Trends in Migration Interrupted

Migration rates from the Mexico to the U.S. are at a standstill according to Mexican President Felipe Calderon. Eric Martin and Nacha Cattan write in their April 24 article for Bloomberg entitled "Calderon Says Mexico Reduced Net Migration to U.S. to Zero," (see http://tinyurl.com/czltpd4) that Latin America's second-largest economy boasts that improved education, employment, and healthcare opportunities have lead to fewer Mexicans migrating north to the United States. At a meeting in Washington, President Calderon attributed to these achievements to the overall results gained by both sides through the NAFTA agreement that was signed over 20 years ago. In addition, the president also made claims that the U.S.'s own tough stances on immigration have made the country a much less desired place to work and live for immigrants, illegal and legal ones. One area in particular, agriculture, has been hit hard by these policies and as a result has lost a significant portion of its competitive nature. 

These recent developments have produced a divergence from the trend of the last four decades, when over 12 million Mexicans migrated to the United States. Officials at Pew's Hispanic Center say out of the international economic crisis a weak job and housing market in the U.S. as well as lower birth rates in Mexico are prominent factors in this decline in migration. Along with this the U.S. has seen a decline in the number of undocumented Mexicans fall from 7million in 2007 to 6.1million in 2011. President Calderon maintains that these changes have resulted not only from Mexico's improvements in various sectors but also speaks to the health of its economy and country.

This article left me wondering whether this new divergence will continue to disrupt the migration trends and eventually become a new trend itself, and more importantly what impact that will have on the U.S. economy and society. And Mexicans continue to leave their homes and jobs in the United States for the "greener" pastures that President Calderon describes are evolving in his country, will the Mexican government be able to support and provide these programs for long term sustainability.While the President of Mexico seems to boast of the accomplishments that NAFTA and other economic improvements has spurred for Mexican society I truly wonder if their government is preparing themselves for the incoming force of "immigrants." Much like the U.S.'s experience and chief complaints about influxes of large immigrant populations is that they require and absorb many different resources. Restructuring and improving employment, education, and healthcare are only a few of many steps that will be required to provide for these influxes of people. Specifically my concerns are with the implications that this may have for the education system in Mexico. If Mexican families are to travel back to their homeland how will this interruption affect the schooling of their children. In recent years a lot of attention has been paid to immigrant students and their adaption to schooling in the U.S. context. I'm curious if similar situations will evolve if and when these American born children return with their parents to Mexico what problems they might incur with adjustment to the Mexican education system. In the end, I think that the Mexican government needs to realize the extent to which they will have to take these improvements that are alluring these populations back to Mexico and start preparing themselves for the incoming needs that these populations will bring with them.

Colombia is Making International Moves

April 23, 2012 - TIME Europe

http://ti.me/JfMWyb

If the developed nations were playing a game of chess against the underdeveloped nations, you could bet that Santos just called checkmate on behalf of Latin America. His presence is being felt all over the world right now. 

Since the 6th Summit of the Americas (April 14-15, 2012 where 34 Heads of State and Government addressed the Sixth Summit central theme, "Connecting the Americas: Partners for Prosperity"), the news sources are still hooked on reports related to Colombia and education -- this comes on the heels of Shakira's visit and subsequent speech alongside USA President Obama and Colombian President Santos. Please refer to my post: Shakira: Pop-star, Humanitarian, Colombiana. Eyes remain fixated on the country in light of President Obama's recent meeting with the Caribbean Presidents hosted in Colombia, see the article in the Leeward Times of the West Indies: http://bit.ly/ICALKw, but I am writing today about TIME Magazine's piece (see link above) written by, of all people, Shakira, on President Juan Manuel Santos, one of TIMES top 100 influential people of the year. The story came out April 18, 2012 and in it, Shakira writes:

The President and I agree that improving education in our country is the best way to mitigate poverty, inequality and violence. Education allows all of us the possibility of a better nation, with a more productive workforce, a better-informed citizenry and a more peaceful people.

Shakira reminds readers that President Santos is dedicated to initiatives in early childhood education, such as the program Cero a Siempre. The short narrative seems to suggest that Santos, member of a prestigious Colombian family, and formally in the coffee trade business, also famous for making headlines capturing FARC members and for climbing the ladder politically until he reached Presidency in 2010. Self-proclaimed "philanthropist" Shakira supports her nation's educational goals, in which Santos promises, through the launch of this program, to double the number of children under 5 who receive early education, from 600,000 to 1.2 million. Of course I hope it doesn't take para siempre to make this increase.

