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. 

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?  

The Global South Unites Through Lending

China lends more than $75bn to Latin America
Financial Times
February 15, 2012
By John Paul Rathbone
Citation: http://on.ft.com/yKyIpQ

Chinese state banks have lent more than $75bn to Latin America since 2005, and in 2010 gave more than the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank and US Ex-Im Bank combined, according to a report which highlights China’s growing financial heft in the region.

“On the positive side, it is clear that China is a new and growing source of finance in Latin America,” notes the independent academic report, New Banks in Town: Chinese finance in Latin America.

“That said, and contrary to much commentary on the subject, by and large Latin American nations have to pay a higher premium for loans from China.”

China has overtaken the US to become Brazil and Chile’s largest trade partner. Many US policymakers fear that Beijing is using cheap rate loans to “buy” influence among left-leaning Latin American governments that are hostile to western interests, and that Beijing uses financing to secure long term commodity supplies.

Read more...


Latin America has borrowed more than $75bn from China since 2005. Since then China has transformed into Brazil and Chile’s leading trading partner, beating out the United States. Through financing China has been able to secure long term supplies of commodities. Many U.S. policy makers are voicing concern that the attractive loan rates are a tool to “buy” influence among left-leaning governments in Latin America. Chinese loans to Latin America now account for more than half of Beijing’s international lending. China’s growing presence has not gone unnoticed in the region.

This situation supports Jeannie’s previous post about global interconnectedness: “Venezuelan and Iranian Involvement in Nicaragua: Benevolence or Strategy?” Latin America is now financially tied to China and the implications of such ties are not yet clear.  This article also illustrates the notion within World Systems Theory that international power relations are constantly changing. Even though the money from China is not coming in the form of aid or “assistance”, it still has potential to create a certain level of dependency, especially considering the fact China focus is on commodities in Latin American markets, which critics say, will increase “dependency” exploitation. The article even points out that left-wing development economists denounced this type of dependency four decades ago.  That is not to say the past cannot repeat itself.  Left-leaning governments tired of Western ways may overlook such factors and continue relations with the Chinese in their quest for modernization and development. 

The United States is no longer ranked number one in regard to trade with countries like Brazil and Chile, but that is not their only concern.  Some believe China’s growing presence in the region is driven by an ideological desire to boost South-South ties according to the article. Besides the economic benefits tied to commodities and the influential power of money, it appears China’s strategy may consist of spreading and supporting ideologies of the Global South.  Venezuela and Iran are now supporting Nicaragua and isn’t Iran friends with China? The Global South seems to be uniting in the United State’s backyard. What will that mean for future the future of development and education in Latin America?

Venezuelan and Iranian Involvement in Nicaragua: Benevolence or Strategy?

Ortega, Chavez, and Ahmadinejad share smiles and a handshake.

Nicaraguan's Worry About Ortega's Foreign Friends

By Dave Graham

Reuters

January 17, 2012

Citation: http://tinyurl.com/893sp2v

MANAGUA (Reuters) - Nicaragua's left-wing President Daniel Ortega has won over many critics at home with a successful drive to cut poverty and spur business-friendly policies in Central America's poorest country. But his choice of friends abroad makes many Nicaraguans worry that the former guerrilla and Cold War icon is dragging down the country's reputation and unnecessarily antagonizing the United States and other Western countries.

Article clipped, see link for details

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega recently won his second straight term thanks to his efforts to ameliorate poverty in Nicaragua, with the help of Venezuelan oil money. Both Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were present at Ortega’s inauguration. However, Nicaraguans fear that these relationships are negatively impacting the country and affecting global opinion about Nicaragua. Many Nicaraguans indicated that Ortega fails to think for himself; rather, he is merely Chavez’s puppet. Others voiced concerns over the motives for increased Venezuelan influence in Nicaragua. As of recently, Chavez has contributed money to provide water, electricity, and housing for this impoverished country. The question is, to what end? Regarding increased Iranian involvement in Nicaragua, many Nicaraguans fail to see what benefits Nicaragua will accrue in engaging in such close relations with Iran, a nation that has recently added fire to the global flames with its nuclear program, and one who has also yet to provide any monetary aid to Nicaragua.

First off, there are many ways to define global interconnectedness. The past few years, Iran has strategically cultivated friendships with several Latin America countries, namely Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. The recent launch of an Iranian Spanish television channel (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16809053) and the visit of Iranian President Ahmadinejad to four Latin American countries in early 2012 definitely indicate strategic Iranian involvement in Latin America. While this involvement does not scream of the stereotypical neo-imperialistic efforts of the West in Africa, I cannot help but see the similarities. I mean, Iran’s involvement in Latin America is definitely for its own self-interest. Given Western frustrations with Iran’s nuclear program, Ahmadinejad may be using his Latin American ties to win favor and garner more support for his country who, in the midst of the potential conflict in the Straight of Hormuz, is not quite in global favor. Iran needs some friends right now, and Ahmadinejad is shopping in Latin America.

As the article indicated, the U.S. has issued its perception of the situation, namely that Iran is creating strategic friendships with allies in America’s backyard (big surprise there). But even more significant are the Nicaraguan voices protesting the relationship between Nicaragua and Iran. Obviously, any ‘development’ aid that Iran would provide to Nicaragua would just be a ruse to buy Nicaraguan support. It is strategic because Iran could subversively provide money, which impoverished Nicaragua definitely needs and wouldn’t turn down, and later cash in on that. After all, nothing comes without a price. In my opinion, Iran is using ally partnerships and the promise of future funds to take advantage of Nicaragua. Whatever Iran’s motives are in Latin America, they obviously do not have the best interest of Nicaraguans in mind, which reminds me in a bizarre way of neo-colonialism.

What I also found interesting was the connection between Venezuela and Nicaragua, and the point raised by Nicaraguans about what Chavez’s interests truly are in Nicaragua. It is hard to determine why Venezuela is so deeply imbedded in Nicaraguan affairs, but again, I liken it to a subversive strategic way to ensure that Nicaragua, a country riddled with poverty, is always indebted to Venezuela. In potentially another stretch, this relationship between Nicaragua and Venezuela reminds me of Dependency Theory in the way that Venezuela is perpetuating Nicaraguan dependency by providing Chavez’s petrodollars to help battle Nicaraguan poverty.