The Republic of Dissent

American and self-indulgent blindness

I love Sean Penn as an actor, but I believe that he knows nothing about the world, international politics, American politics, which would not be a shame if he could stop himself from saying things like this:

Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it. And this is mainstream media. There should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.(...) We are hypnotised by the media. Who do you know here who's gone through 14 of the most transparent elections on the globe, and has been elected democratically, as Hugo Chávez?

Penn needs to go to Niger, learn about Mamadou Tandja to find out that getting elected 'democratically' doesn't mean not been a narcissist autocrat. The reason why Sean Penn is the a symbol of American self-indulgent blindness is  too e is  blinded by his ambivalence about Americanness and his to prevalence to it to realize that its adversaries are not always what he would like his country to be. I'm willing to bet my big toe that Sean Penn has never wandered in the streets or outside of Caracas without a police escort to meet "real" Venezuelans and to ask them how they feel about their beloved leader. I'm not saying that Chavez is Hitler, but that he is not Che Guevara (not he was a hero, but at least he was somewhat of a rebel) or not even a decent head of state.

Writers and political ideologies

I just finished reading Enrique Krauze's piece in the New Republic on Gabriel García Márquez in which he discusses Marquez 's politics and its effects on his writing by focusing on Gerald Martin's biography. Unfortunately, I think that Krauze's piece suffers from its lack of conciseness and cohesiveness and its author's inability/unwillingness to just say or rather just write what he means rather than beating around the bush to cover his biases and partiality. This lack of conciseness explains why the sugary excerpt of the article is found in its conclusion, which has to merit to try to make a point:

Gabriel García Márquez is not a hothouse writer. He claims to be proud of his work as a reporter. He promotes journalism at an academy in Colombia. He has asserted that the news story is a literary genre with the potential to be "not just true to life but better than life. It’s as good as a story or a novel, but with one sacred and inviolable difference: novels and stories permit unlimited fabrication but news stories have to be true down to the last comma." How, then, to reconcile this declaration of journalistic ethics with his own concealment of the truth in Cuba, despite his possession of privileged inside information?
Eventually history makes both aesthetic and moral judgments. Aesthetically speaking, it is a little premature to say that García Márquez is the "new Cervantes." But in moral terms, certainly, there is no comparison. A hero in the war against the Turks, wounded and maimed in battle, castaway and prisoner in Algeria for five years, Cervantes lived his ideals, his tribulations, and his poverty with Quixote-like integrity, and enjoyed the supreme freedom of accepting his defeats with humor. There is not a trace of such greatness of spirit in García Márquez, who has avidly collaborated with oppression and dictatorship. Cervantes? Not by a long shot.
The beauties of the fiction of Gabriel García Márquez will survive the twisted loyalties of the man who created it, just as the work of Céline survives his passion for the Nazis and the work of Pound survives his admiration for Mussolini. But it would be an act of poetic justice if, in the autumn of his life and at the zenith of his glory, he disassociated himself from Fidel Castro and put his influence at the service of the Cuban boat people. There is no point in hoping for such a transformation, of course. It is the kind of thing that happens only in García Márquez novel.

Something bothers me about Krauze's argument and his indictment of  Gabriel García Márquez, it is the fact that the context is blurred or rather tainted by an unwillingness to consider the fact that politcs aren't science and that writers's ideologies cannot be examined without considered the totality of the circumstances of the times within which they live. It is misleadingly shameful to compare Márquez to Céline without explanations or even an argumentation and without at least trying to be logical to the end. What I mean to say is that if Márquez is Céline, and thus Castro is Mussolini or Hitler what does that make Nations and their leaders that have good relations with Cuba and with the Castro ? Is Sarkozy, Neville Chamberlain because he sends envoys to Cuba? What should we say of Lula ? The goal isn't here to clear Márquez of any responsibility for his political ideology, but to point out that a writer's political ideologies cannot be judged without a deep and complete analysis of the context within which he writes. Louis Ferdinand Céline was a vile anti-semite, but he was living in  time where being antisemitic was tolerated in French society to say the least; that doesn't excuse him  but it matters. Context here is key to have make an informed judgment, but I wonder if that what was Krauze wants more than to beat on Gabriel García Márquez like a drum for associating himself with Castro.

The Freedom to chew coca leaves

Evo Morales, Bolivia's president has an op-ed in the International Herald Tribune appealing to the international community to decriminalize the use/ the chewing of coca leaves.  Of course, there is no chance that what he asks will happen, but the fact that he is asking for it, shows that something is happening in South America, which the United States isn't going to like. I'm wondering what will Obama do about the "war on drugs" and whether he will be hopeful or normal. My little finger is telling me that he can't afford to be hopeful.