This boom in media coverage internationally of President Santos has me asking who is promoting his agenda and why? Note the cover above that is circulating throughout all of Europe this week. It is my hope that his goals for Colombia remain rooted on a model that will succeed with backing from the rest of the world, but without the dependency we see on Eurocentric ideology for educational development. This coverage also suggests an appeal for some sort of approval from the developed world. Furthermore, Shakira's emphasis on the working habits of individuals has me questioning what education will look like in a future Colombia, what kind of education will work best? What do the leaders know about implementing educational initiatives that are successful in poor, rural areas? I agree that education helps strengthen a nation, but I do not support a system that only works to support a modernist productive society of workers, in order to create workers. 


For a most interesting interview regarding Cuba's noticeable and continued absence at the Summit of the Americas. The summary provided states: "Miami Herald columnist Andres Oppenhemier believes the first step to bringing Cuba back into the diplomatic community is to invite them to observe future summits." Mexican cars in Brazil, the evolving notion of democracy, natural resources going to China and India, US and Castro relations, and continued media coverage of President Santos in Miami are covered in NPR's Talk of the Nation, April 18, 2012.

Solidifying 'Amistad': Relations between U.S. & Brazil

Just two weeks ago, Brazil's President Dilma Roussef made her way to Washington, D.C. to meet with President Obama. Mimi Whitfield of the Miami Herald writes in her April 6 article entitled "Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff prepares for Washington visit"(see http://tinyurl.com/7zzz23o) that devoid of the pomp and circumstance of a traditional state visit, this trip was directed towards business discussions that serve to follow up President Obama's trip to Brazil just last year. While it was not clear what specific topics would be on the agenda, the White House did state that Rousseff’s visit will be an opportunity to “continue efforts to grow commercial, economic, education and innovation ties’’between the two largest democracies in the Western hemisphere.

The article continued to outline its speculations regarding the topics that both parties involved could be interested in speaking about. Based on both Obama's previous visit as well as Rousseff's current track record, several main topics emerged. The most prominent, due to the economic situation that the U.S. is currently in, would be trade in Brazil. In recent years China has surpassed the U.S. as Brazil's main trading partner. Though China's goods have flooded the Brazilian market the quality of these goods has been criticized and has in some ways hurt the Brazilian economy. It is the hope of the U.S. to renegotiate their trade agreements with Brazil in order to show Brazilians that we provide a stable and willing market for their goods, and vice versa. In addition the important topic of visas will hopefully be discussed. As it stands now both countries have strict visa requirements for both Americans and Brazilians traveling from one country to the other. Supporters of ridding this policy have stated that not only would travelers be able to freely come and go as they please, but it was also promote and ease the burden of companies doing business in these countries. On a related note, the loosening of these travel restrictions would also benefit  education initiatives supported by both Roussef and Obama that aim to provide exchange programs for students. These initiatives plan to "send 100,000 students from the United States to study in Latin America and bring 100,000 students from Latin America and the Caribbean to study in the United States." It is objective of these education initiatives to not only provide opportunities for these students, but to also share resources and strengthen partnerships within the hemisphere.

In conclusion, many speculate that this meeting will not only strengthen the ties between these two super powers, but will also hopefully result in the re-evaluation of the roles of each of these countries in the U.S.- Brazil relationship. As in many of the cases of U.S. foreign relations, the U.S. is perceived as the senior partner in these relationships. U.S. officials have stated these two countries should be perceived as equal partners. Many hope that a new understanding in the relationship between the U.S. and Brazil will provide the leverage to needed for new ties and agreements to flourish between these two great nations.

