Cotas Racias

Brazil’s Ministry of External Relations, also know as Itamaraty, has promulgated a very important and significant plan to recruit Afro-descendants as diplomatic personnel. Some Brazilians may, perhaps, find this policy a bit controversial, but the reality is that social division in Brazil is high. Social exclusion is a fact of life in Brazil that many have learned to live with. The prevailing cultural attitude is essentially, “There it is, what can we do about it?” Within this context, therefore, the Itamaraty plan is necessary and welcome––and it may well be a big step toward a more modern, just, and integrated Brazil.

If Itamaraty is seriously going to promote social inclusion, however, starting with Afro-descendants, then the selection process must be overseen by an independent panel. Also, it will in some cases be difficult to identify Afro-descendants. Because racial discrimination is based on appearances as well as social status, rather than on papers or claims for the sake of solidarity, the best way of proceeding might be simply to select those with natural African features.

In this article published by OGlobo, a leading anthropologist decries this policy as “é escandaloso.... We are all part of the human race with equal conditions.” Let me tell you that in Brazil this statement is a joke. In Brazil, discrimination and social exclusion are facts of life. Brazil is not a cohesive society; the conditions are not equal. I applaud the steps that Itamaraty is taking to close the gap between whites and blacks among the diplomatic corps. However, I hope the implementation of the new plan is well structured and based on sound policies. I hope the effort is serious, that it is not just a cynical way for Itamarary to create a more positive image for itself. If that is the case, then this plan would, in the end, amount to a serious set back for efforts to promote social inclusion in Brazil. So please Itamaraty, don’t screw it up!!

Banks: Who Needs Them? Or, Do We Really Need Banks?

This recent article published in the Guardian really got me thinking about my own experience using debit or credit cards and about how rotten the banking system has become. I realized that my life could probably go on indefinitely without a single dollar in my wallet. Nowadays, I pay all my expenses with that strangely tangible and yet intangible currency represented by plastic cards. Bills? I pay them online. Eating or drinking out? I pay with a card. Shopping? Card. I even use a card to pay the meter when parking my car. I simply don’t ever need to hold those smelly, germ-carrying bills anymore.

I am certain that I am not the only one experiencing this total transition to plastic, which makes me wonder: Is the actual currency represented by all those electronic transactions even available? What if Eric Cantonas’s campaign were to succeed, what if the massive coordinated withdrawal of money from banks were to take place on December 7? I decided to explore this by making my own inquires. I called a few banks in Washington, DC. The (rudely communicated) response was that the withdrawal of a large amount takes more than a week to process. So let’s say you decide to withdraw $100K, if they approve it and allow you to walk away from their branch with all your money—a big if, given that the money is essentially a part of their capital. The “easy” option would be for you to accept a certified check, which returns us to my initial point about strangely tangible and yet intangible forms of currency. Now, let’s suppose that all US accountholders are able to withdraw their total savings—a grand total in the billions or trillions. Would that amount really exist in cash? Is it really readily available? The obvious answer is, no. So how dependable and indispensable are banks these days?

Consider the case of CreditAnstalt, an Austrian bank backed by the Austrian government that collapsed nonetheless when depositors withdrew all their money. It turned out that neither the bank nor the government actually had the resources to protect those savings. Banks in general are asked to comply with only two things: “Allocate savings and manage credit risk.” Full stop. Now consider what happened in the United States and Greece, what is now happening in Ireland and Spain, and what will soon happen in Portugal. In these countries, the banks did not do either of those two things. The lesson here is that weak and irresponsible banks deserve to be abandoned to their own risk. They deserve to collapse, and not a single dime of taxpayer money should be spent to bail them out. This is globalization in all its glory: the strong, the capable, the innovative deserve to survive, to compete in global markets, and to earn some back-up from governments. Globalization and protectionism try sometimes to hold hands, but they always make an odd couple. It is like going to a wedding reception, where the gossip centers on how long the marriage will last.

What we are seeing or experiencing right now is merely a shifting of global powers. The West is fighting tooth and nail to keep its global dominance against emerging global power centers in places like China and Brazil. Global economic decisions are no longer made solely by Germany, France, Unites States, or Great Britain. Remember, money makes the world go around—seriously around, not around the few. Don’t forget to keep an eye on yours on December 7, whether you look at it on a computer screen or join the Cantonas campaign and (try to) hold it in your hand.

Mario Vargas Llosa y Yo

[ENGLISH VERSION BELOW]

Espero que después de leer este articulo, usted no piense que yo estoy haciendo alarde de haber conocido a Mario Vargas Llosa. Pero el haberlo conocido me hace sentir una sensación de honor y orgullo por un escritor ilustre, por un ensayista y, por un político (aún más raro) honesto quien inspiró mi interés en política.

Caí bajo el encanto de Vargas Llosa en 1990, cuando él era líder del Movimiento Libertad. En ese entonces, yo vivía en Perú, y yo fui voluntario para trabajar como organizador de grupos estudiantiles en la región de Ucayali. Poco después de haber empezado la campaña política, fui a una conferencia dirigida por el mismísimo Mario Vargas Llosa, en la capital, Lima. Así fue como lo conocí a él por primera vez, e inmediatamente quede impresionado por su comportamiento, su tono relajado, y su pasión por querer ayudar al Perú a salir de una crisis severa—una inflación de más de 6.000 por ciento, altísimo desempleo, y el terrorismo que amenazaba seriamente. Su discurso político hacia parecer que todo era posible. Yo, simplemente estaba anonadado. Mario Vargas Llosa tenía un plan de gobierno bien estructurado y documentado cuidadosamente, de manera que se pueda deshacer se de los males que destruían Perú. Esencialmente era una guía paso a paso de cómo curar “al hombre enfermo”.

