What Obama can do for Latin America (Dorfman)

[struggle4progress]

The US president could do much to earn his Nobel peace prize by undoing George Bush's policies south of the border
* Ariel Dorfman

... Building upon his creative engagement with the continent after the Bush years of blindness and neglect, there is much the president can accomplish immediately. Lifting the senseless blockade against Cuba, followed by full diplomatic relations, would be a good beginning. Another sore spot is Honduras, where the US has not done enough to isolate and punish the de facto government, which stubbornly clings to power after having ousted the legally elected Manuel Zelaya. And Obama should rethink his approach to continental security (cancelling, for instance, Plan Colombia), as a way of defusing tensions in a Latin America threatened by a new arms race.

The US, one of the largest Spanish-speaking countries in the world, could also send a signal of friendship to Latin America by legalising the situation of millions of undocumented Latino workers, tearing down walls instead of erecting them.

On another front, presidents Álvaro Uribe and Felipe Calderón, seconded by Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, have valiantly opened up a tentative conversation about the failed "war on drugs". If Obama were to encourage, and perhaps imitate, their efforts to decriminalise the use of marijuana, it would help alter an irrational policy that has generated a mafia of narcotraficantes across the Americas, filling jails and devastating the young.

And, of course, there are the real wars to win in Latin America. Against poverty and tyranny, against ecological depredation and the marginalisation of the indigenous peoples and their wisdom. The president, with his immense heart and his inspirational words, could be a fundamental partner in our quest for a better future ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/19/obama-nobel-prize-latin-america

[spanza]

1. good article, thanks

"The US, one of the largest Spanish-speaking countries in the world"

The 2nd after Mexico? More than Spain and Colombia? How many Spanish-speaking people are there in the US?

[Braulio]

2. Don't agree at all

The "undocumented aliens" are illegals. Legalizing their status would just bring more in, and this is one reason why the poor in America are hurting...too many people chasing low paying jobs. If you want to help poor people in Latin America help them find work at home, not invade the US and leave their homeland all screwed up.

As for Obama earning the peace prize, the priorities should be to pull US troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and to stop help to the criminal state of Israel.

[Bacchus39]

4. I agree with your disagreement

and other global issues are just as important if not more so with leaving Iraq being numero uno.

[struggle4progress]

5. The existing international financial system and trade agreements force borders to be

permeable to money and trade goods, which means that large corporations can force a race to the bottom when seeking venues with low wages and little or no protection for worker safety, public health, or the environment. The international finanacial system typically helps force this race to the bottom by demanding that poor countries eliminate social safety net programs and privatize necessary infrastructure, such as water supplies. The result is that corporations can move cheap products in or out of country easily, undercutting local producers. In Mexico, many farmers have been driven off their land in recent decades by such competition; their alternatives may then be limited. As high unemployment drives labor costs down, such displaced populations can be exploited to produce cheap products that can be exported to undermine workers elsewhere. Meanwhile, declining living standards create enormous pressures for people to seek better arrangements. Unless and until this changes, there will be considerable motive for people south of our border to attempt to relocate here. Once here, such people are exploitable in a new and different way: their employers can simply have them deported at Federal expense if they insist upon decent wages or a safe working environment. In a real sense, these people are victims of a system that will not treat them fairly.

[Peace Patriot]

7. Yup, until we remedy US-imposed "free trade for the rich," which has destroyed

third world economies and created vast poverty, we will choke on our hypocrisy, hating and expelling the third world's deliberately displaced workers.

[Braulio]

12. Sorry, but you got it wrong

There's no such thing as "the international financial system" insisting on little or no protection for workers, or privatize water supplies. That's sheer hogwash.

Third world countries are third world because they're ill-formed, poorly led, full of uneducated people, have destroyed their environment, or lack geographic advantages (see if you can sort out Niger or Haiti). Some of these disadvantages are the result of colonialism, but most of it is caused by their own sheer stupidity. The USA elected Bush TWICE, and they happen to have a fairly educated population, so why do you wonder when third world countries end up with the likes of Idi Amin and and Mugabe?

