Chavez's balancing act

(Presidente Chávez en la graduación de la Misión Che Guevara Cargado originalmente por ¡Que comunismo!)

In his post- Cold War classic The Grand Chessboard Zbigniew Brzezinski argued that the maintenance of the United States exceptional position as the world's only superpower demanded the deployment of aggressive geopolitical strategy. Throughout his book Brzezinski adviced policy makers on keeping their eyes on the prize, the Eurasian continent:

A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral.(Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Basic Books: 1989, p.31)

Enter Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez ready to crash Brzezinski's carefully crafted model. Backed by Venezuela's oil wealth and by elections and referenda which have legitimized his presidency, Chavez has pursued a foreign policy agenda counter to the Bush administration's objectives.

Rejecting his nation's peripheral status with his actions and declarations, Chavez has made a name for himself in American mainstream media and in the midst of the presidential campaign coverage he is consistently mentioned as one of those difficult world leaders the next U.S. administration will have to deal with.

Lately Chavez has made international headlines by rekindling his friendship with Russia - of recent Georgia invasion fame- hosting two strategic Russian bombers in Venezuela and preparing to conduct a joint naval exercise in Caribbean waters. The intrepid Venezuelan is also planning a state visit to Moscow next Friday.

Coming from a Western Hemisphere country where foreign policy options have been permanently constrained to different versions of bandwagoning I cannot help but to marvel at Chavez's sheer determination to participate in the often off limits game of balance of power. Thucydides would be proud at his awkward but persistent Venezuelan student.

A positive externality

(Sarah Palin spread in my local newspaper, El Norte, September 21st, 2008)

In economics a positive externality occurs when an individual or a firm making a decision does not receive in full the benefit of that decision. The concept can be easily applied to what I consider to be an unintended effect of the current presidential campaigns in the United States: Hillary Clinton’s bid to become the Democratic nominee and Sarah Palin’s candidacy have done no small favor to the struggle of women politicians across the border.

In Mexico those women who have managed to achieve national recognition have not followed through by actually becoming members of the tight group of key decision makers. Neither Patricia Mercado, nor Cecilia Soto or Rosario Ibarra received each more than 5% of the vote when they contended for the Mexican presidency. It is safe to state that women politicians in Mexico have yet to build a generally credible counter hegemony, to use Adam Przeworski’s term, which would allow for the effective dismantling of the current male monopoly of national politics.

Yet, both Clinton and Palin have been the object of widespread attention by the Mexican media and the coverage is having the inadvertent effect of reassuring the general public on the idea of women occupying the highest positions of power. Moreover, the healthy ongoing debate in the United States about what constitutes a double standard in the vetting of a female candidate will prove to be of immense value for those Mexican women attempting to break their own political glass ceiling.

(Note to Nonna: no more Palin entries for a week I promise. Don't want to be held responsible for inducing assorted nightmares!)

Remembering the 2006 Mexican presidential elections

Andrés Manuel López Obrador
Cargado originalmente por natarén

Ever since Hillary Clinton put a stop to her campaign to win the Democratic nomination and Barack Obama became the presumptive nominee I have been forcing myself not to draw comparisons between the current presidential race in the United States and our experience in Mexico a couple of years ago.

I believe that for democracy to be functional, electoral outcomes should result from voters’ enforcement of accountability. If a party in government has done right by the people, they should reward it by voting for its re-election. If, on the contrary, a party in government has failed in fulfilling its mandate, elections are the mechanism to ensure its demise from power and allow for another party to deliver on the demands of the majority.

Yet modern campaigning can often stand in the way of democratic accountability. Case in point is the 2006 Mexican presidential election. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, a popular Mayor of Mexico City, started his bid propelled by polls agreeing on his front runner status as candidate. His campaign slogan was irresistible. "Primero, los pobres" ("First, the poor") was a simple and poignant reminder of what the first opposition government after 70 years of one party rule had failed to do: address effectively Mexico’s extreme inequality and poverty.

Lopez Obrador has pointed to the uneven and unfair conditions that ensured his unexplainable loss of the presidency to Felipe Calderon, a lackluster conservative candidate who promised more of the same failed policies courtesy of the Vicente Fox administration. Until now he has refused to acknowledge the obvious mistakes his campaign made in connecting with the voters and successfully presenting its message.