Como político primerizo, Vargas Llosa fue muy honesto como para tener éxito en un país donde los políticos más experimentados y de trayectoria antigua, ya estaban destinados al infierno, sin posibilidad de redención. Sus más cercanos aliados fueron políticos incompetentes que los peruanos no querían ver de vuelta al poder. Y en un país tan católico y mojigato como lo fue/es Perú, decir en pleno debate televisivo, que cuando era joven él hizo cosas por diversión, puso a mucha gente sonrojar o gritar en horror. Era como contarle un chiste rojo a una pobre viejecita que rezaba ante la imagen de la Virgen María.

Lo curioso fue que aún que Vargas Llosa perdió la elección presidencial ante Alberto Fujimori, últimamente su plan de gobierno todavía pudo beneficiar al Perú. Fujimori implementó mucho de los planes económicos de Vargas Llosa—Aunque, lamentablemente, Fujimori lo hizo sin considerar el respeto de Vargas Llosa por los derechos humanos.

Después de los resultados a las elecciones de 1990, los peruanos expresaron sentimientos encontrados por Vargas Llosa. Para algunas personas, él es un hombre muy bien considerado y querido, para otros… sólo dimagos que ellos no piensan de él con admiración y cariño. Muchas veces él fue tratado como un extranjero en su propio país; incomprendido por la gente que se dejo cegar por extremado nacionalismo. Pero estos días, yo asumo que Vargas Llosa debe sentirse inmensamente complacido, haber sido galardonado con el Premio Nóbel de Literatura, y sentirse finalmente muy querido por el país que una ves sintió disgusto por él—aquel país que nunca dejo de ser mencionado en casi todos sus libros. Vargas Llosa nunca dejo de amar el Perú.

No sólo el Perú se siente con mucho orgullo y felicidad por tener un laureado del premio Nóbel, único en su clase; también América Latina puede sentirse orgulloso y feliz. Y realmente, Vargas Llosa representa América, desde los árticos del Canadá hasta la Tierra de Fuego en Chile—no simplemente por esa pequeña división nombrada por astutos padres fundadores, aquella patria que se hace llamar “América”, tampoco por divisiones particulares definidas por tendencias raciales o económicas. América es como dos niños que fueron criados por dos distintos padres.

Muchos años después de la campaña política de 1990, yo me encontré otra ves con Vargas Llosa en la universidad de Georgetown. Había tantos cosas que yo le quería decir, quería conversar con él como compatriotas que somos fuera de nuestro país, y talvez compartir recuerdos en común; pero al final, me quede corto de palabras, y simplemente le dije cuánto lo admiraba a él y cuánto gusto de sus libros. Que yo pienso que él es realmente un gran escritor. Pero entonces, él ya lo sabia. Inclusive, ahora el comité de los premios Nóbel lo ha reconocido así.

Espero tener el privilegio de encontrar lo algún día, otra vez.

[ENGLISH VERSION]

"MARIO VARGAS LLOSA and Me"

After you finish reading this, I hope you will not think that I was bragging about knowing Mario Vargas Llosa. But I feel a strong sense of pride and honor in having met this illustrious writer, essayist, and (even rarer) honest politician who inspired my interest in politics.

I first fell under the spell of Vargas Llosa in 1990, when he was the leader of Movimiento Libertad. I was living in Peru at the time, and had volunteered to work as the student group organizer in the region of Ucayali. Soon after the campaign began, I went to a conference in the capital, Lima, with Mario Vargas Llosa himself. That was the first time I met him, and I was immediately impressed by his demeanor, his relaxed tone, and his passion for helping Peru get out of a severe economic crisis—inflation was over 6,000 percent, unemployment was very high, and terrorism was a serious threat. I was, quite simply, in awe of him. His political speeches made everything seem possible. Mario Vargas Llosa had a carefully structured and well-documented plan for ridding Peru of all its maladies. It was essentially a step-by-step guide for how to cure “the sick man.”

As a fresh politician, Vargas Llosa was too honest to succeed in a country where the more seasoned, old-school politicians were already destined for hell without redemption. His closest political allies were incompetent politicians whom Peruvians didn’t want back in power. And in a country as Catholic and as prudish as Peru was/is, for a politician to confess during a televised debate to things that he had done for fun when he was young makes many people blush or almost cry out in horror. It’s a little like telling a dirty joke to an old lady while she’s praying before the Virgin Mary.

The funny thing is that although Vargas Llosa ultimately lost the presidential election to Alberto Fujimori, his plan still benefitted Peru. Fujimori went on to implement most of Vargas Llosa’s economic plans—though, sadly, he did so without Vargas Llosa’s respect for human rights.

In the aftermath of the 1990 election, and even today, Peruvians have mixed feelings about Vargas Llosa. For some people, he is a beloved and well-regarded man; for others . . . well, let’s just say that they don’t think of him with fondness or admiration. He was treated like a foreigner in his own country. He was misunderstood by people who were blinded by extreme nationalism. But these days, I assume that it must be immensely gratifying for Vargas Llosa, having been awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature, to feel loved at last by the country that had once so disliked him—the country that never stopped appearing in almost all his books. Vargas Llosa never stopped loving Peru.