Latin America literature

Ummmmmmm:

It’s dangerous (and probably impossible) to reduce the connections between two literary cultures to a single cord, so I’ll wimp out on answering the large question about the relevance of Latin American fiction to U.S. readers and just say that what’s relevant is relative. Certainly, writers, scholars, and serious literature fans should read Latin American fiction because there probably is a lot of truth in Carlos Fuentes’ claim that the second half of the 20th century belonged to Latin American writers.

The sad thing about the Carlos Fuentes' assertion as a francophone and francophile is that it is impossible even to assert with a provocative confidence the same thing about French/Francophone literature. I mean what does it say that the most talked about French novel in decades, the Kindly Ones was written by an American who lives in Barcelona  (Jonathan Littell) ? It tells us that native French speakers may have too much respect, adoration for their own language to own it to write beautiful novels.

Ingrid Betancourt

I watched with emotion yesterday the liberation of Ingrid Betancourt and of the other hostages from the Farc by the Columbian army. I made me think about the fragile ambiguity of life, which can take an unexpected turn, which can be changed by something infinitely small, which ends up leading to a cosmical event. Anyway, to come back to Ingrid Betancourt, I may be be binded by my emotions but I believe from what she showed yesterday that she has enough personality not to be overtaken by what has happened to her and to continue to live freely by still choosing what risks to take and what mistakes to make.

Latin America and the West

Mario Vargas Llosa on Latin America and the West:

Is Latin America part of the West, culturally speaking, or is it something essentially different, like China, India or Japan? Latin America is an overseas projection of the West that, from colonial times, has acquired its own distinctive features. Those traits, without severing it from the tree from which it sprouts, give it a specific personality.

[...] Culturally speaking, Latin America is so many dissimilar things that only by fragmenting it and excluding a good number of those fragments that make up its reality could it be possible to determine a specific trait valid for the entire continent which, since the arrival at its shores of Columbus’ three ships, articulated its history with that of the rest of the world. Its diversity, compatible in its case with a subterranean unity that is its characteristic condition, is in good measure a consequence of the Western sources that nurture it.

It is for that reason Latin Americans express themselves in the main in Spanish, English, Portuguese and French. It is for that reason Latin Americans are Catholics, Protestants, atheists or agnostics. And those who are atheists or agnostics are the way they are based on what they learned from the West, as is the case for Latin America’s reactionaries and revolutionaries, its democrats and liberals, its traditionalist or avant-garde artists, its romantics, classicists or postmodernists.

[…] Those who have tried their utmost to distance Latin America from the West have been those Western writers, thinkers or artists who, disillusioned with their own culture, venture forth in search of others to satisfy their appetite for exoticism, primitivism, magic, irrationality and the innocence of Rousseau’s noble savage—and have made Latin America the goal of their utopias. This has produced excellent literary fruit, though, in general, catastrophic political confusion.

A loss for Chávez

Gene from Harry’s has an interesting post on Hugo Chávez’s defeat on a referendum, whose goal was to make it possible to run for president as many times as he wanted . Sugary excerpt:

I've never believed Chavez is uniquely evil among world leaders, or even among the very worst. I focus on him because of his inexplicably high standing among the "anti-imperialist" Left. They need to be reminded exactly whom they're supporting. I'll wait to see if the new kinder, gentler Chavez is for real. And if it is, I wonder how long some chavistas will continue to back him.

It is unfortunate, but true that too many people ant to believe that it is possible to achieve just means through unjust means. They use the fact that a country isn’t developed or Western as an excuse for the use “undemocratic” methods when their goal is either to achieve order (Musharraf is good example) or justice, which is supposedly Chávez’s objective.

The new and the bad aren't always old

Steve Chapman makes the mistake of equating Chávezism with Communism:

Communism is dead in Russia, a shell of itself in China and just hanging on in Cuba. But Lenin's corpse has a rare reason to smile. A new workers' paradise is sprouting in Venezuela, under the direction of the sometimes clownish but always cunning President Hugo Chavez.
Most of the rest of the world learned the folly of autocratic socialism back in the 20th century, but Chavez prefers to repeat mistakes rather than learn from them. He has nationalized oil holdings, created new state-run firms, confiscated privately owned land and politicized finance, while endeavoring to take over telecommunications and power companies.
All this is part of his grand plan for "Bolivarian socialism" and "the formation of the new man." President Chavez does not dream on a small scale. "The old values of individualism, capitalism and egoism must be demolished," he says, and he is eager to get on with it, in spite of—or, maybe, because of—what else will disintegrate in the process.
In case you have lingering doubts about what sort of country he has in mind, Chavez offers a color scheme for his educational program: "red, very red." It is no coincidence that he is a close ally of Fidel Castro's Cuba. But his anti-Americanism endears him to noncommunist tyrants as well. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made multiple trips to Venezuela to embrace Chavez as "the champion, the leader of the struggle against imperialism."
[…] A phony revolution may nonetheless be a durable one. If the Venezuelans who go to the polls next month give Chavez what he wants, they are likely to discover a paradox: They can bring about dictatorship through democracy, but not the reverse.