After reading this article I was very curious about the outcomes of this meeting and whether or not the topics that were presented in the Miami Herald article were actually discussed by President Roussef and Obama. I therefore followed up by reading an article printed shortly (April 9) after the meetings had finished. As per a brief issued by a White House correspondent entitled Obama: 'Enormous Progress' in US-Brazil Relationship (see http://tinyurl.com/7vemxa6) published in the Voice of America, Dan Robinson summarized the main interests that both President Roussef and Obama focused on during their discussions. As the Miami Herald had anticipated economic and trade ties were an important topic that dominated these meetings. However, President Obama concentrated on Brazil's image of a leader in bio-fuels and the U.S.'s own stance as a potential customer for Brazil's oil. President Roussef also recognized these opportunity for cooperation as well as promote production and export growth in her own country. In connection to the economy, global affairs were discussed in particular the international financial crisis. From the article, it was here that there appeared to be disagreements between the U.S. and Brazil in regards to tactics to stabilize the European debt crisis. President Roussef stated that she was concerned about certain monetary policies that were being drafted to resolve the problem that she thought could hurt both developed and developing nations. While the White House officials could not speak directly to President Obama's reaction to her statements, they emphasized that these concerns as well as others would be addressed at the sixth annual Summit of the Americas in just a few days.

Overall, after reading both of these articles I was struck by the how these two sources really shaped the stories that they presented. While they both recognized certain topics like trade and the economy as inevitable topics of discussion the rest of their presentation regarding these meetings were in line with their own opinions and objectives. For example, in the Miami Herald article the topic of visas took up a good portion of the article, probably equal to that of trade and the economy. Much of this stemmed from the fact that this is a particularly important topic in South Florida where hundreds of thousands of Brazilians visit every year. I can only imagine that this could also be linked to the number of international students that attend universities in the state of Florida. In comparison the article from Voice of America tended to stray away from particular issues about U.S.- Brazil relations that concerned particular groups and communities. Instead I felt that even less information was provided in this article and that much of it was politically correct rhetoric that did not speak to Obama's proclamation of "progress " between these two nations. It will be interesting to see how the "progress" in this relationship will show in the next few months or so, especially as Obama embarks on his re-election campaign. A reaffirmed relationship with Brazil could indeed affect how his foreign policy is perceived by voters, especially since much of it has been based on the improvement of the U.S. and global economy.

A Latin American Spring?

Are we on the verge of a Latin American Spring? Eric Farnsworth, a writer for the Huffington Post, seems to think so in his March 21 article entitled "The Latin American Spring," (see http://tinyurl.com/7llnaae). The pope's visit to Mexico and Cuba this month highlights the globe's focus on the Western Hemisphere. This international spotlight may just be beneficial for everyone. In some ways, this is could be the beginning of an agenda between the US and Latin America that looks to the future, and it is also an opportunity for Latin American countries to show the effects of real leadership in the region. The Pope began his schlep on March 23. In just 3 short days, leaders from Mexico and Canada will converge in Washington for a meeting about trade. Then, Brazil's president will be officially welcomed at the White House, and shortly after, Obama will make his way to the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia. Hilary will be stopping by Brazil for a bit, and then on May 8, leaders from all over the hemisphere will again converge in DC for the Conference on the Americas. To cap it all off, we will be seeing leaders from across the world meeting up in Mexico in June for the G20 meeting and in Brazil for the Rio+20 meeting. These next two months are looking pretty busy for Latin America! What does this all mean for the region? Well, with China moving in and taking advantage of markets and political stability in the region, the US seems to be losing its 'grip' on the hemisphere. The article takes a very pro-US stance, indicating that the US can succeed by shifting the lens through which we view Latin America, from development studies to a more modern international relations approach. The US needs to start working collaboratively with G20 members and Brazil and Mexico about global financing issues, reject protectionism and instead promote trade expansion by bringing other nations, like Costa Rica, Colombia, and Panama into the talks. Energy policy could also be a key strategy to promote relations. After all, Latin America isn't just gonna sit around waiting for the US; rather, the region is on the move, involving partners from Asia, Africa and Europe. While economic conditions may be on the rise, the article notes that "the principle threat to democracy" comes from nations who want to gain power by weakening democracies, the same ones who want to welcome Cuba back into hemispheric relations. But until Cuba gets its act together, it should remain an outlier. While some progress has been achieved in the realm of economics and politics, we would do well to remember that there is progress that has yet to be made.

