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.