Below is the translated version of an e-mail exchange between myself and Paola, the lady with whom I lived during my three months in Honduras. I think her words speak for themselves.
*Paola's e-mails are very informal and she doesn't use a lot of punctuation. I apologize for any difficulty my Spanish-speaking readers may have in trying to follow her words. My English-speaking readers may also find the English translation a bit rough as a result, but you will get the idea.
From me to Paola:
Spanish:
Yo he leido y mirado por la tele los eventos de este semana pasada en Tegucigalpa, y estoy preocupada sobre ustedes y su pais. Voy a tratar a mandar un e-mail mas frequente porque ahora intiendo como tan preciosos son mis amigos en Honduras y otros paises. Necessito ser mejor de hacer contactos con ustedes y otros personas. Bueno, gracias siempre por pensando de mi porque siempre ustedes estan en mis pensamientos.
English:
I've been reading and watching the events in Tegucigalpa during the past week, and I'm worried about you all and your country. I'm going to try to send e-mails more frequently because now I understand how precious my Honduran friends are. I need to keep better contact with you all. Thank you always for thinking of me because you all are always in my thoughts.
From Paola to me:
Spanish:
yo se yo tambien paso asi....... la verdad es muy lamentable lo q esta pasando aki, pero esperamos en Dios q todo se arregle por el bien de todos, pero es q el presidente se paso.......estaba detras de el Hugo Chavez hibamos a ser otra venezuela y no keremos esto para un pais tan lindo y libre como el de nosotros, desde hace tiempo se le dijo a mel q dejara sus relaciones con Chavez, pero el insistia e insistia hasta q se tuvo q sacar del pais...si has escuchado las noticias no creas todo lo q dicen ya veo q CNN es un completo amarillismo solo tratan de dar noticias q nada q ver claro ellos buscan donde esta el molote para q los miren pero solo estaban a favor de mel aaaa y creeme casi me da ganas de llorar cuando dio el discurso en la ONU se hizo una victima completa q colera si el sabia lo q iba a pasar porque no dijo lo q tenia planeado con el imbecil de chavezzz a ese ni lo ha mencionado anda calladito ahora..... pero bueno no te aburro mas con eso estamos bien gracias a dios, siempre seguimos trabajando ...
English:
I know also what's happening ... The truth is very sad that which is happening here, but we have faith in God that everything will be okay, but it's because of our president that all of this has happened. He was [connected with] Hugo Chavez and we would be another Venezuela but we don't want that for a country as pretty and free like ours. Ever since [Zelaya aligned himself with Chavez] the country told Mel (Zelaya) to end his relations with Chavez, but he insisted and insisted until [it was time for him to leave the country]. If you have heard the news, don't believe everything they say. CNN is completely sensationalist (unable to translate). [CNN] is only in favor of Mel. It makes me want to cry when the UN said Mel was a victim because he knew what would happen to him. [They] never said anything about his plans with that imbecil Chavez and they never mentioned him. But I don't want to bore you more with this. We are fine, thank God, always continuing to work...
From me to Paola:
Spanish:
Si, es una lastima que las noticieros y los gobernadores evidentemente no entienden los fundamentales basicas de democracia. Pero, creo que es con voz alto podriamos cambiar el mensaje. Hay escritores quien escribiendo en los periodicos contra las opiniones de Obama y el ONU. Son en ingles, pero si el otro lado si existe en la comunidad internacional. Pero, los gobiernos estan ignorando eses opiniones. Mi corazon esta con ustedes y Honduras. Ese verano se cambio mi vida y nunca olividare que ustedes me hicieron.
English:
Yes, it's a shame that the news and the governments evidently don't understand the fundamental basis of democracy. But, I believe that we can change the message if we speak up. There are writers who are writing in the news against the opinions of Obama and the UN. They write in English, but they are in fact writing about the other opinions that exist in the international community. But the governments are ignoring these opinions. My heart is with you and Honduras. That summer changed my life and I will never forget what you did for me.