It is clear that this article takes a very interesting point of view, that is, a very US-centric one. It goes to show you the importance of observing media with a critical eye, as this article demonstrates a point of view that seems to be contrary to what I think other Latin American nations would say. I mean come on, with phrasing like "the fight for open market democracy is never finished" and "Competition is good, but we (US) need to put ourselves in a position to succeed" sort of screams of US neo-imperialistic interests in Latin America. We've been the 'top-dog' for so long, that it seems that we can't handle anything (re: China, Taiwan, Iran, to name a few) that would jeopardize our interests (note, our as in US, we don't seem to care very much for Latin America's interests, other than that they should be aligned with ours), in the region. In my mind, protecting one's interests in a region that has a long past of US imperialistic-like dominance gets a little shady. I'm well aware of political and economic strategy, and I'm not advocating against it. Rather, I think we just need to be transparent about what it is we're doing. Why is it such a big deal if Latin America isn't waiting around for us? So what if China is moving in? Let's cut the crap and be serious about why the US is really concerned about this. Are we in it to promote democracy? Or are we refusing Cuba 'entry' into the hemisphere because we've had a long and nasty history with the country, and we don't want to be friends? And who's kind of democracy are we promoting? We're certainly not endorsing the democracies of Bolivia and Venezuela, yet like it or not Venezuela is a key player in the region. The article talks about the US strategically collaborating with leaders in Latin America, incorporating more countries in on trade agreements, but as a means to what end? I mean, the US has a rather long and nasty legacy in Latin America. It may be a stable region now, but we can hardly take credit for that after our history of financing bloody civil wars in the region. I realize that all this sounds pretty harsh; I assure you, the one thing graduate school will do to you is make you the biggest critic of everything.

I also really liked how the article highlights how many Americans aren't even aware of the new and shifting realities in Latin America. We may know about our awesome vacations in Cancun and Machu Picchu or the war on drugs, but are we aware that Brazil is the world's sixth largest economy (bigger than the UK) and that Mexico is number 14? How about the fact that Brazil and Venezuela are global energy superpowers? You know what I think? I think it's great that Latin America is branching out, seeking partners from across the world and looking inward in some instances (like the Alba partnership) to get things done for themselves. I don't think that collaboration with the US should be taken off the table; that's not only impossible, as we are literally connected, but also imprudent, considering the trade agreements that already exist. However, I think the the time has come for Latin America to show the world what it is made of. The article seems to indicate that the progress that still needs to be achieved is the 'situation' in Cuba. Rather, I think that if Latin American can get a hold of the drug violence and associated corruption that is gripping the region, we could see more definite and positive progress.

Shakira: Pop star, Humanitarian, Colombiana.

Huffington Post
http://bit.ly/Hptptm

As The Huffington Post reported, Latin American pop superstar Shakira joined over 30 world leaders at the 6th annual Summit of the Americas held over the weekend in Cartagena, Colombia, to advocate for children.

On April 16, 2012, at the 6th Summit of the Americas, Shakira joined President Obama and President Santos of Colombia in order to speak on behalf of President Barack Obama's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanics. She spoke about the need for education and early childhood development in order to meet the needs of the 35 million children in Latin America. She spoke about the need to eradicate of poverty, and promoted a type of collaborative development in which everyone can be involved.


Here is Shakira's full speech, and here is a highlight:

In the 17 years that I have spent investing and promoting education I can state that without a doubt, investing in education has never let me down because every effort and every dollar invested yields results and they yield results in the short term, because kids grow up fast.

Shakira should be commended for her humanitarian work and certainly serves as a model for the celebrity world in terms of giving back. There is absolutely nothing negative that I can gleam from this type of work in the developing world. Her close relationship to Colombia, being a native born Colombiana, makes her the perfect candidate to speak at the summit. Her voice is quite powerful, with her superstar status, and she is an excellent role model for young girls around the world and in Latin America, as she works to ensure quality education for them. With over 30 world leaders present, Shakira certainly stood her ground. Her activism on behalf of disadvantaged children is the work of a philanthropist that extends far beyond that of most celebrities. Check out this site for more information on Shakira and the wonderful work that she is doing: http://www.shakira.com/philanthropy/


My concern and question pertains to how realistic these goals are, especially if we consider that the 2nd the principal objectives set by the Second Summit of the Americas consist of

1. Ensuring, by the year 2010, universal access to quality primary education for all children and access to quality secondary education for at least 75 percent of young people, with increasing percentages of young people who complete secondary education; and

2. Providing the general population with opportunities for life-long learning.

For more information regarding the Summit of the Americas and Education, click here.


It is hard to know what is being accomplished and where we still have to go in terms of development and education in Latin America. However, we should be careful when making promises because it is now 2012 and these objectives have still yet to be reached.