Hugo Chávez believes in Communism as much as Vladimir Putin believes in democracy, which means as far as it serves his personal interests. Chávez doesn’t know anything about communism. He only uses communist ideology and rhetoric to try to root Chávezism into something that has a history and some meaning to his people because it promises them something new that has never existed probably because it cannot exist, the dictatorship of the proletariat although in this case, he is the proletariat as Louis XVI was the State. Thus, the mistake is to think that Chávez believes his rhetoric and that he is Che Guevara for he isn’t, he just another dictator with too much money that is trying to last and to shape history. As Mario Vargas Llosa wrote in an op-ed in Le Monde last week to approve Juan Carlos’s put down Chávez, Chávezism is about demagoguery, being uncultivated, and barbarism. Chávez believes only in himself and the benevolence of his power.

Don Quixote and Latin America

The Los Angeles Times had an interesting article yesterday on the cultural significance of Cervantes’s Don Quixote in Latin America.What is fascinating about the article is that it showed how cultural differences are expressed in literature. Sugary excerpt:

In the Latin American imagination, Don Quixote has functioned both as a symbol of the former colonies' knotty old-world heritage and as a rebel figure whose absurd behavior pulls the rug out from under the Old World's affectations and delusions of superiority (and, by extension, those of any great power). Over the last four centuries of Latin American cultural history, Cervantes and his mad visionary have had many disciples and imitators. What's striking is how powerful their presence remains even today.

[…]"For us a realist is always a pessimist," the Nobel Prize winner Octavio Paz wrote in "The Labyrinth of Solitude," his biopsy of the Mexican soul. In Mexican and Latin American culture generally, Ochoa says, "There's almost this need for failure. There's almost a pride in it. It makes you a survivor. This appropriation of failure becomes a character-defining thing: Because of failure, we are what we are, and we're better for it."

The glorious debacle. The defiant last stand. The mythic sacrifice. The impossible dream. For many Latin Americans, these symbolic tropes reach back to historical traumas that are burned in memory: the destruction of the great preColumbian civilizations, the folly and ultimate collapse of Spain's global empire. They conjure up the repeated missteps of Latin American democracies, the ephemerality and abuse of laws, constitutions and ideals that have been trampled underfoot by countless dictators and despot revolutionaries.

Idiots, ideology, and responsibility

Alvaro Vargas Llosa writes about the return to power of “Latin American Idiots” who are “political leaders who clung to ill-conceived political myths despite evidence to the contrary.” Llosa argues that although young Latin American Idiots are in touch with their time, they are still political ideologues who have no interest in pragmatism or with reality. Latin American Idiots believe that the economic and political situation of their countries caused by the schemes of diabolical and blood thirsty imperialists and this worldview makes them heroes because they believe that they are fighting powerful forces. Sugary excerpt:

For these young Idiots, Latin America’s condition is the result of Spanish and Portuguese colonialism, followed by U.S. imperialism. These basic beliefs provide a safety valve for their grievances against a society that offers scant opportunity for social mobility. Freud might say they have deficient egos that are unable to mediate between their instincts and their idea of morality. Instead, they suppress the notion that predation and vindictiveness are wrong and rationalize their aggressiveness with elementary notions of Marxism.

Latin American Idiots have traditionally identified themselves with caudillos, those larger-than-life authoritarian figures who have dominated the region’s politics, ranting against foreign influence and republican institutions. Two leaders in particular inspire today’s Idiot: President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and President Evo Morales of Bolivia. Chávez is seen as the perfect successor to Cuba’s Fidel Castro (whom the Idiot also admires): He came to power through the ballot box, which exonerates him from the need to justify armed struggle, and he has abundant oil, which means he can put his money where his mouth is when it comes to championing social causes. The Idiot also credits Chávez with the most progressive policy of all—putting the military, that paradigm of oligarchic rule, to work on social programs. […] The current revival of the Latin American Idiot has precipitated the return of his counterparts: the patronizing American and European Idiots. Once again, important academics and writers are projecting their idealism, guilty consciences, or grievances against their own societies onto the Latin American scene, lending their names to nefarious populist causes.

Llosa’s article puzzles me because the phrase “Latin American Idiots” freezes the debate by debasing it to a third grade level. Calling Chávez and his compadres idiots does not just delegitimate them, but more importantly, it takes them off the hook because after an idiot doesn’t know any better because he follows simply his nature by acting idiotically. Is there injusticein the world? Yes. Are many countries given a raw deal because of the faults of the system? No question, but the real question is whether it means that politics should  become religions that should be contended in denouncing the faults of human beings and the sad state of the world, dividing the world between good and evil, without ever being trying to change the world. Marx called religion the opiate of the masses and the fact that Chávez and others are feeding their people  ideology instead of governing proves that they are very consicious of it.