[Bacchus39]

3. for Colombia a much more substantial initiative would be facilitating a peace process

But then again, the FARC would never go along with anything proposed by the USA even under Obama. there is a plan already in place where guerrillas are granted amnesty in France or can be reintegrated into society if they lay down their arms. I suppose Obama could grant guerrillas a similar amnesty in the US although I am sure that would be hugely unpopular in the States.

I disagree that Plan Colombia is a key reason why other nations in SA are pursuing more arms. Military aid is for their internal conflict, not to threaten the region. Colombia isn't going to invade anyone considering all their problems at home. That said, a reduction of military aid would be welcome and the war on drugs is poor policy everywhere.

On Honduras, the US can push for a resolution of Honduran's making, but they should also recognize the upcoming elections. Send some monitors perhaps to observe the process. pushing to postpone a scheduled presidential election or not recognizing legitimate results would be about the worst thing the US could do.

On the marijuana front, I think I just heard that the Administration won't go after medical marijuana users. thats about the most sensible thing government has done in awhile.

[Peace Patriot]

6. "Send some monitors perhaps...". ?? So you agree with Mr. Election Rigger James Baker

that an 'election' after four months of martial law and suspension of civil rights is honky-dory. (WaPo op-ed, this week.) But maybe we can "send some monitors perhaps" to "observe the process." I'll bet there are some RW thugs in FLA who would just love the work.

[Bacchus39]

8. so what is your alternative, not having elections????

that is what you and other supporters of traitor Zelaya can't or won't answer.

Zelaya is the last person needed to legitimize an election since his ouster is the result of ignoring orders regarding holding an illegal election.


why don't you go as an election monitor???

[Peace Patriot]

10. Zelaya is a "traitor" for proposing an ADVISORY VOTE of the people?

An ADVISORY VOTE that would not even have had the force of law, that could have done nothing but refer the matter to Congress? And why didn't the Supreme Court and the rest of the coupsters want this matter--revising Honduras' Constitution, which Oscar Arias has called "the worst Constitution in the world"--to go to Congress? Because maybe it might have been a GOOD IDEA to curtail the power of the "ten families" and the military?!

You exhibit about as much concern as the Junta has for the rule of law, Constitutional order and respect for human and civil rights, by calling Zelaya a "traitor." He and the people of Honduras are the injured parties. And the Junta are the ones who ripped up the Constitution, suspended all civil rights and have brutalized--and are continuing to brutalize--peaceful citizens for their political views.

The two issues--Zelaya being restored to his rightful office, and the legitimacy of the election--are separate matters. It would HELP the legitimacy of the election to NOT have a bloody Junta in charge, and to have the LEGITIMATE president restored to office, but the other questions are these, given the Honduran Constitution's absurd limiting of the president to ONE term (4 years), so that Zelaya cannot run for office for a second term: 1) Who are these two 'main' candidates for president who have gone along with coup, and would they be legitimately nominated given a four month fascist coup that has exposed the disorder and brutality of the Honduran political system? 2) Has the Left had time to recover from the devastating impact of the Junta, with many Leftist activists beaten up or in prison, and some dead, the shutdown of opposition media, and suspension of rights of free speech, free assembly, security of house and home, and habeas corpus?

1) There should be a new nominating process, with full speech, assembly and press freedom for at least the same length of time as the Junta (about 4 months). 2) 4 weeks is insufficient time for the Left, and for those who opposed the coup (of whatever political beliefs), to regroup, and nominate and rally to anti-coup candidates.

The Junta must stand down immediately, Zelaya should be restored to office and the election should be postponed for 4 months and entirely conducted by the OAS election monitoring group, with no participation by members of the Junta, their appointees in government, the military OR President Zelaya. Zelaya's presidential powers should be fully restored for the length of time that he was deprived of them--4 months. Then the election can occur, starting from scratch with the nominating process, funded and conducted by objective outside parties--of which the OAS is probably the best choice, but it could be a consortium (the OAS, the Carter Center, the EU elections groups and others).