Paola to me:
Spanish:
... no regrese al poder mel zelaya (hugo chavez) estaremos bien,,,,, sabes q ayer trato de venir a tegucigalpa y muchos presidentes le dijeron q no viniera..... el gobierno no le dio permiso a la avioneta de aterrizar por: 1) El plan de vuelo que presentaron en Washington era Washington-San Salvador....2) No pidieron permiso al aeropuerto para aterrizar...3) La avioneta en q venian es venezolana con tripulacion venezolana...... despues entrevitaron a chavez y dijo estar muy molesto por q no dejamos aterrizar a mel y dijo q su piloto era de su confianza y uno de los mejores q tenian en venezuela .... te imaginas si los dejan bajar es como decirle a chavez welcome.....seria terrible si ese hombre nos pusiera su comunismo aki...... hay muchas cosas q no dejan ver la verdad la corresponsal de Chavez News Network jja (CNN) esta casada con un sandinista nicaraguense (comunista de nicaragua) ella solo pasa los relajos de mel no dice lo q el hizo para sacarlo del pais la OEA esta con todos los comunistas hoy un señor hablo en CNN y dijo: la OEA esta totalmente parcializada con mel zelaya y los gobierno de izquierda y no ha hecho nada ante esto: 1) NO se han pronunciado sobre las elecciones de fraude en nicaragua en el gano el sandinista. 2) El Alcalde de Caracas esta en huelga de ambre frente a los portones de la oea poruqe ese pendejo de chavez le kito mucha autoridad...3) no han investigado los abusos de poder en Bolivia y Ecuador mas sin embargo andan atras de mel zelaya como si fuera el ultimo comunista del mundo..... tambien el canciller de canada dijo q no era suficiente q solo halla venido Insulza (OEA) a "investigar" este caso se necesitaba una comitiva mas objetiva de varios paises y q pudieran presentar un verdadero informe, cuando insulza vino solo dijo q venia dar el ultimatum de nuestro retiro de la OEA no investigo nada bueno claro deseguro ya t aburri pero es necesario q sepan lo q pasa para q honduras no lo atrape el chavismo cuidate mucho y a ver cuando venis por aki siempre y cuando seamos libres jajajajajajajja ok saludos a todos aaa podes entrar en esta pagina www.laverdadenhonduras.com
English:
They didn't restore Mel's (aka Hugo Chavez) power so we are okay. Did you know that yesterday he tried to land in Tegucigalpa with other presidents but the government didn't give him permission to land his plane. 1) he plans to fly to Washington from San Salvador...2) they didn't grant him permission to land...3) the plane was Venezuelan ... After the [incident] Chavez said he was bothered that we didn't let the plane land and that the pilot was one of the best in Venezuela. You could imagine that his plane had landed it would have been like saying "Welcome Chavez". It would be a terrible thing to have communism here. There are many things that don't reflect the truth. One of the correspondents of the Chavez News Network (CNN) is married to a Nicaraguan Sandinista (Nicaraguan communist) and she only gives the side of Mel and doesn't say what he did to get thrown out of the country. The Organization of American States is with all the communists and today a man said on CNN that: the OAS is totally partial with Mel Zelaya and the left government and he didn't say 1) that the elections in Nicaragua were fradulent and that's why the Sandinistas won. 2) the government of Caracas is on a strike because the "idiot" Chavez has taken too much authority...3) and they haven't investigated the abuses of power in Bolivia and Ecuador. They are behind Zelaya like he was the last communist on earth. Also, the chancellor of Canada said that there wasn't sufficient evidence to begin an investigation with Insulza (head of the OAS) because they need more countries to support it. ... It's important that you know that we don't want to be trapped in Chavismo. ... You can also read more at www.laverdadenhonduras.com (the truth in Honduras).
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Cat and Mouse
Events in Honduras have come down to a game of cat and mouse. After failed negotiations between Zelaya, the Honduran government, the President of Costa Rica, the Organization of American States, and the United States, Zelaya decided to camp out on the border between Nicaragua and Honduras in an effort to vie for citizen support and gain entry back into Honduras.