Femicide and Guatemala

Billy Briggs writes in Guernica about the rise in the killing of women in Guatemala. There has been a 400 percent increase in the killing of women in Guatemala since 2002. At least 70 percent of those case have been investigated  and no arrest have been made in 97 %  of the cases because the “femicide” which is happening doesn’t seem to be a cause for concern to the local authorities:

It is rumored that killing a woman is also part of some gangs’ initiation processes. Juan Rivera, covered with 150 tattoos, was, until two weeks before, a member of the Mara Salvatrucha in zone six of Guatemala City. Now, the 21-year-old stays at a rehab center for young men who want to escape the violence of the streets. Rivera admits that one has to kill to get into a gang but says the victim doesn't have to be female. “As long as you kill on the other gang's territory... [and] the more people you kill the faster you get in the gang,” he says. He also insists that gangs do not carry out mutilations of female bodies and instead accuses the police of these types of murders. “The maras only ‘smoke’ [shoot] people,” he adds.

Men are all the same

Stuart Jeffries has a funny post about the literary feud between Mario Vargas Llosa and Gabriel García Márquez, which has lasted for more than 30 years. It involves of course women, ego, manhood, all of the things, which show that even when they have literary genius, men remain the same and can still fight like five year olds.

Peeping Tom, the Internet, and their victims

Spiegel has a troubling article on women who became cyber-porn stars in spite of themselves. The article is alarming because it shows that internet can destroy somebody's life and that it is a lot easier to violate a person's rights on the internet precisely because it is still the wild wild west.

Hitchens on 100 years of solitude

Only Christopher Hitchens could find a way to make, One Hundred Years of Solitude, the masterpiece of Gabriel García Márquez fresh. He has an article on slate on the fortieth anniversary of this book, which he celebrated by going to Columbia. His article shows why it is a timeless piece of literature. Sugary excerpt:

I gathered this information at a cocktail party in the beautiful Palace of the Inquisition, scene of many hideous dramas (including a personal appearance in the main square by the devil himself, before he was successfully exorcised) and now the home to the gentlest museum of torture in the hemisphere. It's pretty obvious that the replica of the guillotine in the courtyard does not date from the Inquisition, because the guillotine was invented by later French opponents of clerical absolutism, but underneath almost every other instrument of faith-based sadism appears the reassurance (written in Spanish only) that this particular item was never in fact put to use in Cartagena. An unsorted museum of virtual artifacts of fictional torture, or of might-have-been autos da fe, has something particularly Colombian about it.

Chávez and America

The Telegraph has an article on Chávez and his bellicose hatred of America, which makes the argument that on the contrary to what the Wall Street Journal asserted last week he isn't a big danger to America:

Mr Chávez is more a gadfly than a serious threat to continental stability. And his rhetoric – he now calls himself a communist – far outruns his actions, which so far have been cannily pragmatic.

The thing that scares me with Chávez is the fact that his anti-American rhetoric seems to have escalated and will more than likely continue to do so as long as it helps me survive politically at home and thrive in Latin America. I fear that at some point, the US will not have a Cuban missile like crisis with Venezuela and I wonder whether when it happens the situation won't lead to some kind of explosion. There are no worst attributes for a world leader than ego, money, and recklessness and Chávez possesses all three.

Food for thought: Cuba, Communism, threats, and the United States

“There the matter rests. It remains to be seen who the long-term successor to Fidel Castro will be, or what he or she will do, but the US can learn some things from its Cuban experience. Apart from the missile crisis (which was precipitated by the Soviet Union), Cuba has never been a threat to the United States. Rather, as Sen. J. William Fulbright (D) said in arguing with President Kennedy against the 1961 Bay of Pigsinvasion, Cuba has been "a thorn in the flesh, not a dagger in the heart." Why, then, have so many presidents, some of them otherwise sensible, been so upset about it? In part, Floridapolitics; in part, the possible spread of communism; in part the fear that Castro might seek to extend his revolutionelsewhere in the Western Hemisphere.

Yet Castro said many times that revolutions cannot be exported. He warned President Salvador Allende, who died trying to bring a similar revolution to Chile, not to pick a fight with the US. His assertions don't match with the US fear that Castro would try to spread his revolution.

A regime change is under way in Cuba. Maybe we would all be better off if there were a policy change in the US as well.” Pat M. Holt, “Was Cuba ever really a threat to the United States?”

Pinochet and the Chilean economy

Tyler Cowen has an interesting post on Pinochet's economic record and it is well reading for those are trying hard to argue that he was a good dictator. Money quote:

Pinochet the man behaved so badly, both during his term and after, as to be morally indefensible.  From second hand accounts I have heard, it is also not clear how much the man himself was personally responsible for the good economic policies.  Still many good policies happened.  We need a closer look at the Chilean economic legacy, which is a complicated story and by no means wholly negative.

