Janet Yellen, nominated by President Obama last week to be the new chairwoman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, might not know it yet, but she has friends in high places in Latin America.
This is because many in the region rightly believe that Yellen's forecasted doveishness will give Latin America time to make the necessary adjustments while U.S. monetary tightening slowly winds its way through global markets.
Even in Brazil, where there aren’t many kind words being said about the U.S. these days, Central Bank Governor Alexandre Tombini has been buttering up markets with measured comments about the Fed’s tightening policy.
But Latin America is watching the aftermath of this appointment closely because there is an ominous feeling that, despite the region’s growing monetary autonomy, tightening U.S. policy will have important consequences for the region—such as creating more expensive imports, pricier debt payments, and higher local interest rates.
Past crises in the region have happened around moments of decisive Fed action—think 1982 and the 1994 Tequila Crisis, without even mentioning the trail of broken exchange rate pegs. But what is remarkable about the last few years is the contrast between Latin American governments having their economic houses in relative order and the chaotic, then sclerotic macro-environment amongst the world’s wealthiest countries.
This is a much different reality than Argentina in 2001 or Mexico in 1994. Only ten or twenty years ago, sovereign, dollar-denominated debt would have been the biggest part of any Fed monetary tightening problem, followed by fixed currency values. These days, after remarkable growth and a decade of responsible policy, much of the region can keep a full-blown crisis at bay. Instead, Latin Americans can now expect mild recessions, hampered growth, and a reckoning for low levels of invested in the good times.
Loose policy in the U.S. and elsewhere over the past few years has given Latin America a relatively favorable environment to conduct its own responsible monetary policy. At the same time that money was cheap in the U.S. and Europe, the relative high returns in Latin America drove capital their way, which provided a boon to economies in a strong phase of growth. China was still growing quickly and South American commodities were fueling that growth. But that new Latin American normal has evaporated relatively quickly with the specter of a developed world recovery and monetary tightening.
Human trafficking in Latin America has become a serious problem that can no longer be ignored. According to a 2012 estimate by the International Labour Organization (ILO), Latin America and the Caribbean account for the third largest number of forced laborers, at 1,800,000 victims. This number does not include trafficking for the removal of organs or for forced marriage/adoption.
Louise Shelley, a leading U.S. expert on transnational crime and terrorism, provides an explanation for this high number in her book Human Trafficking: A Global Perspective. According to Shelley, the region’s sordid history of colonialism and slavery “has created a permanent underclass in many countries that is ripe for exploitation by traffickers.” Furthermore, the region’s unstable cycles of military rule, democracy and populism has increased the vulnerability of its poor citizens.
Latin America has a notorious reputation for its high rates of inequality. While human trafficking is a very complicated international and intersectional phenomenon, one of the biggest factors behind trafficking is a lack of economic opportunities. In a region where around 167 million people live in poverty—66 million in extreme poverty—there is plenty of room for its citizens to be exploited.
Almost as disheartening as Latin America’s human trafficking problem is the lack of empirical research to help prevent it. Why is there such a paucity of regional research on the topic, when seven of the top-10 countries of origin for documented human trafficking cases in the U.S are from Latin America and the Caribbean?
While renewable energy investment globally fell by 11 percent in 2012, renewable energy financing increased by 127 percent in Latin American countries, excluding Brazil. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, this included gains of 595 percent in Mexico, 313 percent in Chile, 285 percent in Uruguay, and 176 percent in Peru. In total, renewable energy investments in Latin America reached $9.7 billion in 2012.
When adding the important renewable energy portfolio of Brazil ($5.2 billion in 2012), the renewable energy sector in Latin America is growing and will continue to attract significant capital in the coming years. A combination of favorable government policies, receptiveness to foreign investment, and attractive regulatory regimes has drawn investors to renewable energy projects in the region. These issues were debated in Washington on July 30 during a roundtable discussion on financing renewable energy in Latin America at the Council of the Americas, held under the auspices of the Council’s Energy Action Group.
The conditions for renewable energy in Latin America are favorable. From the photovoltaic potential of the Atacama Desert in Chile to the many rivers that feed into hydroelectric dams in Brazil to the fields of African palm oil in Colombia, developers have been drawn to the region due to a unique geography that offers great potential for renewable feedstocks.
Countries are also beginning to adopt renewable energy standards. Chile is leading the way with its 20/20 renewable plan—20 percent of the country’s electrical grid powered by renewable energy by 2020. While the target may be a long shot, the initiative demonstrates that countries in the region are serious about developing their renewable energy potential.