Not only can Peru feel pride and happiness at having the Nobel Laureate as one of its own, but all Latin America can also feel proud and happy. And in truth, Vargas Llosa represents America, from the Arctic in Canada to the Tierra de Fuego in Chile—not merely one small division outside the portion named “America” by clever founding fathers, and not a particular division defined by economic or racial trends. America is like two kids raised by two different fathers.

Many years after the 1990 campaign, I met Vargas Llosa again at Georgetown University. There was so much I wanted to say to him. I wanted to address him as a fellow Peruvian abroad, to share common memories. But in the end, I fell short of words. I simply shook his hand and told him how much I admire him and his writing. I told him that I think he is truly a great writer. But then, he already knew that. Now, even the Nobel Committee has recognized it.

I hope I will have the privilege of meeting him again someday.

Elections in Brazil, a Mess in Ecuador

As BBC Brasil observed today, the presidential election has divided the country. Roughly half of all Brazilians endorse Dilma Rousseff’s plans to continue Lula’s policies, while the other half endorse Jose Serra’s proposal to introduce strong market regulations. The skepticism about Rousseff’s candidacy--in Brazil and abroad--centers on the prospect of maintaining continuity with a different face. In less than a month, the results of a run-off ballot will determine the winner. And so both candidates are currently wooing Marina Silva’s voters, 19 percent of the Brazilian electorate.

If I were Brazilian, my vote would go to Serra because electing Rousseff would be tantamount to reelecting Lula Da Silva. A Rousseff government could even resemble the current situation in Russia, where Putin seems to be pulling the strings of a puppet president. Can Brazilians really know for sure whether Rousseff would be the puppet or the puppeteer? With Serra, by contrast, the answer is clear.

The outcome of the presidential election is important because Brazil still needs to solidify its market economy. The implementation of sound economic policies, which would help ensure a well-regulated market, are needed in order for Brazil to show it’s serious about becoming a hegemon in the region and increasing its influence in the international arena. The economic policies pursued by Lula were, more or less, an extension of the policies of his predecessor, Henrique Cardoso. And those policies were optimal for the times, giving good results--reducing poverty, for example, and improving education and literacy rates. However, I believe Serra has made a compelling case for following the same economic recipes but with some important new ingredients, including an improved financial regulatory scheme.

Yet most Brazilians are not primarily focused on economic issues in this election. Instead, the voters are divided based largely on questions of political style and the personalities of the candidates. In the end, Marina Silva’s voters will make the difference on October 31st.

Meanwhile in Ecuador . . . what a mess!! Or should I say, the mess continues. I wonder whether Ecuadorians have really grasped the concept of democracy or the consequences of military action taken against their own democratically elected government. Ousting Rafael Correa would not have solved Ecuador’s internal problems. What’s so sad is that it’s the indigenous population that suffers most due to the ineptitude of both the left and the right. Don’t be surprised if a candidate with an indigenous background emerges as a viable candidate in the next presidential campaign. Such a candidate could make a huge difference, simply by appealing to the solidarity of his or her fellow indigenous people.

Sustainable Tourism

I recently visited Costa Rica and Panama, which are in Central America—all right, correction, Panamanians feel more a part of the Caribbean region. I know that. In any case, both countries enjoy innumerable resources for attracting tourists and keeping them happy. However, Costa Rica is on the road to losing its national identity. Its economy can no longer sustain the cheap prices that once made the country a paradise, and it is alienating its citizens by pushing them into ghettoized areas where tourism is not rampant. Now, Costa Rica is not cheap for either the locals or the tourists. Its precious ecological resources are being exploited with few restrictions and without sensible policies to ensure the balance between economic development and environmental sustainability that had earned pacific Costa Rica its reputation as the Switzerland of Central America.

If you visited Costa Rica more than five years ago, you would be shocked by the current decline of a nation that was almost as exotic and virginal as the Amazon could be. Today, the country is almost another American state. The day tourists stop thinking of CR as cool and fun—as they have stopped thinking of Cancun as fun—it could become like Detroit has become since the car industry evaporated. Devastating! The Costa Rican economy would be in tatters, unemployment and social insecurity would destroy the nation, and major economic adjustments would be needed. Devaluation would be necessary, and its external debt would increase at least ten fold. This is an exaggeration, you might say, but keep one thing in mind: tourists are always looking for a place where they can avoid other tourists. This is ironic, but true. Currently, many Ticos complain that they cannot afford the market prices that have resulted from the massive influx of tourists. Crime is on the rise in Costa Rica, and the infrastructure is in decay—especially the transportation system. Ticos generally blame tourists for the rise in their cost of living.

On my way to Panama I couldn’t help noticing how polluted Puerto Viejo was. This Caribbean beach town on the Costa Rican side of the border has been “invaded” by U.S. Marines, prostitution and drugs are everywhere, and one gets a generally unsavory and unpleasant feeling while strolling through the town. Some people might differ with this assessment, but that would probably be because those people were either wasted to the point of not remembering anything or because they got laid as a token of Tico hospitality and are now biased.

Costa Rica must begin immediately to address the issues that are damaging its precious environment and threatening its economy. And please do not confuse sustainable tourism with ecotourism, which Costa Rica promotes assiduously—and rightly so. These are two entirely different things.

