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.

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?

A Venezuela Without Chavez?

What Comes After Chavez?

By: Wikistrat

CNN World

February 10, 2012

Citation: http://tinyurl.com/7yx97qo

This Sunday, the historically disorganized Venezuelan opposition movement is holding its first-ever presidential primary to decide upon a single candidate to challenge long-time strongman Hugo Chavez. With regional governor Henrique Capriles expected to prevail, the aging Chavez faces a younger version of himself: namely, a dynamic rising star promising to transform the political landscape. This time, however, the figure is moving it away from the heavy-handed populism initiated by Chavez after he swept into office in 1998.

(Article clipped, see link for full version)

This article attempts to hypothesize what may happen in Venezuela if Chavez is challenged by the opposition movement in it's first presidential primary. The prevailing opponent, Capriles, is a younger version of Chavez, and may pose quite the challenge to the aging and ailing president. Chavez instituted populism in Venezuela, marked by the persecution of political opponents, nepotism in parliament, an emerging oil industry, and close relationships with fellow Chavista leaders in Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Cuba. The authors highlight five potential post-Chavez situations in Venezuela. First, the opposition's campaign could create anti-Chavez fallout; or Chavez could be elevated to martyr status like Che in Cuba, allowing for his brother to assume the presidency and continue the Chavez rule of Venezuela. However, given Latin American history, a military junta could assume power behind the scenes, using a figurehead ruler to appease the people; alternatively, Venezuela could be the new Colombia, full of drug violence. The last scenario has the next Venezuela leader as the new "Lula;" Brazil won't allow its neighbor to fall to evils of globalization, and instead could use its regional leadership to lead it into a functioning democracy.

To begin, I found this analysis interesting because what happens in Venezuela could indicate a shift in power in Latin America. For example, if Chavez is on the out, a power vacuum could emerge, either shifting Venezuela to a nepotistic "all in the family" government like Cuba, or to a potentially more violent state, like Mexico, propelled by drug violence. I think the comparisons that this article makes between Venezuela and situations in other Latin American countries are really interesting. The fact that Chavez and his government are facing real opposition for the first time in a long time is highly significant. However, Latin American history does indicate that this situation may not turn out well. What would happen to security and stability in Latin America if Venezuela went the way of Mexico? How would that situation impact its relations with other countries in the region? Or, could a military junta government or a case of Chavez nepotism lead the way to another long and brutal Latin America civil war, marked by violence and "disappearances"? As the current situation in Honduras indicates, when it comes to politics in Latin America, everything hangs on a very thin thread. I think though that the last situation, involving Brazil and its regional power, is the most interesting given the current situations in globalization and development. In International Human Rights Law, we talk about the power of regional organizations over more Western influences (think of the Arab league in Syria before the situation escalated to its current predicament). Brazil, due to rapid development and globalization has become a relatively potent 'democratic' force in Latin America. I'd like to think that perhaps this will count for something if the future of Venezuela's politics seems uncertain.