Cuando se considera a una persona como posible responsable de un delito en un procedimiento judicial, el fiscal puede solicitar su detención provisional, esto es, que vaya a prisión hasta que se le juzgue y decida que es culpable—o que no lo es. Ni el señalamiento que haga la policía, ni siquiera la acusación que formule el fiscal hace culpable a una persona. Sólo es culpable cuando una sentencia judicial lo declare.
Excepcionalmente, el juez puede enviar a prisión a quien todavía no ha sido declarado culpable cuando haya peligro de que se fugue o cuando, al estar en libertad, pueda interferir en el proceso, destruyendo pruebas o amenazando testigos. Pero el juez puede dictar otras medidas: obligarlo a comparecer periódicamente ante el juzgado, cumplir detención domiciliaria, usar un grillete electrónico o impedirle que cambie de domicilio o salga del país.
Las normas internacionales así lo establecen y la mayoría de las leyes de procedimiento latinoamericanas así lo disponen. Pero, en los hechos, las cosas no son así y, en parte debido a esto, nuestras prisiones están superpobladas y amenazadas permanentemente por motines sangrientos a punto de estallar.
Lo que ocurre en nuestros países es que se envía a prisión a toda persona a quien la policía y el fiscal señalan como responsable de un delito por el que, de ser condenada, sufrirá pena de prisión efectiva. El monto de la pena por la que se debe ir ineludiblemente a la cárcel usualmente consiste en tres o cuatro años. Si al encausado se le procesa por robo con violencia—que tiene como mínimo de pena seis años de prisión—es probable que, apenas se inicie el procedimiento, el fiscal pida prisión preventiva (PP) para él y el juez así lo decrete. Si al final del juicio se le declara o no culpable sólo preocupa a quien estará detenido durante años, en espera del juicio, sabiendo que no es culpable.
En nuestros aparatos de justicia se ha hecho costumbre enviar a prisión a gente que, en la investigación previa al juicio, son señaladas como culpables. ¿Por qué fiscales y jueces han convertido la PP en una pena anticipada que se impone incluso a quien no es culpable? La Fundación para el Debido Proceso acaba de concluir un estudio en cuatro países (Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador y Perú) para responder a esa pregunta. El hallazgo de estos trabajos es que, en un alto número de casos, la PP se impone en respuesta a presiones actuantes sobre fiscal y juez, las cuales les impiden actuar imparcialmente, en uso de la independencia propia del cargo.
De un lado, un clima alienta la utilización amplia de la PP. De otro lado, diversas prácticas operan como formas de discriminación en perjuicio de los más vulnerables y como privilegio a favor de quienes tienen acceso a buenos abogados y contactos eficientes.
Una atmósfera ciudadana estima “natural” que quien es señalado como culpable por la policía, lo es realmente. En esa atmósfera actúan los políticos que, desde gobierno u oposición, descargan en la justicia su propia responsabilidad en el incremento del delito y exigen a los jueces “mano dura” para castigar a quien caiga en manos de la maquinaria judicial.
Las cúpulas de las instituciones del sistema de justicia participan en generar y mantener ese clima. Declaraciones del presidente de la corte suprema, el fiscal general o sus voceros participan frecuentemente de los reclamos de una “aplicación estricta” de la ley en la que parece no haber lugar para algo distinto a la imposición de la PP.
Por su parte, los medios de comunicación cumplen un doble papel. Primero, reproducen y multiplican el discurso de las autoridades que proclaman la necesidad de una aplicación vasta de la PP. Segundo, generan, tanto en el manejo de la información como mediante artículos de opinión, elementos para alimentar la misma postulación.
Jueces y fiscales son sensibles a este clima que en América Latina alienta un uso amplio de la PP. Es un clima que recorta la independencia de los operadores, al generarles temor a ser señalados y cuestionados públicamente debido al uso de una medida alternativa a la de PP, especialmente en los procesos de repercusión pública. Pueden encontrar que lo más aconsejable—para sus propios intereses—es hacer lo que se espera de ellos, aunque nadie se los haya pedido expresamente. En el estudio hecho en cuatro países se comprobó la existencia de cierto número de procesos disciplinarios abiertos contra jueces debido a no haber aplicado la PP. En cambio no se halló un solo proceso abierto por haberla aplicado indebida o arbitrariamente.