It is notable that no legitimate elections group will simply drop into a country and "monitor" an election. That is not how they do it, and it would be a farce if they did. They require that their election workers be in the country months, sometimes years, in advance of an election, and provide assistance in setting up the election rules and systems, so that they know what they are monitoring, and so that the election is conducted according to internationally developed "best practices" standards. They need to be invited by the government and they work with all parties to insure that everyone agrees to the rules and procedures. This CANNOT be done properly with only 4 weeks notice, especially in a situation of 4 months of a brutal Junta and raging controversy about the legitimacy of the government. 4 months, maybe. That's still a stretch, but 4 weeks is impossible.

You wanted to know my plan? That is my plan. Zelaya gets his full term restored--he gets the four months they deprived him of. The election starts over, beginning with the nominating process and with full civil rights restored, and is conducted by entirely objective parties.

And I would add a third plank to the plan: The OAS should form a commission to study the Honduran Constitution and make a recommendation for how it should be revised--preferably by formation of a Constituent Assembly, representing all segments of the Honduran population. The current Constitution has huge flaws--it is "the worst Constitution in the world," as Arias said--including no provision for impeachment, the absurd ONE-term limit on the president, and the utterly contradictory provision for free speech, on the one hand, and forbidding any Honduran citizen to even DISCUSS changing the ONE-term limit, on the other. Honduras is in critical need of fundamental reform. This Junta is an illustration of how bad and unbalanced and arbitrary their system is. And there will be no peace in Honduras if the grievances of the poor majority are not addressed!

A Constitution should always be subject to discussion and amendment. It is the fundamental law of the land that everybody agrees to operate under. It is not "the word of God." It is the main Agreement among the People. And a Constitution that forbids anything to be discussed by the citizenry is absurd on its face.

That absurd prohibition--against even DISCUSSING lifting the term limit on the president--is how they contrived to accuse Zelaya of "treason" after they had ousted him at gunpoint and forceably exiled him (--by which they violated an explicit provision of the current Constitution that forbids the exile of any Honduran citizen). (That's how much this Junta respects the Constitution!) They LIED that his proposal for an ADVISORY VOTE of the people on forming a Constituent Assembly would somehow have lifted his term limit and that that was his intention, even though he never said that, and the text of his proposal contains not one word about term limits. And even if he had intended that, eventually--years from now--that ridiculous limit would be lifted, do you deserve to get forceably exiled from your country for an unstated intention? Is martial law--and brutality, injuries and death--justified by an unstated intention to change a law by vote of the people?

These and similar matters desperately need to be discussed in Honduras, and a new consensus achieved on how the political/governmental system is to be organized. And it would greatly help the peace and progress of Honduran society if the OAS and the US would recommend just that.

The US clearly has the power to shut Honduras down. Honduras is a client state of the US. And this is what they US should do in order to force this Junta out, and start a process that will result in a better democracy for Honduras.

[Bacchus39]

11. that was the SC courts decision, Zelaya was ordered not to have the

vote. the institutions in Honduras interpret their laws as they determine them, not you or Chavez.

[Braulio]

13. Constitutional Amendment

Constitutions should be hard to change. Having a vote where presumably a majority of 50 % +1 can make the change, is contrary to common sense, because Constitutional law is written to protect the minority. I suppose this is a basic principle which has escaped you.

Imagine, if Israel had a Constitution, and the Jews were able to change it at will because they happen to be the majority, then what would be the use of having one? Israel DOESN'T have a Constitution (as demanded by the UN) precisely because the Jewish majority knows very well they can't abuse the non-Jewish minorities if they were to get one done right. A Constitution with a simple majority vote, my dear friends, is no Constitution at all.

[Bacchus39]

14. it seem pretty common in Latin America whether Colombia, Ven, Ecuador

Bolivia, tried in Honduras. new president, new Constitution.

[Evoman]

9. He could start by leaving it the fuck alone.

Seriously, North America.....buy what you need from SA, but leave it the fuck alone. No death squads, no funding right wing government. Thank you.