Observations on Las Malvinas

July 8, 2012 by 7 Comments

Jasper Cox 

Image © jjay69

I recently spent a month in Argentina volunteering at a local radio station. As a Briton, I was a bit anxious about going into a country where tensions over Las Malvinas are running high, particularly after seeing the warnings on the Foreign Office website. The legacy of the war and the sovereignty of islands about 1,500 km from Buenos Aires still ignite passions.

On arrival in Argentina, the most obvious sign is from the graffiti. In Argentina, street art is incredibly political. This extends to foreign affairs, i.e., about how Las Malvinas are Argentinean (I can’t envisage seeing ‘EU referendum now!’ scrawled on the side of a wall in the Home Counties). After a bit more time in Argentina you notice the government propaganda, for example a sign at the entrance to a town saying the islands are Argentinean, and the infamous London 2012 advert on television. When you tell someone you are English, you are likely to get asked about football (Argentineans like the Premiership and in particular Manchester City) and maybe afterwards about the Falklands. Most Argentineans unsurprisingly think the islands do not belong to us. I think I should say at this point that I never felt threatened or scared because of my nationality. Most awkward questions are not asked in total seriousness and can be deflected with a bit of humour. Clearly there is less interest in the issue in Britain.  This YouGov poll measured opinions between residents of both countries. When asked How important an issue, if at all, do you think the Falkland Islands are to the UK? 25% of British people answered that the islands are very important to the UK. When Argentines were asked the corresponding question about Argentina, 56% answered very important.

However, the issue is easily exploited for political gains on both sides of the Atlantic. Christine Kirchner knows that when she talks about the islands she can unite the nation behind her. Kirchner won convincingly in the last elections, but her relationship with the unions is cracking, whilst there are protests about the government’s attempts to reduce the use of US dollars. In this context especially, it is useful to paint a foreign country as the enemy. The same applies to some extent to our politicians. David Cameron looks strong when he appears to be standing up for Britain, even though the prospect of a direct war in the 21st century between two democratically elected governments which are both members of the UN is very small. However, scaremongering helps both the government and the military. When military people claim our army would no longer be able to defend the Falklands, it sounds to me like a plea for more funding.  Read more of this post

Filed under America, Foreign policy Tagged with , , , , ,

South America’s Drug Legalisation Debate

July 1, 2012 by

Daniel Crump @dannycru

Image © Official U.S. Navy Imagery

The killing of a man at the hands of a DEA agent in Honduras earlier this month was an unwelcome reminder that despite promising economic activity in the wider American region, drug manufacturing and the war designed to end it, are still blotches on the international reputation of America’s north, south and central regions. Despite being eerily reminiscent of so many previous occasions of bloodshed at the hands of the drug industry, this latest episode had a hint of novelty to it. This is partly due to the fact that the US government took the step of officially naming the agent as the sole killer, and at no point attempted to shift the blame onto the Honduran police force as has happened before. This is a first for US led operations in the Central American state.

But mostly, this chapter of the war on drugs happened to occur in the midst of the most serious period of analysis about the current approach to drug enforcement that we have seen in modern times. The involvement of the US agent may have propelled the debate to the higher echelons of international news, but the debate has well and truly already begun, most of all in the region’s fastest growing continent, South America.

One of many sticking points between the South and North at the latest OAS summit in Colombia this year was the drug enforcement debate. Argentina and Brazil, seen by many as the continent’s most influential members, directly opposed Obama’s stubborn reluctance to address the status quo and gave serious consideration to drug legalisation.

Drug related crime in the US is undoubtedly still a major issue and remains one of the biggest causes of premature death with figures exceeding the number of soldiers killed in the Afghan war throughout the same period, threefold.

In South America the problems have been far wider reaching. The region’s ideal case study, Colombia, is a living example of how economic prosperity must inevitably take a back seat to drug related crime. Home to Pablo Escobar and the US’s near sole source of cocaine in the 1980’s, Colombia was ravaged by a civil war between Left-wing guerrilla groups and right-wing paramilitaries. Drug cultivation was the overriding factor that kept large amounts of foreign direct investment from reaching Colombia’s poorest regions. In 2002, an offensive led by new President Alvaro Uribe transformed Colombia’s prospects with hard hitting aggression against drug traffickers and Guerilla terrorists and made the country what it is today, enjoying economic growth four times that of the EU.  Read more of this post

Filed under America Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

It wasn’t supposed to be like this

April 24, 2012 by

Daniel Crump 

Image © Que Comunismo

Initially, South America’s near continent-wide economic expansion meant great advantages for the rest of the Western world. In the opening decade of the century, with Argentina largely at the mercy of the IMF, South America was led mostly by governments that the West could do business with. For better or worse for the people of South America, this meant that the West had stronger trading partners, a decline in drug related violence and yet another example of liberal, free-market economics becoming the default setting for any nation that wished to exist within the international community.