By contrast, I found Panama invigorating, charming, and very pleasant overall. Plus, Panamanians are much friendlier and eager to be hospitable. Panama has adopted the U.S. dollar as its currency, but the cost of living is relatively cheap. Some things are expensive in Panama, like anywhere else, yet you can buy a beer for 50 cents and dine very well for $2.50. The Panamanian economy is relatively well insulated against currency fluctuations—or at least so one hopes! Switching from the dollar to the balboa would not cause massive chaos. Further, through a UNESCO program, Casco Viejo (old town) is being restored to its original splendor. In addition to promoting private enterprise, this project enables virtually anyone to buy property in the old city and provides free advice on how to build or maintain the French and Spanish colonial architecture. The beautification and restoration of Casco Viejo goes on in parallel with high-rise construction in the financial district à la Miami.

While in Panama, I had the great pleasure of meeting fantastic and brilliant people—one Australian, a lovely Seattleite, and a Californian—all of whom were, like me, backpacking in the region. Although we might have had different social, economic, and political perspectives, the most important thing was what we had in common: concern for people, the environment, our futures. And we all disapproved of the malaise that affects us all thanks to bad public policies and the consequences of capitalism in its most hardcore form. You might say, “Hello? Did you need to travel miles away to find that out?” But this is the funny thing: when you live, eat, and pretty much breathe politics in Washington, DC, that innocence, idealism, or even naiveté that once was within you can be transformed by obsession, ambition, and cynicism. And so, I dedicate this post to Chrissy Shimizu, Collin Smith, and Daniel Lonard. Thanks for the good times, guys!

LATAM

In an article published in O Globo of Brazil, TAM Airlines (Brazil) and Lan (Chile) have announced their intention to merge and, thereby, to create the largest airline business alliance in the South American region, if not the entire Western Hemisphere. If everything goes as planned both airlines will be fused into LATAM, though they will keep their individual names and separate headquarters.

I have seen many articles on the Web speculating about which global alliance LATAM might choose to join—Star Alliance, of which TAM is already a member, or One World, of which Lan is a member. I tend to think that LATAM would gain greater competitive advantage by choosing to be part of Star Alliance because its U.S. member carriers (Continental, United, and U.S. Airways) currently have little presence in South America. Star Alliance could give LATAM a strong marketing image and, in turn, LATAM could give Star Alliance access to a virgin market. By contrast, the only U.S. carrier affiliated with One World is American Airlines, which already has a huge presence in Latin America but also has an increasingly bad image there—due not only to its low levels of customer service, but also to its complacency in a market that it takes for granted. Moreover, American is always looking for new ways to charge its customers more, the latest being an extra fee for “front row seats.” No wonder no other U.S. carrier wants to be associated with One World/American Airlines.

With that said, the Southern cone of South America could become a major international hub, making LATAM a world-renowned carrier on its own merits as well as a serious competitor of American Airlines in the region. I don’t know whether you are aware of it, but there are no direct flights from any country in South America to Japan, China, or other parts of Asia or to Africa. Currently, Qantas, an Australian airline (One World) flies directly from Australia to Chile and Argentina and serves as a connection to those regions above. But why shouldn’t Brazil, Argentina, Chile, or Peru—which has a new state-of-the-art airport—allow Air New Zealand, which is a Star Alliance member, to provide connecting flights as well? Or, even better, why not allow Air China, South African Airlines, or All Nippon Airlines to provide direct flights? After all, it’s all about politics and economic competitiveness. (Camarão que dorme a onda leva.)

There is also talk that Avianca, a Colombian carrier with an increasingly strong presence in the northern parts of South America and, through its partnership with TACA airlines, Central America, is in talks to become part of the Star Alliance. This would not damage or undermine the presence of LATAM; on the contrary, it would likely increase its profitability and its market capacity. The major airline hubs to countries in the South Pacific, Asia, Africa, Oceania, and even the Middle East are all now in the United States. But since Brazil and Chile are emerging markets with more economic trade to those regions, it is time to have a major airline hub in South America. The merger between TAM and LAN could make this possible.

Indígena Amazónico a la Presidencia

Leí en la página Web de la BBC Mundo, que los indígenas del Amazonas decidieron formar su propio partido político, lo cuál espero que de ser electos para el congreso peruano, o inclusive, para la presidencia; se pueda ver cambios tangibles para la mejora y la protección de la amazonia peruana y sus habitantes. El derecho a mantener sus costumbres, a existir sin imposiciones sociales modernas, prevenir la continua creciente deforestación de la selva, y evitar la explotación desmesurada del Amazonas, deben ser factores importantes en la agenda política de cualquier candidato a la presidencia del Perú, en las próximas elecciones de 2011.

Pero, lo que más me llamo la atención del articulo leído fue el comentario del ex ministro del interior, Fernando Rospigliosi. Comentarios racistas e inconsiderados, no propio de un profesional que estuvo a cargo de un ministerio público. A que se refiere Rospigliosi cuando dice con tanta seguridad que Pizango, el líder indígena del nuevo partido político, “no tiene ninguna opción de llegar a la presidencia”. ¿Cuál es realmente la razón que descalifica a Pizango en su posibilidad a ser presidente?, será porque Pizango es indígena, de una zona rural de la selva del Perú (los moradores de la selva del Perú siempre han sido discriminados y tomados como burla); o porque lleva un atuendo autóctono, y como cualquier líder comunitario ha tenido que hacer protestas callejeras.
Sigo en duda, ¿Cuál será la razón?.