I don't recall any episode in the history of Latin America quite as ridiculous. There have certainly been deplorable human rights violations, military conflicts, political upheavals, and citizen revolts that destroyed local economic and political stability, but this takes the cake. The U.S. was sided with Zelaya until this past weekend when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released a statement claiming that Zelaya's actions were impeding the negotiation process.
The Wall Street Journal ran an article yesterday written by President Micheletti that highlighted the facts - again - for an international community that is gradually beginning to realize just how mistaken they were in condemming Zelaya's removal. Fortunately, the Honduran Congress determined that allowing Zelaya to return and serve as President until January 2010 is a decision for the nation's Supreme Court - proving that President Micheletti and the Honduran Congress have held fast to their efforts to operate within the democratic processes afforded them by the Honduran Constitution.
Nicaragua is now asking Zelaya to wrap up his antics because his position on the border has halted Nicaraguan exports into Honduras - cause for concern for a nation where 25% of the population lives on less than $1.00 a day.
The story of Honduras is a story of the triumph of the rule of law (in the words of President Micheletti), the spirit of democracy, and the dangers of arrogant pride. Government officials in the twenty-first century have somehow assumed an air of entitlement. Manuel Zelaya, Hugo Chavez, and even federal authorities in the United States, often act as though their position "entitles" them to certain privileges and authorities. News flash for them all: Constitutions exist to protect the citizenry from this sense of entitlement and the negative effects over-reaching politicians can have on domestic stability. While the threat of incarceration or fines deter criminal activity on the part of the citizens, so to should a Constitution offer a threat of removal from office for elected officials who violate the terms of their office. Perhaps citizens in the U.S. ought to take a few lessons from the Hondurans before we, too, end up in a game of cat and mouse with Washington, D.C. over health care reform, fuel emissions standards, and stimulus packages. The Hondurans have proven that they don't want to be the ones standing on the border between Big Brother and Freedom.
Let Zelaya and the international community that supports him play their games.
Mice have to run out of cheese sometime, and the Honduran cats will be waiting ...
I don't recall any episode in the history of Latin America quite as ridiculous. There have certainly been deplorable human rights violations, military conflicts, political upheavals, and citizen revolts that destroyed local economic and political stability, but this takes the cake. The U.S. was sided with Zelaya until this past weekend when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released a statement claiming that Zelaya's actions were impeding the negotiation process.
The Wall Street Journal ran an article yesterday written by President Micheletti that highlighted the facts - again - for an international community that is gradually beginning to realize just how mistaken they were in condemming Zelaya's removal. Fortunately, the Honduran Congress determined that allowing Zelaya to return and serve as President until January 2010 is a decision for the nation's Supreme Court - proving that President Micheletti and the Honduran Congress have held fast to their efforts to operate within the democratic processes afforded them by the Honduran Constitution.
Nicaragua is now asking Zelaya to wrap up his antics because his position on the border has halted Nicaraguan exports into Honduras - cause for concern for a nation where 25% of the population lives on less than $1.00 a day.
The story of Honduras is a story of the triumph of the rule of law (in the words of President Micheletti), the spirit of democracy, and the dangers of arrogant pride. Government officials in the twenty-first century have somehow assumed an air of entitlement. Manuel Zelaya, Hugo Chavez, and even federal authorities in the United States, often act as though their position "entitles" them to certain privileges and authorities. News flash for them all: Constitutions exist to protect the citizenry from this sense of entitlement and the negative effects over-reaching politicians can have on domestic stability. While the threat of incarceration or fines deter criminal activity on the part of the citizens, so to should a Constitution offer a threat of removal from office for elected officials who violate the terms of their office. Perhaps citizens in the U.S. ought to take a few lessons from the Hondurans before we, too, end up in a game of cat and mouse with Washington, D.C. over health care reform, fuel emissions standards, and stimulus packages. The Hondurans have proven that they don't want to be the ones standing on the border between Big Brother and Freedom.
Let Zelaya and the international community that supports him play their games.
Mice have to run out of cheese sometime, and the Honduran cats will be waiting ...