This was also a time when we knew how to differentiate the good guys from the bad. Across the border from Colombia, and 90 miles off the coast of Florida, lay Latin America’s answer to the Axis of Evil. With the menacing prospect of further international terrorism following September 11th, US President George W Bush was able to maintain a healthy distance between Pro and Anti US Latin America. Nowhere was this more evident than between neighbours Colombia and Venezuela. The Bush administration was able to manipulate this relationship by placing US military bases on Colombian soil which were, in the US’s own words, designed as a launch pad for military operations against Anti US Latin American Governments.  South American politics seemed to fit so neatly into the US world-view.

Fast forward to the present day and something rather unexpected seems to have taken place; South American governments are increasingly beginning to think for themselves. Last month’s Organisation of American States (OAS) Summit was the biggest indication yet of the diverging paths taken by South and North America. At the discussion table were measures such as the legalisation of the drugs trade, British claims over ‘Las Malvinas’ and Cuba’s absence from the summit talks. With better relations between Colombia and Venezuela and an increasing desire to settle internal matters through UNASUR rather than the OAS, South America is speaking with its own voice and making its own decisions. The most significant development of South American integration is surely the growing contribution of the Continent’s left-wing bloc.

South American Integration

During the Bush Administration it was clear that the OAS took the majority of decisions affecting the American region. The Organisation was largely designed to satisfy North American goals such as the fights against terrorism and the illegal drugs trade. Cuba was suspended from talks between 1962-2009 and there appears to be no pressing need to reinstate them.

Since then, both the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA) have gained a more influential voice. ALBA stands for a rejection of trade liberalization and free trade agreements, preferring to project a vision of mutual economic aid transfers, bartering and social welfare. UNASUR is becoming ever more effective at curbing the influence of the US in South America by resolving the Colombian Venezuelan conflict and agreeing to prohibit US military bases in Colombia being used for military purposes outside of Colombian soil. Read more of this post

Filed under America, Culture, Economy, Europe, Foreign policy, Liberty, Tax and spend Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Are you with U.S or against US?

April 15, 2012 by 2 Comments

Daniel Crump 

Image © eltiempo.com

Some may view the behaviour of the US secret service agents this week in Colombia as a further sign of the growing discontent between the US and the rest of Latin America. The sheer audacity of these professional individuals, tasked with securing the safety of President Obama, carries with it an ugly reminder of the disrespect that characterised US attitudes towards Latin Americans in a period of time thought to be long resigned to history.

A recurring theme at this year’s Organisation of American States (OAS) was the ever- growing divide between North and South America, ranging from issues such as the British claim over the Falkland Islands, to the de-criminalisation of the drugs trade. This is in line with the economic dissociation that has seen the decline of US influence in the region and the gains made by China as a result. Chile and Peru, along with Brazil, the economic powerhouse of the continent, now have closer trading links with the Chinese than the US, with Colombia and Argentina likely to follow suit. Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based think-tank stated in a pre-summit report that ‘”Most countries of the region view the United States as less and less relevant to their needs and with declining capacity to propose and carry out strategies to deal with the issues that most concern them.”

For instance, South American leaders argue that the legalisation of drugs would put a large dent in the profits made by the trade and help to reduce drug related violence that has crippled South American economies and deprived them of much needed foreign investment. Predictably, any hopes of US enthusiasm for the policy were soon dashed, but Obama did concede that the United States is the region’s biggest consumer of illegal drugs and has a responsibility to reduce demand.

Also, on the 30th anniversary of the conflict, Argentina’s request for a negotiation of the Falkland Island’s sovereignty from Britain was supported by a handful of leaders including Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro who said ‘there should be no colonial possessions in our America’. Again, the US opposed this sentiment.

Perhaps most significant of all was the debate surrounding the makeup of the organisation itself. Rather unsurprisingly, Cuba was ostracised from proceedings as it has been since the birth of the OAS. A more surprising development was the Bolivian President Eva Morales’s claim that this ought to be the last OAS summit without Cuba. Latin America is largely united in their opposition to the US trade embargo of Cuba, and the absence of Castro provoked Ecuador to boycott the summit altogether. Read more of this post

Filed under America, Democracy, Economy, Foreign policy Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,263 other followers