Cloning Pinochet

Some people just have too much Chutzpah and Jonah Goldberg is one of them. In his column in the LA times, Goldberg is arguing that Iraq needs a Pinochet. What I find offensive about the argument is that it is not only bigoted, but also disrespectful of human life for it presumes that order and free markets are the greatest goods and that killing and torturing are acceptable means to achieve those great ends in some countries. I wonder if Goldberg would use the same argument if he weren’t talking about the fate of Iraqis, but about the fate of Americans. Is he saying that Iraqis need to beat into submission so that they stop using the freedom, which the Americans give them to defend brutally and with terrorism radical ideas? Does America need Pinochet or are Pinochet only for countries that are not civilized enough to make the right choices when they are free? What is the difference between Saddam Hussein and Augusto Pinochet? The only difference is that one was an anti-American bastard and that the other was a pro-American and pro-free market bastard. Is there such a thing a benign or rather a good dictator? Money quote:

I ask you: Which model do you think the average Iraqi would prefer? Which model, if implemented, would result in future generations calling Iraq a success? An Iraqi Pinochet would provide order and put the country on the path toward liberalism, democracy and the rule of law. (If only Ahmad Chalabi had been such a man.)
Now, you might say: "This is unfair. This is a choice between two bad options." OK, true enough. But that's all we face in Iraq: bad options. When presented with such a predicament, the wise man chooses the more moral, or less immoral, path. The conservative defense of Pinochet was that he was the least-bad option; better the path of Pinochet than the path toward Castroism, which is where Chile was heading before the general seized power. Better, that is, for the United States and for Chileans.

Isabel Allende on Pinochet

The Independent published yesterday an excerpt of Isabel Allende's memoir "My Invented Country" in which she talked about Pinochet. It puts into perspective what some are choosing to view as Pinochet's noble fight against communism and for free markets. Money quote:

I understand why the economic right, which, historically, has not been characterised as a defender of democracy, and which, during those years, made more money than ever before, backed the dictatorship, but what about the rest? I haven't found a satisfactory answer to that question, only conjectures.

Pinochet represented the intransigent father, capable of imposing strict discipline. The three years of the Unidad Popular were a time of experimentation, change, and disorder; the country was weary. Repression put an end to politicking, and neoliberalism forced Chileans to work, keep their mouths closed, and be productive, so that corporations could compete favourably in international markets. Nearly everything was privatised, including health, education, and social security. The need to survive drove private initiative.

Is anything justifiable to defeat communism?

After reading the Washington Post Editorial on Pinochet this morning, I wondered whether a dictatorship can be legitimated in the name of fighting Communism. The Post found a way to praise Pinochet and to argue that the fact he helped Chile become a free market country makes him worthy of praise despite of the horrors of his regime as to say that James Carville famous dictum applies in this case, "It's the economy, stupid." Money quote:

It's hard not to notice, however, that the evil dictator leaves behind the most successful country in Latin America. In the past 15 years, Chile's economy has grown at twice the regional average, and its poverty rate has been halved. It's leaving behind the developing world, where all of its neighbors remain mired. It also has a vibrant democracy. Earlier this year it elected another socialist president, Michelle Bachelet, who suffered persecution during the Pinochet years.

Like it or not, Mr. Pinochet had something to do with this success. To the dismay of every economic minister in Latin America, he introduced the free-market policies that produced the Chilean economic miracle -- and that not even Allende's socialist successors have dared reverse. He also accepted a transition to democracy, stepping down peacefully in 1990 after losing a referendum.

In other word, Pinochet is better than Fidel Castro because his brutalities weren't justified in the name of communism. I can agree with that argument because I think that a dictator is a dictator is a dictator. It is a disappointing that the Post even allows itself to down that slippery slope in order to justify the unjustifiable in the name of fighting Communism. Glenn Greenwald has a great post on this subject.

Food for thought: The unsatisfying end of Pinochet

“Today, near the end of my days, I want to say that I harbour no rancour against anybody; that I love my fatherland above all; and that I take political responsibility for everything that was done which had no other goal than making Chile greater and avoiding its disintegration.” Augusto Pinochet, former President of Chile who died yesterday.

Chávez and Joe Kennedy

The Wall Street Journal is accusing Joe Kennedy of being too close for comfort with Hugo Chávez and of there enabling a dangerous enemy of America by making a deal with to provide heating oil to low-income families. Money Quote:

But Mr. Kennedy keeps on trucking. Last week in a telephone interview with the Washington Post, he defended his Chávez subsidy deal as "morally righteous," arguing that the Citgo contribution to his nonprofit is only "one-half of one percent" of Citgo oil and product sales in the U.S.

We dialed Joe-4-Oil ourselves to ask directly whether it is also "righteous" to assist an anti-American tyrant at the expense of the Venezuelan people. In between berating our reporter for daring to ask such a thing, Mr. Kennedy said that Mr. Chávez has done "so much more" for the poor than any previous government. As for democracy, he said there was "ample room for improvement in the ways that people get elected in Venezuela as well as in Florida." Mr. Chávez chose his partner well.