Un uso extendido de la PP—contrario a aquello que tanto las normas internas como los instrumentos internacionales de derechos humanos establecen—es pues promovido desde el nivel de las autoridades, propagado por los medios de comunicación y recibido con cierta complacencia por una porción de los propios operadores del sistema. Además, tal uso recibe cierto respaldo popular debido a que en la percepción social el sistema de justicia está bajo sospecha; se sabe que los juicios son largos, que su transcurso es azaroso y su resultado, incierto.
La PP es vista entonces como una pena aplicada a cuenta. Ante el riesgo de que finalmente no se condene a nadie, parece consolar que por lo menos alguien reciba ese adelanto de sanción. En definitiva, que esa persona no sea culpable es algo que se anticipa difícil de determinar, dadas las limitaciones, sesgos e ineficiencias del sistema.
Estos factores hacen del uso amplio de la PP una política pública no explícita según la cual los operadores del sistema de justicia trabajan dentro de un clima falto de independencia, que desaconseja utilizarla como medida excepcional o último recurso, y están sujetos a presiones, en casos específicos, que conducen a un manejo arbitrario de esta medida. El resultado incluye no sólo una población carcelaria que desborda las prisiones haciéndolas cada vez más inestables y peligrosas, sino también contribuye a que dentro de esa masa de presos sin condena que habitan nuestras cárceles hay un número indeterminado de inocentes.
In anticipation of his May 2-4 trip to Mexico and Costa Rica, U.S. President Barack Obama laid out his perspectives on how regional cooperation can help to advance growth and prosperity in the Americas. In an exclusive interview for Americas Quarterly, Obama said that his sixth trip to the region will be an opportunity to consolidate joint efforts on citizen security, increase trade and investment, launch clean energy partnerships, and expand exchanges between citizens across the hemisphere.
On Thursday, Obama will travel to Mexico, where he will discuss a range of bilateral and regional issues with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. “Building on Mexico’s presidency of the G20 last year, we’ll continue working to sustain the global economic recovery, promote global development and address climate change,” Obama told AQ. The president also highlighted Mexico’s “growing leadership in the region and on the world stage," and praised Mexico’s role in the negotiations around the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which he expects to be completed by the end of this year. He emphasized that TPP would bring “rewards [that] would be substantial for all our countries.”
On Friday, Obama will travel to Costa Rica, where he will meet President Laura Chinchilla and other Centro American leaders at the Central American Integration System (Sistema de Integración Centroamericana—SICA) summit in San José. During this meeting, Obama will draw attention to the importance of finding new ways to involve governments, the private sector and civil society in reducing crime and violence, as well as encourage regional partners to address citizen security from a more holistic perspective. Energy security and cooperation to provide clean and affordable energy also will be on the agenda.
Immigration will be a backdrop to the president’s discussions given the large number of Central American and Mexican migrants in the United States. Here, Obama reaffirmed his commitment to pass bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform as soon as possible to take advantage of the significant contributions that immigrants make to the U.S. economy. “We need to fix our broken immigration system to make sure that every business and every worker in the United States is playing by the same set of rules,” he said.
Read President Obama’s exclusive interview for Americas Quarterly here.
Pope Benedict’s resignation on Monday took the world by surprise, and brought hope to Latin America—home of 42 percent of the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics—that the next leader of the Catholic Church could be the first to come from outside of Europe.
According to two senior Vatican officials, Latin America’s time has come. Archbishop Gerhard Muellet told Düsseldorf’s Rheinische Post newspaper that ”Christianity isn't centered on Europe,” and on a similar statement, Swiss Cardinal Kurt Koch stated that the Church's future is no longer in Europe. For others, however, the higher number of European Cardinals may shift the odds against a Latin American Pope.
All Cardinals less than 80 years old are candidates and can vote to choose the new Pope at a conclave, a closed-door election process that takes place in the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel. The leading Latin American candidates in the next conclave are Odilo Scherer, 63, archbishop of Sao Paolo, and the Italian-Argentine Leonardo Sandri, 69, who announced to the world the death of Pope John Paul II on April 2005.
Despite Latin America’s long Catholic tradition, a pontiff’s first visit to the region didn’t take place until 1968 when Pope Paul VI visited Bogota, Colombia. The most recent visit was in 2012, when Pope Benedict XVI visited Mexico and made a historic appearance in Cuba, at a time when, according to Cuba Study Group’s Tomas Bilbao, the country “has openly recognized the failure of its current economic model, has encouraged its citizens to openly debate the need for change, and has even recognized the legitimate role of Cubans living abroad in Cuba’s future.”