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Links
Chronology of Events at Honduras This Week
Op-Eds
June 30th
Honduras This Week
The Washington Post
New York Times - Vargas Llosa
July 1st
The Wall Street Journal
News Release
June 30th
U.S. refrains from calling events a "coup" - Washington Post
July 1st
New Honduran Government Seeks to Prove Legitimacy - Honduras This Week
Ousted Honduran Leader Unites World, Divides Country - Reuters
**Feel free to post your own comments and/or news links to this thread!
1982 Constitution of Honduras (in Spanish/en Espanol) - H.A.C.E.R.
Op-Eds
June 30th
Honduras This Week
The Washington Post
New York Times - Vargas Llosa
July 1st
The Wall Street Journal
July 6th
News Release
June 30th
U.S. refrains from calling events a "coup" - Washington Post
July 1st
New Honduran Government Seeks to Prove Legitimacy - Honduras This Week
Ousted Honduran Leader Unites World, Divides Country - Reuters
July 2nd
July 7th
July 13th
July 15th
**Feel free to post your own comments and/or news links to this thread!
Monday, June 29, 2009
Understanding Democracy - Update on Situation in Honduras
Sunday’s arrest of Honduran President, Manuel Zelaya, was not the result of a military coup d’etat. Unfortunately, the U.S. State Department and the United Nations fail to recognize this and are ignoring fundamental tenants of democracy.
The situation in Honduras represents the effective use of a system of checks-and-balances. Manuel Zelaya made an attempt to extend his term as President beyond the limits afforded him under the Honduran Constitution. He made this attempt by trying to orchestrate a referendum that would call for a new Constitution and allow him to serve a second term.
In an effort to protect his country, and by deciding not to violate the Constitution, military commander, General Romero Vasquez Velasquez, refused to distribute the referendum ballots. Zelaya fired Vasquez, but the Supreme Court reinstated Vasquez citing that Zelaya did not have just cause for the termination. The court then ordered the ballots destroyed after the National Congress decreed such a referendum illegal. Zelaya and his personal armed guards then stole the referendum ballots from a military storage facility, violating the court order to have the ballots destroyed. Being in contempt of court in the United States will get anybody jail time, and Zelaya’s actions are no different.
Zelaya’s arrest is not the mark of a military coup d’etat for several reasons. First, the military was never in power. Immediate following the arrest, the national Congress convened a special session to determine who would serve as interim president until a new President could be chosen during the upcoming elections already scheduled for November 2009. Per the succession process as outlined in the Honduran Constitution, the President of the Congress, Roberto Micheletti, was sworn in late on Sunday as President of Honduras. Second of all, a coup d’etat implies that the federal government was dissolved and unable to operate or prevented from doing so. At no time has this been the case. The Honduran Constitution remains in tact, the National Congress and the Supreme Court are still alive and well, and barely 12 hours passed by without a Head of State – time barely even noticed on a sleepy Sunday afternoon.
A full accounting of the chronology of events can be found/checked at the website for Honduras This Week, the nation's only English media source.
Alarmingly, the Obama Administration and the International Community are failing to recognize the obvious correlation between Zelaya’s grab for power and his recent ties with Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez. Zelaya began talks with Chavez over a year ago when the two began discussing trade issues with the United States. In October 2008, Zelaya joined Chavez’s authoritarian crusade by adding Honduras’ signature to an anti-American pact of sorts, disheartening many a Honduran citizen and even turning away much of his own party leaders. Zelaya’s actions were just as much an effort to extend his own power as it was for Chavez to claim victory for authoritarian state rule. Demanding that Zelaya be re-instated as President will only support Chavez’s efforts to promote oppressive socialist policies under the guise of democracy.