I wonder if the Wall Street Journal would make the same case for every person or company, which deals with ‘enemies of the United Sates,” or if its outrage is reserved to Massachusetts Democrats who dares to deal with somebody who doesn’t believe in free markets. I think that it is easy when you are not in the position of not being able to afford heating oil to argue that you must reject help if it comes from Chávez. I would of course never accept charity from dictators, but I have the luxury of saying no without my refusal affecting my family. The Wall Street Journal avoids the ethical dilemma, which this problem poses by arguing that it doesn't exist and by implying that Joe Kennedy just doesn’t love his country enough to do the right thing. I would have made the deal with Chávez, but on the other hand, in spite of my reservations, I find it difficult to condemn those who argue that fighting poverty and helping the poor is more important than anything else. After all, if we would follow the Wall Street Journal's logic, the millions of people in the world who disagree with American policies or who have anti-American feelings shouldn't buy American products and should refuse any help from Americans.

The photo du jour

Who is the man standing next to Putin? It's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the president of Brazil, who will most likely be reelected by Brazilians today. Lula deserves a lot of credit because he is showing that it is possible to be on the left in Latin America without following the example of Hugo Chávez and of Fidel Castro and without falling into the trap of populism. During his first term, Lula showed that he was a pragmatist and that he was more interested in results than ideology and for all of his efforts, the people of Brazil are going to choose to reelect him, which is something that cannot be said of Chávez, who would have difficulties to win a free and fair election. For all of these reasons, I will repeat what a lot of Brazilians will be saying tonight, "Viva Lula!" He may be a tarnished hero, but he is a pragmatist and a democrat.

Hugo and the devil

I wasn't surprised by Hugo Chávez 's speech to the United Nations. In recent years, Chávez has grown increasingly confrontational as he has sensed that the US weaknesses. He realized that with the end of Castro near, to remain in power in Venezuela, he needed to enlarge his political message and to take on the US by defining his struggle as one between good and evil, between the weak and the powerful and between an hegemon and the people who are resisting its hegemony. As I have written before Chávez isn't an authentic character, he isn't a true believer; he doesn't drink his own Kool-Aid. Chávez has just decided to do the contrary on whatever the United States and Bush does. He has decided to go the left because Bush is on the right and because that is the only place left for him to go. He is a friend of Ahmadinejad and to all the enemies of the United States just because they are the enemies of the United States. Hugo Chávez survived a coup, which he believed Bush authorized; he has decided since then that to survive he needed to be something bigger than another dictator of an oil-rich country. Nevertheless, in spite of all this, I take Hugo Chávez seriously because I believe that if the US plays his game and legitimize him then he will become a bigger threat for he has something, which Castro never had and that is money, which comes of course from oil. The solution is not of course to ignore him, but to avoid the mistake that was made with Ahmadinejad and Iran, which was to use name-calling and threats of regime change to solve a lethal situation. Chávez is making a lot of noise because he feels threatened as all of those who are obsessed with the devil are because they believe that he might cause them harm. The goal for the United States should be to avoid a needless confrontation and to pacify with the situation with cooler rhetoric.

Thursday's video: Hugo Chavez at the UN

Hugo loves Fidel

Hugo Chavez visited his "friend" Fidel in the Hospital. When I saw the pictures of Chavez with Castro, I had to control myself not to say "ahhh, that's so cute!" I bet he stayed all night and that to help him fall asleep he sang "Yo Vivire" Celia Cruz's great rendition of Gloria Gaynor's hit I will survive. I have trouble believing that those two "love" each other. It is a partnership of convenience based on a hatred for a common enemy, the United States. I would dismiss it if I didn't think that Hugo Chavez could end up becoming more than a thorn to the side of the Americans by making trouble for them in Latin America and in the world (The reason for this Remember, he has something, which Castro never had, oil, and the money that comes with it). I am not one of those people who argue that confrontation is the way to go (or that we should kill him as Pat Robertson suggested). The US is going to have to find a way to control Chavez so that he will stop believing that the way for him to survive and to create a legacy for himself is to be anti-American.

Hugo Chavez isn’t Che Guevara

Hugo Chávez’s stature is growing in Latin America and in the world because he is seen as courageous leader who is daring to say No to the United States and to dream of Latin America that isn’t dominated by American power.