Iran's Movin' In

Guess what? Hispan TV just got real official. Adam Housley's March 20 article for Fox News Latino, "Iran Moving In on Latin American Television Market" (see http://tinyurl.com/7a47vc3), just announced the details. The Iranian run Spanish-language television station has been officially launched (it will run 24/7 and feature news, movies, and documentaries, all from Iran), with the support of Tio Chavez, and the message of the channel is clear: anti-American, anti-West, and anti-Christian. This is not Iran's first foray into multi-lingual propaganda, but this might be the first time that its message falls on the friendly ears of its allies in Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador. Iran claims that it's not promoting propaganda, but rather shedding light on the practices of "dominance seekers" (re: US). Of course, Iran has found friendly television waves in Venezuela, where Chavez has a knack for censoring stations which don't exactly line up with his ideology, like RCTV, which was seized by Chavez in 2007 in a "so-called license denial." This doesn't exactly scream of open press. The president of RCTV, Marcel Granier, was quoted saying "it's frustrating for all Venezuelans, I think. The same way that is is very frustrating that we are destroying a relationship with the US that has lasted two centuries and favoring China now. They have less technology than the US and they are the ones taking business." Granier isn't the biggest fan of Iranian intervention, indicating that regimes like that are "despicable" because they don't "believe in human rights," which is why he believes that Venezuela can provide money for Iranian activities. Granier isn't alone though. Channel One, an opposition Iranian broadcasting network operating outside Iran has expressed its worry about this new propaganda in Latin America. Hispan TV messages, targeted not at the educated but rather the unsatisfied, not only attack the West and provide a channel for misinformation, but tries to rationalize the controversial nuclear program. The president of Channel One actually suggested that the US scramble Hispan TV or urge Latin American leaders to remove it from the air. Make no mistake, Ahmadinejad has played his hand perfectly in Latin America. The only remaining question is, what happens now?

About a month ago, I posted an article about Iranian president Ahmadinejad's visit to Latin America, and included a link to a BBC article about Hispan TV. I commented on how this network, along with Ahmadinejad's well placed visits to his regional allies displayed exactly the kind of global interconnectedness we are studying in this blog. According to this article, it seems that US fears are true. Iran will be making use of this channel to promote propaganda not only against the West, but even more disturbing, propaganda to solicit support for its controversial nuclear program. Looks like Ahmadinejad is trying to make friends in Latin American so he can win their support for his nukes. I realize that perhaps Fox news is not the best place to look for un-slanted journalism, but what I found interesting was the incorporation of RCTV and Channel One, neither of them American, as well as an Iranian professor from Stanford, to give the article depth. When Chavez shut down RCTV in 2007, most of the international community was in an uproar. It seems that this partnership doesn't exactly scream 'best practice' in journalism. After all, as Professor Milani indicates, this channel will most likely make use of anti-West and anti-Semitic rhetoric. Messages of hate being broadcasted across of Latin America is definitely concerning.

It seems to me that Ahmadinejad is preying on the people, exploiting them for support. I think it is very significant that the Channel One president pointed out that the messages of Hispan TV are targeted to the unsatisfied rather than the educated. Perhaps this is because Iran know that education will be able to understand that they are being manipulated. This supports our point that everything, in some form or another, comes back to education. Look, the US is certainly no angel, but Ahmadinejad's subversive actions in Latin America are downright frightening. He doesn't have Latin American interests in mind at all; he's just trying to prey on the downtrodden and incite anti-West sentiment to gain support for his own country. I think that Latin American leaders would do well to be cautious of the actions of their friends. I want to know what Chavez, Ortega, and other leaders are getting out of the deal, because I don't see the Latin American people really getting anything.

The article points out that this is "24 hour propaganda in our (US) own backyard." Channel One president Homayou wants to know why the West isn't stepping in, halting the money movement and financial relationships between Latin American and Iran. What should the US's role be with regards to Iranian involvement in Latin America? I'm not quite sure, but I do find the entire thing disturbing. Hate only begets hate, and Latin American may be 'stable' now, but it's a very fragile balance. Something has to give, and someone has to do something.


