Recently in Comment is free Category

Yesterday's regional elections in Venezuela marked an important shift in the country's political balance - I've summed it up for the Guardian's website:

Venezuelan voters gave President Hugo Chávez a boost yesterday in key regional elections, handing his allies victory in 18 of the 23 gubernatorial races that were up for grabs. Chávez, who had cast the vote as a referendum on his revolutionary project, was swift to claim a fresh mandate for his drive towards 21st-century socialism: "We don't see an opposition victory on a map painted red," sneered one Chávez spokesman as the results came in.

Still, it wasn't all good news for El Jefe. The opposition may have fallen short of a sweeping victory, but it now holds the governorships of five of Venezuela's most densely populated states, including oil-rich Zulia and the major industrial base of Carabobo, along with the mayoralties of Caracas and Maracaibo, the country's two largest cities. Crucially, the opposition pickups were driven by major gains among the poor, urban voters who once propelled Chávez to power. In the Caracas municipal elections, even the iconic Petare slums elected an opposition official.

That hardly adds up to a stinging rebuke of Chávez's administration, but it does dramatically redraw the Venezuelan political map. The revolution, it seems, has gone rural. Chávez retains the support of many, and perhaps most, Venezuelans, but his urban base has been significantly eroded in recent months. These days, the president's democratic mandate depends on his utter dominance of the Venezuelan countryside, where voters – grateful for Chávez's efforts to bring them into the political mainstream, and less affected than their urban counterparts by crime rates and rocketing inflation – yesterday backed the president's allies by 40-point margins.

More here.

I've written a piece for the Guardian's website looking at what Obama's victory means for Latin America:

With two wars and an economic meltdown to manage, charting a new direction in Latin America won't be top of the 44th president's to-do list. It's worth noting, too, that while Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, is a foreign-policy specialist, he's shown little interest in Latin America during his stint in the Senate, preferring to focus on Europe and the Middle East. That's led many Beltway observers to believe that if Obama's Latin American policy breaks with that of his predecessor, it will be through stylistic rather than substantive changes; President Obama will strike a warmer, more respectful tone towards Latin American leaders, but the bulk of his actual policies probably won't differ materially from those of Bush or Clinton.

That means that big-label programmes like Plan Colombia and the Merida initiative – a multi-billion dollar aid programme designed to curtail violence and drug trafficking in Mexico's border states – are likely to continue more or less as planned. It also makes it likely that Obama will stick more or less closely to the path set by Bush on free-trade initiatives, albeit with a new focus on environmental and labour safeguards. Even Bush's favorite boondoggle, the 700-mile security fence along the Mexican border, seems likely to be waved through by soon-to-be-President Obama; both he and his running mate, Joe Biden, voted in favour of building the fence.

Check out the rest here.

Venezuela has evicted the US ambassador and ordered its own diplomats home from Washington; I've posted some thoughts on the brouhaha over at Comment is free:

Another week, another round of diplomatic ping-pong: Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales have given US diplomats the bum's rush out of Caracas and La Paz, and Venezuelan and Bolivian envoys are now winging their way home from Washington. Adding a little spice to the mix, the brouhaha blew up at the very moment that two vast Russian bombers, painted antiflash-white to deflect nuclear blasts, were touching down on Venezuelan runways in preparation for joint training exercises. In a series of feisty and occasionally foul-mouthed speeches, Chávez pledged to personally pilot one of the "White Swans" over Cuban skies as a tribute to Fidel Castro. Whether or not Chávez actually breaks out his flying goggles, Russia's military presence underscores a fresh low-point in US-Latin American relations, and has even prompted talk of a new cold war.

... Chávez hopes to fan the flames of the latest diplomatic row, both to rally his own increasingly skeptical supporters and to distract international observers from his efforts to foist an undemocratic brand of socialism upon a reluctant people. American observers shouldn't buy into his sleight of hand: this week's diplomatic back-and-forth isn't the beginning of a new Cold War, but merely business as usual in Hugo Chávez's Venezuela.

Read more here.

Álvaro Uribe's administration has gotten a lot right over the last few years - but recent studies show that his victories against the FARC have come at a high price. I've posted some thoughts over at Comment is free:

Colombian President Alvaro Uribe is on something of a roll. He's managed to engineer the all-but-final collapse of his country's Farc rebels. He's humiliated his rambunctious neighbour, Hugo Chávez, by capturing and publishing documents detailing the depth of the Venezuelan leader's ties to the guerrilla group. He even managed to secure the release of 15 prize hostages, including star secuestrada Ingrid Betancourt, without agreeing to any of the rebel army's demands. Unsurprisingly, his approval ratings are sky high: with upwards of 90% of the population behind him, Uribe's only real concern is whether to relinquish power when his term ends in 2010 or try to leverage his achievements to extend his constitutional term limits and keep Colombia's top job.