Y eso de comparar un país con el otro. ¿Qué es lo que Rospigliosi quiso exactamente decir cuando se refiere que el “Perú no es Bolivia”. Que su país es mejor que Bolivia, que los peruanos son una cultura más civilizada, o que en su país los indígenas, cholos o como Rospigliosi quiera diferenciarlos; no tienen oportunidad a ser presidente. (¿). Comparaciones como esas , se escucha feo. Peor aún, si compara una cultura con la otra. No hay culturas mejores que otras, cada cultura o grupo social es distinto, con caracteres únicos o similares a otra cultura, pero que no los hace ni más, ni menos. A Rospigliosi se le olvido que fue ministro en la presidencia de Alejandro Toledo, también un líder de descendencia indígena.

Imagino que a Rospigliosi no se le ocurrió tener un poco más de consideración antes de hacer tales comentarios. Fueron comentarios instigadores y mal intencionados, que no ayudan a romper esas divisiones sociales que son tan profundas en el Perú, tampoco ayuda a mejorar las relaciones políticas entre Perú y Bolivia. Permítame decirle que no sólo en Bolivia un líder comunitario llegó a la presidencia, también eso ocurrió en Brasil, Polonia, y muchos otros países.

What's in It for Me?

Andres Oppenheimer’s column on the 2010 “World Wealth Report” in yesterday’s Miami Herald confirms once again that the rich in Latin America are selfish and uninterested in building a better future for their societies. While the rich in the developed world live in essentially the same way as everyone else in, say, Bern, New York, Monaco, or London, the Latin American rich live apart in almost unimaginable opulence, flaunting their wealth without any remorse or guilt. They take the world as it is, not as it could be.

When I was living in George Town, the capital of the Cayman Islands, and working for an offshore bank, I once saw so much money coming out of a single country that it was inconceivable to me that that country could have such high levels of poverty. I routinely saw rich Latin Americans open bank accounts with suitcases full of cash (literally). But, of course, I was not allowed to ask where the money came from or what kind of “business” had yielded such unbelievably large profits. Bank regulations; sorry!

It seems not to be in the nature of Latin Americans to behave selflessly or to contribute even part of their wealth to charitable foundations, people in need, programs to alleviate poverty, and the like. Moreover, they seem wholly disinterested in volunteering for any kind of cause. The attitude has always been, “If I do this, what’s in it for me?” Of course, the rich are under no formal obligation to give money to the poor or to support efforts to improve the lot of their fellow citizens. But unlike the less than 1 percent of the world population that benefits from “old money,” the Latin American rich have been able to amass their fortunes thanks to the societies within which they live. Thus, there is a moral obligation to give something back.

I am not talking about giving away all or even half of your fortune. I am merely talking about making a difference, making a contribution—even if, in exchange, a project, building, or school has to be named after you. Don’t worry about leaving your children without your wealth. If they have received a good education, they will make their own wealth too. And that is the best legacy that the rich can leave to their families, right? Also, why not at least try volunteering at a hospital, a community kitchen, or a public school? For a rich Latin American to do so would be like a miracle in Mes Morado in Peru or Festa de Todos os Santos in Brazil. Sadly, I don’t think many rich people in Latin America would even consider these idealistic suggestions.

By contrast, the United States seems to offer a good example of self-giving and compassionate behavior. Please, don’t get me wrong. I am not saying the United States is better than any other country. I am just pointing out that Americans themselves seem to be especially generous. This is not about the economics of wealth concentration or political influence; rather, it just seems to be part of the natural way of being for many Americans.

"Trabajo, Trabajo, Trabajo"

[SPANISH VERSION]
Se dice que en Colombia, el colombiano es tan recursivo, que es capaz de “vender una loca embarazada”. Y eso no lo dudo. E tenido la oportunidad de vivir en Colombia y ver el potencial de un país que estuvo al borde de convertirse en un “Estado fallido”. Viví allí en uno de los tiempos dónde la insecuridad, la violencia, y todo tipo de “veneno” se podia encontrar. En ese tiempo Bogotá ulizaba el lema de “2,600 metros más cerca de las estrellas”, que nosotros los extrangeros bromeabamos de ello, porque en esa ciudad habia tanto perico (droga) y tanta crimen suelto, que efectivamente de alguna manera u otra, uno podría verse más cerca de las estrellas; Aún peor, la imagen de ese país en el exterior era tan mala que el sinónimo de Colombia era narcotráfico. Usted no se imagina las cosas que ví, escuché; y no se imagina la frustración y el pesar que sentí al no poder hacer nada para ayudar a aquellos en extrema necesidad. Eran tiempos de horror!

Hoy en día, gracias a políticas económicas estables, a una mano dura contra la guerrilla, y al apoyo por parte de los Estados Unidos (con todas las condiciones imaginables), se podría decir que Colombia es un país económicamente emergente. Aunque hay riesgos que aún podrían desestabilizar el proceso de cambio. Y no hablo de “Colombia, el riego es quedarse” (el lema colombiano para atraer turismo). Hablo de riegos políticos, económicos y sociales que pondrían a Colombia en reversa total. Y eso sería desastroso.

Esperando que el nuevo presidente electo, Juan Manuel Santos cumpla su promesa de crear más “trabajo”, reducir la economía informal, promover la inserción e integración social, y acabar de una vez por todas con la amenazante guerrilla—no importa como, hay veces que el fin justifica los medios. Si así él lo hicierá, Colombia estará en una posición de emerger como potencia económica y convertirse en actor político muy importante en el hemisferio occidental. Yo tengo mucha fé en Colombia y en los colombianos.