Completely certain of his triumph Lopez Obrador chose not to attend the first of the presidential debates which resulted in his first setback in the polls. Constituencies were regularly thrown under the bus by the Lopez Obrador campaign, as their internal polling showed them these were people not needed to secure a win. The candidate's own stubbornness and the zeal of many of his supporters raised suspicion amongst those not comfortable with Obrador's inspired leadership being offered as the solution to the country's woes.

Lopez Obrador's public persona and his campaign's confidence on the power of his charisma above the power of his arguments paved the way for some nasty characterizations made by the conservative press and by Calderon's negative campaign which influenced voters’ perceptions. Lopez Obrador was presented as messianic and full of himself. He was deemed an out-of-touch populist supported only by leftist intellectuals and those who did not know any better. He did not become president in part because by the end of the campaigns, while most Mexicans still disapproved of Vicente Fox's mismanagement many had come to believe that the Lopez Obrador alternative was scarier.

The Obama campaign has been falling into some of the same traps and thus has found itself in the current situation evinced by the latest polls: he is tied with the Republicans after 8 years of Bush. According to Rasmussen McCain is already ahead in the electoral college contest with 200 votes against Obama's 193. Campaigns do matter. Negative propaganda works. Ignoring or offending independents and the undecided takes a toll on a candidate's chances to win an election. Yet Obama and his supporters seem bent on staying on the path already transited by another progressive politician just across the border. At the end all mistakes will be redeemed as a result of Obama’s transformational, transcendental and post-partisan halo. Right.

Turning the tables

Gordon Brown - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2008
Cargado originalmente por World Economic Forum
(Gordon Brown sporting Mr. Bean's haircut at the World Economic Forum in Davos 2008 Copyright World Economic Forum Photo by Remy Steinegger)

It appears that Mexican president Felipe Calderon is not alone amongst foreign leaders who declare their support for one of the U.S.presidential candidates. Just last week British Prime Minister Gordon Brown made headlines with his endorsement of Barack Obama. Praising the advance of progressive leadership around the world, Brown described Obama's campaign as the one "generating the ideas to help people through more difficult times". Brown made no mention in his article of what John McCain and the Republicans are contributing to the race. He has subsequently been criticized for this endorsement which has been qualified as a diplomatic blunder, with the British press arguing that leaders should maintain neutrality at all times regarding the elections in another country.

When I blogged about Calderon's wink at the McCain campaign Nonna rightly asked if this was a common practice, for a Mexican president to meddle into another country's election by announcing who his preferred winner was. My answer was no, it was not common. I also added that Calderon's words would have no impact on the Mexican- American vote. Yet I contended Calderon had good reasons to hope for a McCain win: his party has always maintained a good relation with the Republicans, the United States is Mexico's neighbour and largest economic partner and the Mexican government shares the Republican view on trade. Plus McCain's immigration stand is in tune with what the Mexican government advocates for those who cross the border in pursuit of the American dream.

The United States has traditionally and unapologetically made its preferences be known when other countries elect their leaders. With all the debate on what the "Bush doctrine" entails, one foreign policy doctrine that is well understood in the hemisphere is the Monroe doctrine with its Roosevelt Corollary. In Latin America, the United States has tried historically to exercise a veto power over the electoral choices people make when they are not in accordance with United States interests. Sometimes the United States has even recurred to military intervention or supported internal military coups in order to exercise this veto.

With the end of the Cold War, tipping electoral preferences abroad to favor American interests has required a more sophisticated approach. Declarations of United States ambassadors, American newspaper editorials, announcements made by State Department officials, all have the intention of letting Latin Americans know if a candidate would be welcomed by the United States as someone they can work with. A number of times, a United States endorsement has had the opposite intended effect as Latin American voters have chosen to reject American electoral advice (the elections and re-elections through referenda of both Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales are examples of this trend).