But while Uribe's achievements are real and impressive, they've come at considerable moral cost. His victories have been underpinned, after all, by a fervent militarism, and in Colombia such militarism comes at a price. In 2007 alone, according to a recent report by a coalition of Colombian human rights organisations, the country's military and police carried out 329 extrajudicial killings, a 48% increase from 2006. And last year was no anomaly. According to another report published last year, the five-year period ending June 2006 saw 50% more extrajudicial killings than the preceding half-decade.

Read the rest here.

It's been a rough few weeks for Argentine President Cristina Fernández; I've discussed her misfortunes - and their impact on her husband's hopes of returning to office - in my latest column for Comment is free:

The problems started when Fernández decreed an increase in export levies on agricultural produce. That prompted mass protests from outraged farmers and gave Argentina's formerly directionless opposition a cause to rally around. It also angered both the urban middle classes and the Kirchners' supporters in Congress, who took umbrage at the president's failure to even go through the motions of consulting lawmakers on the new taxes. Most troubling of all, Fernández found herself under fire from her own vice-president, Julio Cobos, who slipped easily into the role of Lex Luthor to the Kirchners' Superman. Appointed by Fernández to negotiate with the farm lobby, Cobos instead began to publicly question his boss's judgment, culminating in an open letter asking her to submit her proposals to Congress for ratification.

Ultimately, Fernández found herself unable to resist her underling's arm-twisting, and she asked lawmakers to support her tax plan. That ought to have been a formality, given the Peronists' dominance in Congress. Even there, though, Fernández's superpowers failed her. Despite her best efforts, the tax bill became utterly deadlocked in the Senate, despite the Peronists' two-thirds majority. Finally, after 17 hours of debate failed to break the stalemate, vice-president Cobos cast a dramatic tie-breaking vote against his own boss, shooting down the tax reform once and for all.

Read more here.

According to the CW, Barack Obama ought to be struggling to win over America's Hispanic voters. In fact, he seems to be dominating the Latino demographic with relative ease - it's his opponent who's struggling to make up ground. I've posted my take over at Comment is free:

Many election watchers believe McCain still has a chance to claw back Latino support. After all, the argument goes, Hispanics are a historically volatile voting bloc and might well swing back toward McCain in the months ahead. It's true that about 40% of Latinos backed Bush in 2004; it's true, too, that Hispanic support helped steer Democrats to victory in the 2006 midterms. But while those shifts help perpetuate the myth that Latinos are swing voters, the truth is that they change their allegiance no more frequently than other demographic groups. Most Latinos - with the exception of Florida's strategically important Cuban-American population - remain true-blue Democrats and simply aren't in the market for another GOP president.

It won't help that McCain's strategy for winning over Hispanics rests on puffing his track record on immigration reform, while raising concerns about Obama's trustworthiness on the issue. That's a risky gambit. McCain's trite reminders that even immigrants with Hispanic names "are God's children" might help placate his conservative base, but they won't do much for his support among Latino voters, barely a quarter of whom were born outside the US. Besides, polls consistently show that Hispanic voters - who are, by definition, already US citizens - care far less about immigration than about bread-and-butter issues like the economy and healthcare.

More here.

The rescue of Ingrid Betancourt was good news for Colombians - especially their president, Álvaro Uribe - but rather less so for Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez, who's been having a rather terrible few months. I've taken a look at his prospects for staging a comeback in my latest Comment is free column:

Chávez still has a few punches left to throw. He's fortunate that Colombia's President Uribe appears minded to be magnanimous in victory, perhaps due to his country's extensive trade ties with Venezuela. The two leaders meet today to discuss border security, giving Chávez a chance to belatedly bury the hatchet and perhaps score an invitation to resume negotiations for the release of the Farc's remaining hostages, or even the rebel army's disarmament. The latter is a long shot, of course, but if Chávez can play even a bit part in ending the Colombian conflict, he could repair much of the damage he's done to his international standing.