[ENGLISH VERSION]
“Jobs, Jobs, Jobs”

In Colombia, people say that Colombians are so resourceful that they could “sell you a pregnant crazy woman” without you even noticing. And I have no doubt about it. I once had the opportunity to live in Colombia and to see the potential of a country that was so close to being a “failed state.” I lived there when insecurity, violence, and all kinds of economic malaise were the norm. Back then the capital city, Bogotá, used the tourist slogan “2,600 meters closer to the stars.” We foreigners used to joke that, given the evident and widespread drug consumption and the rampant and pervasive crime, we could definitely end up much closer to the stars—one way or the other. Even worse, Colombia’s reputation overseas was synonymous with that of its infamous drug cartels. You can’t imagine the things I saw and heard, and you can’t imagine the frustration and sorrow I felt knowing that I could do nothing to help those in serious need. Those were horrible times!

Today, thanks to sound economic policies, a tough line on the guerrillas, and the support of the United States (with all the strings attached), Colombia is truly an emerging economy. Nonetheless, risks remain that could stall or even reverse the progress made so far. And I am not talking about “Colombia, the risk is wanting to stay” (Colombia’s latest slogan for attracting tourism). I am talking about the political, economic, and social risks that could still drag Colombia backward. And that would be disastrous.

Here’s hoping that the newly elected President Juan Manuel Santos will keep his promises to create more jobs, reduce the influence of the informal economy, promote inclusion and social cohesion, and end once and for all the destabilizing guerrilla movement—whatever it takes, sometimes the end justifies the means. If he does, then he will have enabled Colombia to emerge as an economic power and to become a very important political actor in the Western Hemisphere. I have so much faith in Colombia and in the Colombian people.

Clown or True Leader?

During her recent visit to Ecuador, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a comment about relations between Venezuela and the United States. In response, Hugo Chavez sang a song about, essentially, how he doesn’t care and about how much he dislikes Mrs. Clinton. The majority of Venezuelans applaud such behavior; they respect and admire Mr. Chavez as a true Venezuelan leader. But outside of the country, many in the international community view him as a clown, like a kind of court jester. And I wonder, how can you take someone with an unbridled tongue and who displays such simplicity, even to the point of vulgarity, seriously as the president of a nation?

Venezuelans identify with Mr. Chavez. They speak the same language; he shares their mannerisms and style of talk. I seriously doubt that a candidate for president with the silver tongue of a Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Gabriel García Márquez, or Mario Vargas Llosa could be elected president of Venezuela. But this clownish, almost laughable behavior is not only found in Venezuela. Russia had it in Boris Yeltsin, Italy has it in Silvio Berlusconi, and the United States had it in George W. Bush. I think we will see more unpresidential behavior from the leaders of many other countries. I tend to agree with those in the diplomatic community who I’ve heard admit that Mr. Chavez has reasonable and understandable complaints against the United States. The problem, however, is the way he expresses it: his folkloric antics are appalling, abrasive, low, common, and vulgar. The French language may no longer be the language of diplomacy, but the art of diplomacy itself has not essentially changed. Protocol, etiquette, discretion, and propriety are expected today just as they have always been.

However, it seems that some leaders care more about appealing to or connecting with the people than about these diplomatic manners or about appropriate presidential behavior. And after all, if you want to make a point, then you must speak the language of the people. This is how one sometimes conducts business, markets a product, and even plays politics. Popular cultural behavior seems to carry more weight than propriety or good manners. Imagine the Queen or England or the King of Spain campaigning for public office. I doubt they would be elected. And Mr. Chavez not only commands respect, he encourages the sort of militancy that was a hallmark of Soviet Russia and that one sees today in North Korea. He is no fool. He knows how to keep his political approval high, how to make people laugh and create distractions. It’s like bread and circuses in the times of the Roman Empire.

Mr. Chavez created his Bolivarian Revolution, which, by the way, has little to do with Bolivar (the South American liberator). Nonetheless, he put this idea into the minds of his people and has even convinced other countries to follow him. And I have to say, whether he is good or bad, he is certainly an effective leader. I invite you to try to convince, say, a hundred people to follow you or to do what you want them to do. That requires tenacity and respect.

But just remember that one can speak the language of the people, while remaining respectable--presidential, if you wish--and one can be simple without being vulgar.

Follies of Emerging Markets

On June 3, The Economist magazine published an article about Peru’s new plan to export natural gas. While I am glad to learn that Peru is becoming an exporter of natural gas, I am sorry to say that it’s nonetheless likely that nationalistic, retrograde economic and political policies will continue to hold the country back from developing a more progressive and booming economy. In South America, territorial disputes, mistrust, and old rivalries run deeply at the core of the political culture. Regrettably, regardless of the particular national context, all political parties in South America are deeply invested in the old and ridiculous nationalism of “defending the interest of the nation” by not increasing trade and diplomatic relations with neighboring “enemy” countries.

God forbid that either Peru or Bolivia, for example, should sell natural gas to Chile, a country that needs it and that can afford to pay good money for it. Why? Because both countries have outstanding territorial claims against Chile, and these act as impediments to increased trade between the countries. Peru and its consortium exporting partners could—and should—make significant profits by exporting to readily accessible markets such as Chile’s, instead of waiting for Mexico’s plant to be able to receive the natural gas or by exporting to Europe, which is far more expensive to do. The business mentality is not given sufficient consideration in these instances. Can a country with discriminatory economic policies become an emerging economy and, thereby, become a potential political and economic leader in the region?