1. John Pilger sings the praises of Hugo Chávez in an article in the Guardian. He writes, “Chávez is, of course, a threat, especially to the United States. Like the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, who based their revolution on the English co-operative moment, and the moderate Allende in Chile, he offers the threat of an alternative way of developing a decent society: in other words, the threat of a good example in a continent where the majority of humanity has long suffered a Washington-designed peonage.”
2. I think he is wrong. It might true that Hugo Chávez is offering Venezuela and Latin America a choice, which it has never really had which is the choice to develop in another way, but that does not mean that the criticisms against Chávez are unwarranted and that he is a great man.
3. In a world where too often countries in Latin America and in Africa are forced to adopt harsh policies to receive foreign aids, it is important for them to have choices other than neo-liberalization especially when it is clear that civil society and governance are not strong in those countries.
4. However, I think that those who support Hugo Chávez believe that the end justifies the means and that as long as Chávez defies America and offers countries a way to develop other than by using the Washington consensus, he is great. Means are important and are everything for a leader such as Chávez who speaks so passionately about social justice and who denounces the United States for being unjust and duplicitous.
5. Hugo Chávez would be a notable and worthy adversary to the United States if in fact, he practiced what he preached and in fact, there wasn’t something heinous and reckless in his criticisms of America. It is one thing to criticize America, but it is another thing to demonize it and to blame it for all the ills of the world.
6. The problem with Chávez is not what he believes, but rather who he is, just another dictator who adopted social justice as a cause as a way to remain a power. Hugo Chávez isn’t Che Guevera. Che Guevera believed in his cause enough in his cause not only to leave everything behind including a life of relative wealth to fight for it and to die for it. Even if I do not agree with Che Guevara’s ideology (Marxism), I understand those who admire his idealism and his courage. Hugo Chávez has none of those qualities. His sole goal is power.
7. We had have seen this movie too many times to buy the Chavez’s act and to believe that there can be such a thing as benevolent dictatorship.

Puzzling questions on Cinco de Mayo

It is Cinco de Mayo and I am asking myself a few questions about America, about assimilitation, which is a work I don't like (I prefer  the word integration) , and identity.

1. I wonder what it means to be an American and if it is possible to become an American without giving your past identity and without renouncing your roots. I think that it is, but more people seem not to think so.
2. I also wonder the American identity has the right to change and to evolve. I believe that a lot of the immigration debate is in fact about that question that is about whether people who were not born American have the right to change this country.
3. I may be wrong, but I strongly suspect that there is somewhat a racial element to this debate in the sense that most of the new immigrants are non white, speak spanish and are becoming a powerful force in America. The question is is their power legitimate and do they have the right to make their mark on America?

Taxes and Immigration

It is amazing to me to realize how many people justify their anti-immigration stands based on Taxes. Many argued that the simple fact that they pay taxes and that immigrants do not takes away from immigrants the right to do certain things in this country or rather to be in this country.

1. It is important to realize that most immigrants pay taxes and the illegal immigrants who do not pay taxes who like nothing better than to pay taxes and to make more visible contributions to the American society.
2. Even though illegal immigrants do not pay taxes, they do work and play an important role in the American economy not only with their work, but also with their spending. There is a growing illicit side of the US economy, and illegal immigrants make positive contributions to it.
3. It is also important to recognize that poor people in general pay very little taxes. This means that even if illegal immigrants could pay taxes, they wouldn't pay most taxes at all for tmost of the jobs, which they are doing barely pays them enough to eat and to feed their family.

So what was accomplished by the Great American Boycott?

More than one million immigrants marched in the streets today and I wonder if they accomplished their aim.

1. The Great American Boycott was a success in terms of numbers, I wonder if it changed the minds of lawmakers by convincing that American needs immigrants. I don't think that it did. Lamar Alexander and the Senate Majority leader  introduced a nonbinding resolution to affirm the fact that the national anthem should be sung in English.
2. I fear that it is going to be more and not less difficult for congress to reach a compromise on immigration because the debate has shifted from finding a reasonable and fair balance between secured borders and hospitality to one about patriotism and national identity.
3. The Great American Boycott accomplished one thing in my opinion. It showed that Hispanics and Latinos are an emerging force in America and that scared, to say things crudely, the hell out of some people who fear that they will change America.
4. A couple of year ago, Pat Buchanan wrote a book called the Death of the West, which argued that immigration is changing the United States from the White and western nation with Christian Values that he argued he is to one where which is more colored and less Christian. Unfortunately, more people have started to share his beliefs and this is why the immigration is becoming about assimilation, integration, and identity.
5. The Great American Boycott was impressive, but I feat that it scared all those people who feel that immigrants are taking what is theirs or should be theirs. Because of the inequities of globalization, people no longer believe that the pie is big enough for everybody, but instead believe that there has to be winners and losers and that by coming to this country, immigrants are further reducing the size of the pie.

D-day: the day of the great American boycott is here

We are May 1 and I wonder if the great American boycott will work. I don't think it will even it succeed for I think that it will backfire by angering the people who will go to work today. However, I could be wrong. I will be watching for a couple things today:

1. How the press will cover the event? Will place the emphasis on the immigrants or on their methods?
2. What will be the reaction of the politicians?
3. What will be the reaction of other Americans? Will it be hostile or sympathetic?
4. And finally how effective will the mobilization be?

Awaiting a catastrophe

I am extremely anxious about the boycott, which many groups and associations are proposing in support of immigration or rather of immigrants.