The Honduran National Congress and the Supreme Court ought to be applauded for their ability to accurately interpret their nation’s Constitution and block Zelaya’s outright violation of both their nation’s primary governing document and his disrespect for the democratic system of checks-and-balances. The Obama Administration and the U.N. Security Council should be offering their support. Instead, they are condemning the incident as a violation of democratic principles based solely on the notion that Zelaya was democratically elected. Checks and balances exist in a democratic society so that when power-hungry ignorant authoritarians like Zelaya, Chavez (Venezuela), Evo Morales (Bolivia), Fidel Castro (Cuba), Rafael Cabrerra (Ecuador), and Amadenijad (Iran) find it necessary to promote their political agendas instead of respecting Constitutional limits, innocent people are protected from these political monsters. Honduras should be afforded our admiration and respect for their clear understanding of democracy, not condemnation and isolation.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Liberty At Risk in Honduras
I've decided to take this blog in a slightly different direction. My original goal was to focus on U.S. political and economic policy in Latin America, but the events of the past few months have led me elsewhere. I'm still going to include these matters, but they are part of a much larger issue: the fight for liberty. Entries are going to take on a much different format than the last two in hopes that I can shed some light on the dangrous impact anti-neoliberal sentiments have on development in Central and South America.
Honduras has historically been a politically stable and peaceful nation - a startling rarity in dictator-ridden part of the globe often faced with paramilitary uprisings and peasant revolts. However, events of this week may change all that. (in Spanish)
Honduras is scheduled to have a presidential election in November to elect its 8th president since becoming a democratic nation in 1981 following 20 years of military dictatorships. Last week, current President Manuel (Mel) Zelaya ordered a referendum be conducted on Sunday to allow voters to decide whether or not to approve a ballot initaitive for the November election that would allow voters to call for a special assembly. This special assembly would have the power to eliminate presidential office term limits and allow Zelaya to run for re-election.
...Sound familiar? Chavez Wins Referendum to End Term Limits (February 2009)
This is a sad week for the history of Honduras, and an even more troubling event for the liberty movement and our fight for freedom.
Zelaya and Chavez have been playing BFF's (best-friends-forever) for a while, signing agreements that did nothing but prove their mutual debilitating thirst for power.
This all comes about a month after an earthquake caused serious infrastructure damage to a large portion of Honduras, collapsing a portion of a bridge along the main thoroughfare in Honduras' industrial central and second largest city. While many Honduran citizens struggle to recover, the president is more focused on his own power-groping than in guiding the recovery process.
I'll be keeping a close eye on this over the weekend and give an update on Monday once the proposed referendum period has passed.
The liberty movement continues...
Honduras has historically been a politically stable and peaceful nation - a startling rarity in dictator-ridden part of the globe often faced with paramilitary uprisings and peasant revolts. However, events of this week may change all that. (in Spanish)
Honduras is scheduled to have a presidential election in November to elect its 8th president since becoming a democratic nation in 1981 following 20 years of military dictatorships. Last week, current President Manuel (Mel) Zelaya ordered a referendum be conducted on Sunday to allow voters to decide whether or not to approve a ballot initaitive for the November election that would allow voters to call for a special assembly. This special assembly would have the power to eliminate presidential office term limits and allow Zelaya to run for re-election.
...Sound familiar? Chavez Wins Referendum to End Term Limits (February 2009)
This is a sad week for the history of Honduras, and an even more troubling event for the liberty movement and our fight for freedom.
Zelaya and Chavez have been playing BFF's (best-friends-forever) for a while, signing agreements that did nothing but prove their mutual debilitating thirst for power.
Luckily, the Legislative and Judicial branches of the Honduran government seem to be providing notable internal resistance Zelaya's moves - something from which the U.S. Congress and Supreme Courts could stand to take a few pointers. The Honduran Congress quickly passed a bill on Tuesday declaring the referendum illegal. However, in the meantime Zelaya fired the military’s top commander (no doubt in preparation to avoid a coup), which the Honduran Supreme Court has deemed illegal by claiming the commander was fired without "just cause". The Supreme Court also ordered that the referendum ballots be destroyed as a result of the Congressional statute passed on Tuesday, but Zelaya and his cronies have since stolen the referendum ballots from an airport storage facility before they could be disposed of per the court order.
This all comes about a month after an earthquake caused serious infrastructure damage to a large portion of Honduras, collapsing a portion of a bridge along the main thoroughfare in Honduras' industrial central and second largest city. While many Honduran citizens struggle to recover, the president is more focused on his own power-groping than in guiding the recovery process.
