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. 

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?

UNIALBA Higher Education System: Socialism or Functionalism?

Logo ALBA: Argentina Indymedia

LATINAMERICA: Higher education integration for bloc

University World News

August 14, 2011

Citation: http://tinyurl.com/82w8knd

Member states of Latin America's left-leaning political bloc known as Alba are organising to create an integrated higher education system. The eight participating nations aim to pool resources with a view to strengthening their universities. But the initiative, which has a strong socialist and anti-US agenda, has come in for widespread criticism.

The Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America, or Alba - which includes among others the governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Cuba - was founded by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez in December 2004.

The alliance's higher education integration initiative was announced in Nicaragua in June and emphasises strengthening universities and sharing advances made with each of the member countries.

But while pooling resources in higher education is a positive step, according to Kevin Casas Zamora (pictured), a former Costa Rican vice-president and political analyst with the Brookings Institution, it is dangerous when linked to a political agenda.

Article clipped; see link above for full version

Members of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America, as known as ALBA, are proposing a collaborative higher education system. It is their hope that by pooling all of their resources together that these eight nations will be able to form a network of universities that will support the demand for more venues of higher education in their respective countries. However, this proposal has gained a significant amount of criticism because of the political agenda that is often associated with such projects accomplished through this alliance. In this case, how can education and free thought be fostered in an environment laden with stringent socialist and anti-U.S. ideologies. Not only does the underlying "education" seem to be problematic, but also the coordination of a cohesive curriculum and grading structure. While ministry officials from the two main countries, Cuba and Venezuela, assure that the a unified, integrated system is possible, critics remain skeptical of the accomplishment of such a large venture.

With this type of politically driven university system it is important to consider the role that education will play outside of the institution of learning. Now from a functionalist perspective one could see how this system would easily be able to satisfy the needs within both local and national contexts. However, the implications of this UNIALBA system could have more complex and global implications. It is hard to ignore that these ALBA nations would use this system to propagate the standard set of norms supported by a socialist society. This system has been presented by ALBA ministry officials as a way to not only open up more opportunities for their citizens to learn and grow, but also as a way to preserve what they believe to be their values and beliefs. Within UNIALBA, their way of life could be culturally and socially reproduced. (see

http://tinyurl.com/c87jnx5)

While this may be a very rational response preserve the common identity of these nations, their socialist and anti-U.S. views might support a narrow minded world view. Not only could this type of curriculum be designed to eliminate all opposing ideas, but it could also present a space to openly challenge relations with other non-socialist countries within and outside of Latin America. These are the types of questions that need to be raised in order to solicit the true nature of this education system. What consequences will this type of education system have on these Latin American citizens? Will their underlying political agenda pose a threat to other Latin American countries? One might even go further to see if the support for these ideologies on such an immense scale does pose a threat to U.S. national security?