As a side note, Ray Walser from the Heritage Foundation wrote an article about US-Brazil relations with specific details on the presence of Iran in Latin American and what that may mean for the region (see: http://tinyurl.com/7mn9g94). The article indicates how "democracy promotion" is not present in Brazil's foreign policy agenda, but that it's very important for the US interests in the region, with specific regard to the presence of Iran in Latin America. It also addresses Channel One's questions about the "West"  stepping in, as this article definitely talks about steps that the US should take regarding its relationship with Brazil in terms of Iran's involvement. The rhetoric of the article focuses on the "united'' relationship that the US and Brazil should have around human rights, anti-nuclear proliferation, and democracy promotion. The article addresses the differences between Brazil and the US in terms of its relationship with the Middle East, specifically Iran and Palestine (recognizing Iran as a developing nation and a 'victimized' trade partner, recognizing Palestine's statehood, voting against stricter anti-proliferation restrictions for Iran, which might promote Iran's nuclear program). The article suggests that Obama needs to address these concerns with Brazil vis-a-vis the 'diplomacy of persuasion.' Obviously, this article expresses the US opinion about the consequences of Iran in Latin America on the US, which I think deals with the issue of conflicting perspectives between Latin America and the US. The US has issues with Iran's involvement in Latin America because it will negatively impact US interests and because Iran is not a friend of the US. However, I still think the general opinion of how Latin America feels about Iran's involvement is lacking. What should the US role be regarding other country's relations with Iran? Should the US have a role, given the rhetoric of its desires and interests. How should Latin American countries deal with Iran? There are so many questions, and so few answers. 

Teachers versus Technology in Peru

Education in Peru: A disappointing return from an investment in computing
Apr 7th 2012
http://www.economist.com/node/21552202

GIVING a child a computer does not seem to turn him or her into a future Bill Gates—indeed it does not accomplish anything in particular. That is the conclusion from Peru, site of the largest single programme involving One Laptop per Child, an American charity with backers from the computer industry and which is active in more than 30 developing countries around the world.

The April, Americas edition of the Economist reports that the Inter-American Development Bank has published a paper entitled Technology and Child Development: Evidence from the One Laptop per Child Program in which after an intensive 15-month, 319 rural school study, researchers have found no "empirical" evidence of the programs' success (Download full report here). The article explains that the researchers also found no correlation, or rise, in reading or math scores, improvement in homework, classroom attendance, nor did it find an increase in motivation, as was initially hypothesized. The article states that although Peru has "one of Latin America's worst education systems," an increase in the country's revenues from mining operations allowed for a $225m investment in 850,000 basic laptops. Yet, as touched on above, test scores and literacy rates remain low throughout the country. Of course, as you may or may not know, the model is supported through the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) initiative, whose website illustrates:

Roughly 2 million children and teachers in Latin America are currently part of an OLPC project, with another 500,000 in Africa and the rest of the world. Our largest national partners include Uruguay (the first major country in the world to provide every elementary school child with a laptop), Peru (our largest deployment, involving over 8,300 schools), Argentina, Mexico, and Rwanda. Other significant projects have been started in Gaza, Afghanistan, Haiti, Ethiopia, and Mongolia. Every school represent a learning hub, a node in a globally shared resource for learning.

See video for more information:

Other sources, such as PC Mag cite a lack of internet connectivity as a central issue and links the results to a lack of "high quality, complementary" education. However, the Examiner says it best, I believe, with their title: Technology doesn't improve education, Teachers do. Also, see Mashable and ZD Net for further commentary and information.


Initially, I have to admit, I was surprised by the results of the study. I anticipated that the implementation of computer technology in Latin American classrooms would surely bring much-needed changes that would hopefully level the playing field for students who have not grown up with a "computer lab" or "computer class", as I myself did, and many students in the First World, or developed countries, had in their early primary years of study. Nonetheless, it makes perfect sense as to why this program is not succeeding at this point in Peru. It seems that you cannot restructure current education systems by simply dropping materials into the classroom. It appears to be a false expectation/misconception that was not clearly organized or addressed at the onset in order to "make a real difference." I put those words in quotation marks because of course, these differences are going to be interpreted differently across participating countries, cultures and people.


This blog entry is unique in that this is the first time Sigue is writing on Peru -- hopefully we can continue to examine this program and its progress in Peru. Certainly this is interconnectedness at its central core, however, a quick look at the people involved in the operation and development of OLPC initiative screams: where is the educational component and where are the education experts? Of course laptops are not a "magic cure-all", as one blogger laments. Shouldn't interconnectedness involve a greater listening process? I propose a more flexible model that takes into account already existing structures in order to build on already-exisitng education systems with the use of technology and not through it. Additionally, it is possible, gasp, that economic investments would be better off in other sectors rather than technology, such as continuing education/training for teachers.