Back home, Chávez seems to be pinning his party's electoral hopes on a dirty-tricks campaign. Last month, the national comptroller blacklisted nearly 400 public officials - mostly opposition politicians - and barred them from standing in the coming elections, ostensibly because of past administrative or legal offences. Opposition leaders have protested the decision, calling it unconstitutional and undemocratic, and noting that many of the alleged offences are disputed and were never tested in court. They may well be right, but with electoral officials and the supreme court largely in Chávez's pocket, they're unlikely to be able to reverse the ruling before the August deadline for candidate registration.

The blacklist is straight out of Chávez's usual playbook, a carefully judged low blow, not quite blatant or sweeping enough to make a travesty of the election itself, but guaranteed to boost Chávez's allies' electoral prospects while reducing his opponents to unappealingly frothy fits of red-faced rage. That may or may not be enough to allow him to avert disaster in the coming elections. Either way, it's a sign that the Venezuelan leader still has plenty of life left in him. Chávez may be on the ropes, but if his opponents want to capitalise on his recent tribulations, they're going to have a fight on their hands.

Read more here.

It looks rather like Hugo Chávez has been caught with his hand in the diplomatic cookie-jar: last week Interpol announced that a trove of computer files linking the Venezuelan leader to Colombia's FARC rebels appeared to be genuine. I've given my take over at Comment is free:

... if some of the Colombian government's specific accusations are a little overblown, taken as a whole the computer files strongly suggest that the Venezuelan government offered, and perhaps provided, material support to the Farc in recent months. The question now becomes: how to respond?

One option, already floated by some hawks, would be for the US to declare Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism and impose sanctions accordingly. That would be hugely premature. While the recovered laptops are highly suggestive, they are not enough to bundle Venezuela in with the likes of Syria, North Korea and Iran. It would also probably be counterproductive, destabilizing Venezuela ahead of key regional elections and allowing Chávez to rail against US aggression.

Fortunately, with oil prices already closing in on $4 a gallon it's unlikely that US policymakers will rush to turn Venezuela into a petro-pariah. A better option might be so-called "smart sanctions", which would impose travel restrictions and monitor the assets of senior Venezuelan officials without wreaking economic havoc on the rest of the country. Best of all, though, would be for Venezuela's neighbors to remove the need for American action: the Organization of American States should take up the case where Interpol left off, and conduct a formal, impartial and transparent investigation into Venezuela's apparent efforts to hurt its neighbour.

Read the rest here.

This week saw both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton put in appearances on Fox News. That's angered the netroots - but might win them brownie points with superdelegates, who're keen for the candidates to reach out to moderate and independent voters. I've jotted some thoughts for the Guardian's Comment is free site:

It's unclear quite what the candidates hoped to gain from their Fox interviews. In 2004, only 7% of Fox fans voted for John Kerry, making the network's audience a more reliably Republican constituency than gun owners, white evangelical Christians or even self-defined conservatives. Could it be that the candidates are taking a cue from Operation Chaos and hoping to pick up crossover votes from Republicans whose own party's nomination was wrapped up long ago?

More likely, perhaps, is that the candidates' Fox-fest was designed to send a message to the Democratic superdelegates. An appearance on Fox was bound to be taken as a snub by the netroots - and arguably that's no bad thing, if you're a left-leaning candidate desperate to stake out a claim to the centre ground. In an election that looks likely to be fought and won among independents and moderates, it's more important than ever for Obama and Clinton to convince superdelegates that they are ready and able to reach out to swing voters. Even if that means sleeping with the enemy.

More here.

The LAPD is under pressure to overhaul its rules for dealing with immigrants, after an illegal alien allegedly killed a high-school football star last month. I've jotted some thoughts for Comment is free:

One Sunday afternoon last month, 17-year-old Los Angeles resident Jamiel Shaw was walking home from the mall when a white sedan pulled up next to him. Two Latino men leaned out and asked Jamiel - a clean-cut high school football star with hopes of winning a scholarship to Stanford - what gang he belonged to. When he couldn't give an answer, one of the two men shot him dead.

That terrible, senseless act of violence has catapulted LA's battle with street gangs back into the public gaze - and sparked fresh debate about the way the City of Angels deals with its huge immigrant population. That's because Jamiel's alleged killer, a 19-year-old named Pedro Espinoza, is believed to have been an illegal alien - and, to make matters worse, had reportedly been released from county jail just a day before the brutal attack.

Quite rightly, that's prompted soul-searching at the LA police department, most of it focused on the application of Special Order 40, a regulation prohibiting police officers from stopping people for the sole reason of learning their immigration status. A number of police officers - including one who moonlights as a National Review blogger - say the rule is confusing and leads officers to actively avoid discovering the immigration status of known criminals.

Read the rest here.