Peru lost the War of the Pacific more than hundred years ago, and it signed the Tacna-Arica compromise in 1929. However, Peru never stopped claiming ownership of the lost territories, and the naive dream of getting them back is still very much alive in Peruvian society. Especially during election campaigns, the political parties appeal to this nationalist sentiment to distract attention from governmental incompetence or to curry favor with voters. It is a strategy that never seems to fail to distract the people from the imperative of economic development.

The prioritization of nationalistic sentiment over sensible economic development in Peru is an example of a broad tendency that operates within most, if not all, countries in South America. I wonder whether Peru or Bolivia has ever considered allowing the people of the so-called lost territories to decide for themselves which country they want to be part of? Undoubtedly, the answer would be Chile!

Furthermore, it is difficult to understand why Peruvian nationalistic sentiment against Chile is strong enough to obscure the obvious economic and diplomatic importance of selling natural gas to a country that is itself heavily invested in almost all sectors of the Peruvian economy. Even the biggest Peruvian airline, Lan Peru, is essentially Chilean; it is a spin-off the Chilean national airline, Lan Chile. How pathetic is that?

So, estimados peruanos, do you seriously believe that Arica will ever be returned to you? And even if it were, how would your economy improve then? Stop the nonsense; let go of the retrograde nationalism that is obstructing your economic growth. Think of it this way: do you believe that you could successfully run a grocery store if you refuse to sell your products to a significant number of the people who want to buy them? If your answer is yes, then your store is destined to fail and, eventually, to go out of business.

What They Are Today, Your Folks Were Yesterday

These days it seems that the rich world is trying to get rid of their increasing immigrant populations. Ireland is fed up with the Poles, for instance, so they send them packing. But the poles will come back, you’ll see. The Italians are doing the same with the Albanians, Moroccans, and Tunisians. Spain’s economy is sinking, so getting rid of the immigrants must be the solution, right? I feel for the Hispano-Americans in Spain, who must face serious discrimination, insults, dead threats, and humiliation. In provincial Spain, horrible things are yelled at them, and they are made to feel unwanted. Spain today is definitely among the worst places to be an immigrant. No wonder Cristina de Kirchner asked for respect on behalf of immigrants at the EU-Latin American Summit, which was held earlier this month in Madrid. Things are getting really ugly over there.

Of course, the United States, too, is increasingly hostile to immigrants. The State of Arizona has passed a Draconian law that clearly violates international standards for migration and human rights. But, then, perhaps you believe that undocumented (or “illegal,” as some prefer it) immigrants have no constitutional rights? Well, think again or, better still, talk to a lawyer who practices international law.

In any case, as a political phenomenon, hostility to immigrants develops for two main reasons. First, oppositional political parties use immigration as a way to gain votes or to discredit governing parties -- whether liberals, moderates, or conservatives; Democrats or Republicans. All have played the immigration card, in some way or another, expressing “concern” about the influx of immigrants. “They are invading our country!” But realistically speaking, it’s just politics plain and simple. The second reason has to do with poor economic conditions that may seem to threaten the very foundation of a rich, stable society with high unemployment, social insecurity, rising crime, government deficits, prolonged recession, etc. So, essentially, immigration and immigrants themselves are made the scapegoat.

Immigrants are not a serious threat to their host countries, however; nor are they the cause of economic malaise.

So, let’s recap, shall we? Because there are many immigrants in the United States, for example, the level of crime is high. Right? No, the vast majority of crimes are committed by U.S. citizens, not new immigrants (documented or not). Latino immigrants are certainly not responsible for the ongoing wave of muggings in my own city, Washington, DC. It is highly unlikely that an immigrant would move to another country just to rob and kill. Instead, immigrants are motivated by the desire to work and to seek better opportunities for themselves and their families. (I am not generalizing here, of course.)

Yet so many seem still to believe immigrants represent a threat to the very survival of the culture, a threat such as Samuel Huntington described in “The Clash of Civilizations.” It is all rubbish and nonsense! A decade or two ago, you couldn’t find as many Mexican restaurants as you can find today; parents were not talking enthusiastically about sending their children to a bilingual school, as they are today. And today, many more Americans are learning to speak other languages, especially Spanish. In fact, if you speak Spanish in public today, you had better be careful about what you say, because the person seated next to you may very well understand you.

America society has became much more open and diverse, and Americans have become much more interested in what’s going on abroad. And this ongoing cultural change is, in part, thanks to the Latino immigrant population. If you’re worried that Americans will be speaking Spanish by 2050, think again; the sons and daughters of immigrants prefer to talk in English, rather than in their parents’ tongue. So just relax, because the very survival of your culture is assured. America is by its very nature a cohesive yet inclusive society, a land of opportunity where anyone can become an American in a matter of a few years. This is in a stark contrast to the situation in many European countries. If you were a Turkish immigrant to Germany, say, or an Algerian immigrant to France, you would still be regarded as such as many as fifty years later.

The simple truth is the Mexico and the United States are both to blame for the worrisome crime occurring on and around the border: one country for not realizing early on that the Cali and Medellín cartels were offshoring to Mexico, and the other country for its out-of-control gun culture. Supply and demand are to blame. And when guns and cash are both plentiful, it is easy to build a quasi-army.

This is not to say that there is not a serious need for immigration reform in the United States, but not a la Arizona style and not building a wall.