The Bush administration's current unpopularity in and outside of the United States and the Iraqi disaster have paved the way for the tables turning. Call it the globalization of electoral meddling. The United States meddles with elections in other countries and other countries are now meddling with the elections in the United States. In a world where United States foreign policy decisions have such a big impact on the well being of all peoples it is plain common sense for foreign leaders to have a position on the outcome of the U.S. presidential elections. Is it undiplomatic to make their preferences publicly known? Yes. Relevant to voters’ preferences in the U.S.? No. Reason enough to back a complaint from within the United States? Certainly not, as the United States would thus be forced to acknowledge and decry its current and past interventionist actions in foreign elections, many of them much more condemnable than Calderon's support for John McCain or the enthusiastic praise that Brown had for Barack Obama.

Palin's impatient (and wrong) foreign policy teacher

Sarah Palin's anticipated interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson is now being publicised by some in the media as conclusive proof of the Governor of Alaska's lack of foreign policy experience. At one point of the interview Gibson asked Palin if she agreed with the "Bush doctrine". Her answer ("In what respect Charlie?") is being mocked as evidence of Palin's ignorance, an ignorance to be expected from a woman politician who, quite obviously for Gibson and many others, has no business in contending for the vice presidency of the United States.

According to the creator of the term, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, Palin was right in demanding from Gibson a clarification of his question. Gibson's characterization of the "Bush doctrine" as purely a doctrine of preemptive war is wrong according to Krauthammer:

It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

Krauthammer centers his criticism in Gibson's perceived exasperation on defining the Bush doctrine for Palin and how this issue has been overexploited by the pundits to further dicredit McCain's VP pick:

Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

Beauty and the vote

Sarah Palin's nomination to be the Vice President of the United States as part of the Republican ticket has encountered severe criticism from both the mainstream media and the liberal blogosphere.

The Governor of Alaska's alleged lack of qualifications and experience has been cited by pro-Obama commentators as reason enough to condemn John McCain's pick. However, many of the attacks against Palin have not been solely directed at her conservative stands or her policy choices.

"Caribou barbie," "beauty queen" and "trophy Vice" have been regularly used as supporting elements to discredit Palin as a viable candidate. The fact that she competed in the Miss Alaska 1984 beauty pageant where she won second place and a college scholarship is given as sufficient evidence that she cannot be taken seriously as a politician the underlying argument being that an attractive woman must be a bimbo, and a bimbo must not be in a position of power.

Most disturbingly, many of those willing to fire the thinly veiled misogynistic bullets are self proclaimed liberal women. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd writes:

The guilty pleasure I miss most when I’m out slogging on the campaign trail is the chance to sprawl on the chaise and watch a vacuously spunky and generically sassy chick flick. So imagine my delight, my absolute astonishment, when the hockey chick flick came out on the trail, a Cinderella story so preposterous it’s hard to believe it’s not premiering on Lifetime. Instead of going home and watching “Miss Congeniality” with Sandra Bullock, I get to stay here and watch “Miss Congeniality” with Sarah Palin.

The reality is that the world of politics is still dominated by men and this has not changed with the current surge of Dowd-approved, non-sassy, serious, intense and highly educated women involved in politics around the world.

Many women who have advanced in politics until now have done so aided by a family name made trustworthy by the actions of a male. Without questioning their remarkable careers and credentials, Michele Bachelet, Cristina Kirchner, Benazir Bhutto, Indira Gandhi and Hillary Clinton may fall into this category.

Other female leaders have succeeded by projecting a character that is not by-and-large associated with what are generally acknowledged as feminine traits. Examples of these so-called iron ladies are Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel.

Although Palin does not fall into any of the described categories her story is hardly unique. Her political career is reminiscent to that of Venezuelan Irene Saez. Saez competed and won in the 1981 Miss Universe pageant. Like Palin, she subsequently earned a B.A. and later on decided to run for office in a small municipality. As Mayor of Chacao, Saez enjoyed high approval ratings. She was re-elected and then decided to run for president on an anti-corruption platform that echoed Venezuelans rejection of the traditional political parties. After losing to Hugo Chavez in the 1998 elections, Saez decided to run for the governorship of Nueva Esparta. She won handily with 70% of the vote.

A woman politician who fulfills all of Maureen Dowd's feminist requirements might take a while to come by. That is remembering that Ms. Dowd was also hostile towards Hillary Clinton, a non-Sarah Palin like female politician if there ever was one.