On a personal note, I have taught in a Montessori school where I have had every tool at my disposal -- a dream classroom for some. However, as readers are aware, I currently work for the Barrio Planta Project (BPP), which does struggle in terms of materials and supplies. I must say that my current work has forced me to be more creative and dynamic in not only lesson planning and curriculum, but in the general way in which I teach and reach students. That, I believe, the core of quality education and while we would certainly welcome a computer lab, we know that strong, educated and motivated teachers make for strong, educated motivated students -- period. What are your thoughts?

Banking on the BRICS

The five-member BRICS countries account for roughly 18 per cent of the world's GDP [AFP]

The proposal of a development bank between the five BRICS nations – Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa was the main topic of discussion at last week's 4^th Annual Brics Summit in New Delhi.  The South-South development bank would pool resources for things such as lending and infrastructure improvements as well as facilitate trade. The leaders also discussed the possibility of extending credit to member countries in local currency, side stepping the dollar as the main unit of trade between the BRICS. Talk of setting up a BRICS bank has generated a flood of news stories trying to predict the future implications. 

Here are a few examples of recent news headlines:

• BRICS summit to explore creation of bank
  Al Jazeera | http://aje.me/HdlUWX
• BRICS Can Lead Whole Global South in Quest for Financial Justice CRIENGLISH.com | http://bit.ly/HFBCtO
• Why a Brics-built bank to rival the IMF is doomed to fail 
  The Telegraph | http://tgr.ph/HblZK
• Emerging Markets Look to Drop BRICS on U.S. Dollar  
  International Business Times | http://bit.ly/HRmW8L
• The west must wake up to the growing power of the Brics The Guardian | http://bit.ly/HiAUQy                         
• World Bank Open to Partnering Brics Bank
  Wall Street Journal | http://on.wsj.com/HL2dYKv                               

You can see how these news sources are covering the same story in different ways. The order of the articles I read above also shows the progression of coverage:

1. Exploration of development bank. 
2. BRICS will free the Global South from financial dependency. 
3. The BRICS bank attempt to rival the World Bank and the IMF will fail.  
4. Uh oh, the U.S. dollar will be affected.
5. Hey, you - the West, watch out for the strengthening of the BRICS.
6. Solution to #5: Global North can "partner" with the BRICS bank. 

Why does this all matter? MONEY, POWER, CONTROL and last, but not least: the numbers. According to the Al Jazeera article:  The five members now account for roughly 18 per cent of the world's GDP, 15 per cent of global trade and hold 40 per cent of global currency reserves. They account for the 40 per cent of the world population.

Many argue the BRIC concept, conceived in 2001 by Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs is just that - a concept. Many articles touch on the fact that these countries do not have much in common besides being locating in the Global South and their desire to rid ties to Western institutions.  However, with the BRICS's combined global economic power and 40 percent of the world population, this "concept" is getting a little more disconcerting to the West. The news went from, "The BRIC bank is DOOMED to failure" to "The World Bank wants to partner with BRIC bank" within a week. Talking about changing tides.  Who is going to call the shots now?

Before global power relations really change, the BRICS need to get on the same page to ensure more international bargaining power. Another point of contention in the media is - Who is going to gain what from this development bank? Aren't some of the BRICS countries at a greater advantage to reap the benefits? China? An opinion column in The Bangkok Post highlights the emerging asymmetrical relations within the bloc:

"Lending and trading in renminbi is likely to boost China's international standing and clout. But its undervalued currency and hidden export subsidies have been systematically undermining manufacturing in other Brics nations, especially India and Brazil."  This excerpt points out the false notion that South-South transfer is always equitable. Undermining manufacturing in member countries?  

We will have to wait and see how the BRICS development bank progresses. Regardless, the rest of the world should realize global power is shifting. (The World Bank does and that's why it suddenly wanted to "partner" aka maintain some control.) In previous posts Jeannie has covered Iranian influences in Latin America and this latest BRICS Summit highlighted the continued relations: BRICS refuses to side with US in showdown with Iran – 

The Economic TImes http://bit.ly/HcQ287.  

The long and short of it is - the Global South is uniting. What does this mean for development and education? Where will the models of education/development come from if the Global North isn't calling all the shots?