I'll be keeping a close eye on this over the weekend and give an update on Monday once the proposed referendum period has passed.
The liberty movement continues...
Monday, June 8, 2009
Internal Conflict Among Supporters of Freedom
While attending a conference about education in early April in the beautiful city of Dubai, I met a Venezuelan student studying in Italy. On the subject of Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, her comment was as follows: “I know what people say about him, but I support him. He was democratically elected seven times! He is doing great things for the poor people in our country.”
What was she thinking?
I quickly excused myself from the conversation before engaging in what could have very easily become the start of WW III…started in the Middle East not because of the “Clash of Civilizations” some would argue lies at the root of the student’s statement and my disagreement with it, but because of sheer short-sightedness and inadvertent ideological ignorance. You don’t have to be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or otherwise to understand the problems inherent with this student’s misguided logic.
The damage President Chavez has done to personal freedom and liberty in Venezuela puts him in the same league as the military devils of Cuba, Argentina, Chile, and Peru that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of their own citizens…except that Chavez is doing harm in the name of Socialism.
Those opposed to neoliberal (free market) ideology in Latin America forget that it was the military officials, Fidel Castro, Augusto Pinochet, and Alberto Fujimori that organized death squads and killing sprees, not free market institutions. It was GOVERNMENT and PEOPLE that authorized the mass slaughter of innocent civilians, not entrepreneurship and voluntary association. It’s simply an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances that three of the four claimed to be doing so in the name of free market reforms. But this is why it is so utterly important that we understand the role of government and can distinguish between political and economic institutions!
Enter Hugo Chavez: squashing personal freedom and liberty in the name of defeating neo-liberalism and defending his imagined utopian state of Bolivarian idealism.
The only common thread among the fight between the neoliberals and the socialists of Latin America: BAD GOVERNMENTS, BAD GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, AND BAD LEADERS. Both sides used and/or are using force to implement what they believe to be the solution to all of Latin America’s social, political, and economic institutional woes.
The Chavez regime is trying desperately to oust the only remaining private media firm (Globovision TV) in Venezuela. It will be a sad day in the battle against the Foes of Freedom if his efforts succeed.
Chavez supporters that cite alliance with indigenous rights and cultural viability in Latin America, be forewarned. It is you who will do nothing but propel one of the most culturally and ecologically diverse regions in the world, with arguably the most potential for economic growth, into a tailspin of unprecedented proportions. I don’t care if the man was democratically elected. All this justification does is further support arguments against representative democracy, but I'll leave that subject for a later discussion. Chavez has sent his country down a path that the U.S. is sure to follow if the Obama Administration starts supporting things like censorship of internet mapping devices. But the worst part about this has yet to be mentioned. If the last private media group in Venezuela goes under, Chavez is likely to be elected yet again, and again, and again…for there will be no public opposition to quash his egotistical power-groping. This is what happens in a world of state-run institutions - media, banks, car companies, take your pick. Stifling competition, whether it’s economic or political, does nothing but do HARM to the people of a country, poor or otherwise!
What were they thinking?
Unfortunately, Chavez isn’t the only Latin American government using irreprehensible force to deny its citizens of their freedom and liberties. Indigenous groups in Peru are fighting to prevent government control over their Amazonian lands. This is the kind of support indigenous freedom-fighters of the first world can, and should, get involved with – the defense of private property! Closely connected to this are the ridiculous agricultural export-taxes imposed by the Kirchner administration in Argentina.
What were they thinking?
Some people say there exists a fine line between political and economic control, but those people fail to understand that economic control doesn’t exist unless it’s supported by political institutions that deny individuals rights to private property, information, and economic activity. Government ownership of private property - whether it’s a media outlet, land, or a health care system - completely revokes individual rights of any kind. Individuals no longer have control of their own lives because they no longer have a choice – the institution is either government-controlled or it doesn’t exist. All those anti-neoliberal political activists that concern themselves with Latin America need to take a much harder look at what it means to be FREE before they decide whether or not someone like Chavez, or Evo Morales (Bolivia), or Rafael Correa (Ecuador) is the alternative they’re willing to succumb to under a fascist system of state-controlled bureaucracy.