1. I don’t think that it will work and even if it does, I think that it will have a negative impact on the immigration debate. The way, I see it, it is a lose-lose proposition for those who want a fairer immigration policy for two reasons.
2. First, it is going to create resentment on the part of Americans who will be going to work tomorrow and who are going to wonder why others aren’t doing the same thing.
3. Second, even if it works, it isn’t going to affect the debate. It will simply polarize it and divide the American public.
4. The goal should be to unite Americans and to make them see that immigrants are people who are just like them not enemies and invaders.
5. The boycott is a show of force and I think that what we need at this moment are softer and gentler demonstration of humanity and the desire that most immigrants have to become a part of this beautiful country.

What’s in a song? : singing the 'Star-Spangled Banner' in Spanish

I just heard the Star-Spangled Banner in Spanish and I have to admit that I had mixed feelings about it.

1. I don’t believe that this idea was a great idea because it plays in the hands of those who believe that immigrants want to invade the US and to change its culture and symbols. I can already hear their responses, “The US is not Mexico,” “Learn English,”…etc.
2. This version of the Star-Spangled Banner polarized a debate that is already too intense when what is needed is a common sense and fair approach to the immigration debate.
3. While I believe that releasing a Spanish version of the US National Anthem will not help the debate, I am asking myself the question why shouldn’t there be a Spanish version of the Star-Spangled Banner and why it should not permissible for Americans of Hispanic and Latin America decent to sing their national anthem in the language of their ancestor.
4. If the question is one of legitimacy and of right, then it is hard for me to argue that there shouldn’t be a Star-Spangled Banner in Spanish. In the Washington Post article, someone asked how would the French feel if someone sung La Marseillaise in English and I think that is precisely the issue. France isn’t America. France is currently in what I would an anti-immigration period. The United States shouldn’t follow its example when it comes to immigration. America is a melting pot and a country who has been for the most part an exemplary nation when it comes to immigration.
5. I would love if someone sung La Marseillaise in English or in Hebrew or in Arab, but I know that the reaction in France would be negative, but my hope is that when it comes to immigration, France, one day, becomes more American.
6. The context is important and I regret that a Spanish version of the US National Anthem was done in a period when it is necessary for Americans to come together on this issue and to give an opportunity to radicals to use fear and apprehension to win the debate.

The great American boycott

Many Mexicans are planning to boycott American products on May 1 (which is Labor day in the rest of the world) to show their support for immigrants and their disapproval of the bill voted by the House of congress, which takes a tough stand on illegal immigration. I believe that such a boycott would be a mistake for numerous reasons.

1. It would give a chance to those who are against immigration to argue that immigrants are not really Americans for they are using citizens for other countries to shape American immigration policy.

2. It would polarize the debate and make it about Mexico and about whether a foreign country should have a say in the legislating agenda of the United States.

3. The immigration debate is one which although it interests many nations should remain here in the United States and should happen among Americans whether they were born here or whether they came here. Although it is understandable that Mexicans want to show their support for Latin immigrants, they should to use a crude expression, butt out and let Americans deal with their own issues.

4. The best way for Mexicans and other foreigners who want to express their views on American immigration policy is to do it by supporting organizations which help immigrants through donations and by volunteering their services.

French contagion ?

Apparently, the French demonstrations have inspired some people in the United States and have showed that people power can change things. People took to the streets again after the failure of the Senate to reach a compromise on immigration to protest against what is an inhumane immigration policy. The problem isn’t that government is failing, but rather that the gap between the political elites and the people is widening. Globalization isn’t the sole culprit for the fact that public policy do not always reflect the will of the people, poor leadership plays a part and so does the fact that those who governed are farther apart from those who they governed since they come from different social, gender,  and ethnic background. The thing I like the most about the manifestations for immigration is that it shows that people still care enough about something to walk in the streets even though it may not lead to immediate change.

The rise of antiamericanism in South America

It was startling to look at the images of the inauguration of Michelle Bachelet and to see images of Evo Morales and of the gift he offered Condi Rice (a guitar with leaves of coca). Latin America is changing and what is worrisome is the fact that to be popular in the region, it is helpful and even required to be anti-American as Hugo Chavez and Castro are. Chavez has made anti-Americanism the base of his power and knows that the more he positions himself as a fighter against American hegemony in Latin American the more popular he becomes. Castro too is making a comeback by using the inequities of globalization and the fact that America has never been as unpopular as it is now because its sole focus has been on trade and not much else. What is scary is that this rise of anti-Americanism that follows a backlash against international trade and globalization may lead to the rise of governments, which will use hatred and fear to close down and to use old Marxist and totalitarian methods. I don’t think that what is to fear is the rise of the left is Latin American, but rather the rise of a neo-nationalism mixed with totalitarianism that is going to hide under the shape of progressivism. Latin America needs more leaders like Michelle Bachelet because even though it is too soon to say how successful she will be, it is possible to say with almost certainty that she is a democrat and that she will not use the state to hold on to power.