Pope Benedict XVI, 85, will step down for health reasons on February 28, becoming the first pontiff in nearly 600 years to give up his post. The new pontiff’s first visit to the region could take place in July 2013 during World Youth Day celebrations in Brazil.
This is a rush, unedited transcript of the presidential debate on foreign policy at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida on October 22, 2012:
Welcome and thanks, 50 years after the Cuban missile crisis and as a segue I want to ask about...Libya...talking point...Afghanistan in 2014, maybe, maybe not...talking point...Iraq!...horses and bayonets...Iran will never get nukes...talking point...the 1980s called and they want their foreign policy back...talking point...you want to cut defense...do not...do too...sequestration will NOT happen...liar, liar, pants on fire...talking point...Iran will NOT get nukes...the U.S. economy is bad...it’s better...it’s worse...I know how to fix it...you have never done foreign policy...Iran!...China is a big country far away, they do bad things to their money, it hurts us...it helps your off-shored investments...yours too...talking point...we are the world’s beacon of hope...did I mention Iran?...please vote for me...please vote for me.
This is only an approximation of how the “foreign policy” debate went. Still, the evening was a play for undecided voters in swing states—with the economy as the hook. An outside observer would be hard-pressed to believe that U.S. foreign policy in the 21st century had to do with anything beyond the Middle East; Afghanistan, Egypt, Israel, Libya, Iran, Iraq, and Syria were all discussed at some length over the course of 90 minutes. What about Europe? China was debated briefly at the end, and received what seemed like cursory attention especially since much of the viewing audience had long gone over to watch baseball and football games. Governor Mitt Romney purposefully brought Latin America into the mix on the trade and economic front, but the issues were not pursued and were quickly dropped.
Nuclear proliferation? Global climate change? The South China Sea? Japan? The use of force? Nothing.
Latin America and the Caribbean’s regional economy will grow by 3.2 percent over the rest of 2012 and will improve to 4.0 percent growth in 2013, according to the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). The 2012 Economic Survey of Latin America and the Caribbean, which forecasts macroeconomic conditions in the region, was released this morning at ECLAC headquarters in Santiago, Chile.
This edition of the survey focuses on the external difficulties that caused the recent economic slowdown in the region, such as the continued crisis in Europe and the decrease in prices for the region's main export commodities. The report also highlights the varying responses to the global financial crisis and provides growth rate estimates by country.
Chile and Peru are among Latin America's fastest-growing economies through 2012, with 5.5 and 4.3 percent growth, respectively. Conversely, Brazil's economy, the largest in the region, decelerated 0.8 percent, with the country growing at just 3.0 percent.
ECLAC's June Macroeconomic Report on Latin America and the Caribbean had forecasted a 0.6 percent drop in regional growth, from 4.3 percent in 2011 to in 3.7 percent 2012.
We are still wondering just what happened in Benghazi, Libya, with the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, the State Department’s Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
That this tragedy happened on the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attack that claimed the lives of nearly 3,000 Americans makes it all the more difficult. Eleven years later, we have another September 11 to grieve. What have we learned? What lesson should we glean from such calamity?
At best, the tragedy reminds us to honor the dedication, sacrifices and service of our personnel—and not just those serving in the military. All those who knew him say that Stevens represented the very best of our foreign service.
At this point, it is not clear how and why critical warning signs were overlooked. Hopefully we will get good information about what happened—before the U.S. elections in November. As a first step, the U.S. is reevaluating the safety of our diplomatic personnel around the world including in our own hemisphere. One thing is clear, however: No matter our best intentions, people will want to do us harm. That is a safe assumption.
Where does Latin America stand when it comes to contributing peacekeepers to United Nations (UN) missions?
In general, there is a large presence of Latin American peacekeepers in Haiti, which is the only mission in the Western Hemisphere. However, Latin American countries send their troops to many other missions around the world. Their contributions are not highlighted as much as the large presence of Latin American peacekeepers in Haiti. In terms of numbers, Brazil and Argentina send the most troops and police to missions around the world. At the same time, there is a general push to try to get more countries in the region to send peacekeepers through organizations such the Latin American Association of Training Centers for Peace (ALCOPAZ – Asociación Latinoamericana de Centros de Entrenamientos para Operaciones de Paz), based in Rio de Janeiro.
Since 2009, the following countries from the Americas have contributed to UN peacekeeping missions including:
Argentina: Liberia, Ivory Coast, Middle East, South Sudan, Cyprus, East Timor, Haiti, and the Western Sahara.
Bolivia: Haiti, the DRC, Darfur, Afghanistan, Liberia, South Sudan, and the Ivory Coast.