Americans and Europeans, think about this: Who is going to pay for your retirement when you turn 65? Who will make up the workforce by 2050, the engine of a prosperous economy? And if you had the power to get rid of all immigrants in the blink of an eye, do you seriously think that the the native population -- the “real” citizens -- would really do the unwanted jobs? Do you think they would fill up the factories, pick the crops, perform the “menial” labor? And even if they would suddenly be willing to do it, they wouldn’t work for the low wages and under the harsh conditions of the many unscrupulous employers who hire undocumented immigrants to do these jobs. Businesses do not have hearts; they want to pay low wages, don’t want to hear complaints, and certainly do not want unions or syndicates to organize their workers.

Furthermore, the demographics are clear. The populations of the most industrialized countries are shrinking—the United States is an exception, thanks in large part to immigration. Paying citizens 1,000 euros per baby, as is being tried in Europe, or creating a holiday to send people home to make babies, as the Russian have tried, is not going to work.

Finally, it’s worth remembering that the Americas have always welcomed immigrants. When the Irish suffered the potato famine, your people immigrated to the Americas; when there was civil war in Spain and the dictator Franco was alive and kicking, you had no were else to go but to the Americas—Latin America, in fact; after the Second World War, when all over Europe there were not even peanuts to serve for dinner, you immigrated to the Americas—whether you were looking for a better future or just a place to hide. And, of course, do not forget that your people have been immigrating to Spanish America since the 1830s, when there was not even rice to eat in Japan; when you left your country con una mano adelante y una mano atras (“more than poor), your people also migrated to the Americas.

The point is this: stop what you are doing to immigrants; they are today what your folks were yesterday.

Social Exclusion in South America

Two months of backpacking in South America has made me realize how little has changed since I last visited the region, almost eleven years ago. I am not talking about infrastructure development or the new businesses that have spread throughout the big cities—the fancy restaurants, coffee shops, banks, and huge shopping centers. These economic changes were especially noticeable in Lima, Peru, where there is pretty much anything for anyone, and where strolling along the ocean has become a must-see experience. The change I am talking about concerns social exclusion, that malice that is endemic and deep at the core of South America. The rich are getting richer—big news, right? South America does not suffer from dictators, or caudillos, anymore (well, maybe there is still one officially elected by the people). South American economies have grown steadily, and democracy is taking firm hold everywhere in the region. Nonetheless, the indigenous peoples and afro-descendants remain the most marginalized segments of the population, and they continue to face widespread discrimination.

This observation doesn’t come just from reading the newspapers or recalling my academic years spent studying Latin American affairs. I was able to see firsthand that, in the workforces of all kinds of industry in Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, and Paraguay, the Indians and the afro-descendants are not represented. They are not a visible part of a cohesive society. You simply don’t see them anywhere you have to interact with local people or seek customer service—bank employees, flight attendants, waiters, casinos dealers, club employees, front-desk staff. The face of nearly all companies in South America is represented by employees with fair-colored skin. Private industry may claim to have a diverse group of employees, but if that is true, they are in the backrooms where nobody can see them. And this happens even in Brazil, where afro-descendants comprise a large number of the population. While flying around many areas of Brazil, for instance, I didn’t see a single black flight attendant. To satisfy my curiosity, I discretely asked a flight attendant about this, and she, somewhat confused, responded, “I don’t think our airline has any black flight attendants—not that I have seen.”

The economic development of many South American countries has improved drastically, but the reduction of poverty is occurring at a very slow pace, thanks in large part to the persistent social exclusion and the resulting economic inequalities. In Lima, Peru, I asked a worker why he doesn’t want to work in a bank or an office, rather than in an informal sector. His answer came almost immediately: “because I am cholo, and they wouldn’t hire me,” he said. In Manaus, Brazil, I asked a coconut seller the same question, and he told me they wouldn’t hire him “porque eu sou preto.”

Social cohesion and social integration are seldom talked seriously about among politicians or in the business sector. Few people really care. Unfortunately, these terms are most often used by those who “scream in silence to the deaf people.” In the past, indigenous peoples and afro-descendants used to wait for a better life, hoping that the caudillos would eventually leave government. Today they are still waiting, but now for those to whose businesses and enterprises have benefited from globalization. Meanwhile, the indigenous and afro-descendants are still being treated like second-class citizens. The governments in many, if not all, South American countries look with disdain and indifference on those most in need—those who, if socially and economically empowered, could contribute significantly to the prosperity and development of their countries.

In Peru, President Alejandro Toledo (2001–2006) campaigned for the presidency promising to bring social inclusion. In Bolivia, President Evo Morales was elected, in part, because of his indigenous background and the promises he made to improve the situation of the indigenous peoples. In Ecuador, although President Rafael Correa is not himself of indigenous descent, he too ran for the presidency on a political platform designed to appeal to the interests of the indigenous population. The same is true of Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, the Brazilian president, and Fernando Lugo of Paraguay, who seemed really to care for the guaraní population. It is by now obvious, however, that social integration and other positive change cannot be accomplished simply by electing “one of your own” or by having an indigenous or an afro-descendant as a government minister, bishop, or high-ranking official in the civil or military branches of government. These developments may help create a different perception of the “socially excluded population,” but they have little or no effect on the broad social environment, where discriminatory attitudes remain firmly entrenched.

To promote social integration and social cohesion, and to end discriminatory practices, governments must do more than make promises. Governments, working together with the private sector, must make the achievement of these social—and, ultimately, economic—goals a top priority. The solution is not only to enact and actually enforce laws designed to promote social integration, but also to create incentives that promote employment diversity—and, hence, social inclusion—in the private sector. The people themselves are the key to building, first, an emerging market and, then, a developed country. They are the real raw material that all industries require in order to succeed.