What was she thinking?
I quickly excused myself from the conversation before engaging in what could have very easily become the start of WW III…started in the Middle East not because of the “Clash of Civilizations” some would argue lies at the root of the student’s statement and my disagreement with it, but because of sheer short-sightedness and inadvertent ideological ignorance. You don’t have to be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or otherwise to understand the problems inherent with this student’s misguided logic.
The damage President Chavez has done to personal freedom and liberty in Venezuela puts him in the same league as the military devils of Cuba, Argentina, Chile, and Peru that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of their own citizens…except that Chavez is doing harm in the name of Socialism.
Those opposed to neoliberal (free market) ideology in Latin America forget that it was the military officials, Fidel Castro, Augusto Pinochet, and Alberto Fujimori that organized death squads and killing sprees, not free market institutions. It was GOVERNMENT and PEOPLE that authorized the mass slaughter of innocent civilians, not entrepreneurship and voluntary association. It’s simply an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances that three of the four claimed to be doing so in the name of free market reforms. But this is why it is so utterly important that we understand the role of government and can distinguish between political and economic institutions!
Enter Hugo Chavez: squashing personal freedom and liberty in the name of defeating neo-liberalism and defending his imagined utopian state of Bolivarian idealism.
The only common thread among the fight between the neoliberals and the socialists of Latin America: BAD GOVERNMENTS, BAD GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, AND BAD LEADERS. Both sides used and/or are using force to implement what they believe to be the solution to all of Latin America’s social, political, and economic institutional woes.
The Chavez regime is trying desperately to oust the only remaining private media firm (Globovision TV) in Venezuela. It will be a sad day in the battle against the Foes of Freedom if his efforts succeed.
Chavez supporters that cite alliance with indigenous rights and cultural viability in Latin America, be forewarned. It is you who will do nothing but propel one of the most culturally and ecologically diverse regions in the world, with arguably the most potential for economic growth, into a tailspin of unprecedented proportions. I don’t care if the man was democratically elected. All this justification does is further support arguments against representative democracy, but I'll leave that subject for a later discussion. Chavez has sent his country down a path that the U.S. is sure to follow if the Obama Administration starts supporting things like censorship of internet mapping devices. But the worst part about this has yet to be mentioned. If the last private media group in Venezuela goes under, Chavez is likely to be elected yet again, and again, and again…for there will be no public opposition to quash his egotistical power-groping. This is what happens in a world of state-run institutions - media, banks, car companies, take your pick. Stifling competition, whether it’s economic or political, does nothing but do HARM to the people of a country, poor or otherwise!
What were they thinking?
Unfortunately, Chavez isn’t the only Latin American government using irreprehensible force to deny its citizens of their freedom and liberties. Indigenous groups in Peru are fighting to prevent government control over their Amazonian lands. This is the kind of support indigenous freedom-fighters of the first world can, and should, get involved with – the defense of private property! Closely connected to this are the ridiculous agricultural export-taxes imposed by the Kirchner administration in Argentina.
What were they thinking?
Some people say there exists a fine line between political and economic control, but those people fail to understand that economic control doesn’t exist unless it’s supported by political institutions that deny individuals rights to private property, information, and economic activity. Government ownership of private property - whether it’s a media outlet, land, or a health care system - completely revokes individual rights of any kind. Individuals no longer have control of their own lives because they no longer have a choice – the institution is either government-controlled or it doesn’t exist. All those anti-neoliberal political activists that concern themselves with Latin America need to take a much harder look at what it means to be FREE before they decide whether or not someone like Chavez, or Evo Morales (Bolivia), or Rafael Correa (Ecuador) is the alternative they’re willing to succumb to under a fascist system of state-controlled bureaucracy.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Mexican Truck Project Eliminated
Congress has approved a bill to stop funding a trade program implemented by the Bush Administration as part of NAFTA agreements. The bill brings an end to the cross-border trucking project while providing funding to over $410 billion of earmarked spending. The Mexican government has retaliated by instituting tariffs on U.S. products (everything from Christmas Trees to grapes) amounting to $2.4 billion - an increased tax rate from 10% to 45% (AP March 18).
