee

Does Bill Richardson really have a solid chance to be elected president next year? Will he have enough funds and energy to support a viable presidential bid or will it be all for naught? Should he quit or perhaps aim for a Vice Presidential nomination?

What do you think?

Links- Bill Richardson for President, MSNBC, American Prospect Online, Washington Post, VivirLatino, Daily Kos, Andrew Sullivan, Instapundit, Reason Magazine – Hit & Run, CSIS.org, TPMCafe.com, Harris Interactive, Rasmussen Reports, Wikipedia, Free New Mexican, Voice of America, BusinessWeek

Image- TIME