Women still have a hard enough time to reach the upper levels of decision making positions for Palin's physique to be enlisted as one of her disqualifications to run for office. In an equal opportunity world a woman should at least have the right to be attractive and succeed in politics without having to apologise for it to the self appointed defenders of feminism, regardless of her platform and views.

Mexican president endorses McCain

Does it even matter? Hispanic network Univision announces Mexican president Felipe Calderon has endorsed Republican candidate John McCain. This should not come as any surprise. Calderon's party, the PAN (National Action Party- conservative) has for long held close relations with the Republican party.

According to the AP article, Calderon believes that McCain "knows the Mexican reality better" even though he acknowledges that Obama is being supported by many Mexican-Americans. Calderon said Obama's plans regarding NAFTA could entail a "return to protectionism" which would be damaging to the bilateral relationship. He added that McCain has supported "the most advanced immigration proposal."

Calderon's public endorsement is logical. He does not want NAFTA to be unilateraly renegotiated and demanding a humane and fair treatment of Mexican immigrants abroad is part of the mandate of any Mexican president. But does it matter whom he endorses? Will his declarations have any impact on the electoral preferences of Mexican-Americans?

The answer is... hardly. Most immigrants crossed the border to escape from a vicious circle of poverty and exclusion. Some risked their lives in the process. Many have encountered racism and denigrating treatment in their search for better opportunities. Not one of them is under any obligation to heed Calderon's opinion on how to cast their vote.

Calderon might have some influence if his own record as Mexican president was different. A reform minded Mexican Executive, willing and able to address effectively Mexico's problems of inequality, corruption and violence could expect the sympathies of those who were forced to flee from the status-quo. Such a president Calderon is not and his opinions regarding the candidates are not only uncalled for but also irrelevant.

Repairing a damaged image

In his address at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, former U.S. President Bill Clinton argued that two questions will have to be answered by voters when deciding whom to elect: who can restore confidence in the attainability of the American dream at home and who can restore America's world leadership.

Whether the response of the American electorate is Barack Obama or John McCain, one thing is certain: the demise of the Bush administration will entail an opportunity for the United States to repair its damaged international relations and improve the bargaining position of that country in the world arena.

The unilateral decision to invade Iraq as part of a strategy to win the war on terrorism was met in the rest of the world with positions ranging from criticism to outright rejection. Some of the governments, like Spain and Great Britain, that initially joined the coalition of the willing were later forced by the pressure of their internal electorates to reconsider their full support to the Bush strategy.

Most Latin American countries were not sold on the Bush doctrine. Mexico and Chile, members of the UN Security Council, chose not to support the United States representation in its demand for a UN sanctioned intervention on Iraq. In Mexico, the decision was not made by President Vicente Fox but by public opinion. Although Fox himself might have been willing to disregard Mexico's own historical experience as an invaded country in exchange for Bush's support to his plan on a bilateral immigration agreement, Mexican voters overwhelmingly condemned the Iraq war. In the midst of midterm elections, Fox was forced to go against his own inclinations to increase his party's chances at winning a majority.

The weak Latin American representation in the coalition of the willing gave the Bush administration enough of a reason to continue ignoring the region. That is, if any reason was needed to justify the non-strategy towards Latin America. Regional issues such as drug trafficking, immigration and economic development were to be addressed unilaterally by the United States or not at all.

Latin America's views on the United States can be divided between aspirational and resentful. On the one hand, Latin American societies admire American democracy, economic might and the rights and opportunities enjoyed by United States citizens. On the other, many Latin Americans resent the intermitent drive of United States administrations to push other countries around in order to further their interests, while making a mockery of the values and principles they uphold at home.

As Bill Clinton stated at Denver, the United States position in the world has been weakened by too much unilateralism and too little cooperation and by a failure to consistently use the power of diplomacy. In regards to the hemisphere's shared challenges, the end of the Bush administration will represent a unique opportunity for the United States to repair its relations with Latin American countries. A cooperative approach will resonate with Latin American societies and directly promote the aspirational view of the United States. This in turn will surely foster Latin American countries willingness to share responsibilities and efforts with the United States in providing solution to regional and world problems.