What were they thinking?
NAFTA might as well have been written on toilet paper for as much good as the agreement has done thus far, and now Congress has finally wiped themselves with it and flushed it all down the toilet. Forget about the potential benefits the free trade agreement had for the U.S., Canada, and Mexico for the past 15 years. We cannot reasonably expect the NAFTA accords will ever generate the economic goals it established if Congress continues to contradict the measures.
Drugs
Critics of the cross-border trucking program have cited the war on drugs as reason for eliminating the project since its inception in 2007. Admittedly, the drug issue in Mexico is certainly cause for concern for most Americans given the violence associated with the crisis and its impending encroachment on U.S./Mexico border security. However, this argument is weak, at best. This new policy has only made it more lucrative for Latin American drug cartels to smuggle their narcotics into the U.S. and potentially made life for Americans near the border even more dangerous. By halting the trucking program, Congress has actually encouraged more drug trade. Limiting the supply, and raising risk, raises price. The artificial 'shortage' of narcotics in the U.S. and the increased difficulty of transporting drugs into the country raises the profit opportunity…and the “greedy American capitalists” will be looking for a profit opportunity when they lose their jobs as a result of the increased tariffs on American products entering Mexico.
Moral of this story: ending the trucking program won't do anything to deter Latin American drug activity. In fact, it may increase activity in Latin America and the United States.
Furthermore, it is rather well known that corruption is rampant in Mexico. The drug cartels have infiltrated the administrative components of the nation’s military and policing units for years. It’s a wonder Congress didn’t consider the influence the cartels could potentially have on federal policy given that the Mexican government is at the mercy of the drug lords.
What were they thinking?
The Mexican and U.S. Economy
Agricultural subsidies granted to U.S. farmers have lowered the price of American foodstuffs in Mexican markets for years, making it almost impossible for Mexican farmers to sell their crops locally. Towards the end of the Bush Administration, federal policies that encouraged the incredibly inefficient production of ethanol fuels caused corn prices to rise even further. Ending the trucking program was evidently the last straw (or should I say husk), and the Mexican government has finally decided to call in the debt.
When the U.S. is experiencing one of the most devastating levels of unemployment in the country's history, Congress adds to the country's income woes. Import tariffs on roughly 90 manufactured products will likely fuel the economic downturn in the U.S. economy by forcing employers to cut costs to account for lower product sales in the Latin American market. Much of the Latin American market is informal, where high resale values on everyday products like those subject to the new tariffs will ultimately prevent their initial sale in the Mexican market and force companies to lower their output and likely cut jobs in an effort to cut costs. Meanwhile, states are passing legislation to increase the minimum wage and make labor even more expensive for employers.
The Obama Administration cannot claim to be creating jobs with government spending if job losses occur in the industries that our neighbors use for retaliatory claims to bad policy. Ever heard of the Smoot-Hawley Act? The U.S. State Department even admits to the measure's failed protectionist policy! "Overall, world trade declined by some 66% between 1929 and 1934." Retaliatory measures are not something new to the U.S. - but that's only if you paid attention in your 8th grade U.S. history class.
What were they thinking?
Now things get really juicy. An LA Times article from March 11th breaks down some of the $410 billion of earmarked spending included in the bill that ended the cross-border trucking program. Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer of California sponsor 13 earmarks for their constituents that amount to $166.4 million, or about 4% of total earmarks. Most of the projects, however, fund public service initiatives like water recycling programs and bus-only traffic lanes in urban areas - nothing for the industries potentially affected by the Mexican import tariffs. Granted, there would have been no way to predict that the Mexican response would take the form of tariffs. The point here is that our nation's politicians ought to reconsider the parameters of their 'greater good' analysis if they're going to interfere with international trade.
What were they thinking? ... Or were they...
*Special thanks to Liya Palagashvili for her assistance with this post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
