Time to retake the Latin exam

The British government shows some determination to address its lack of commitment to Latin America

They say Latin is a dead language. Sometimes it seems that many in different British governments have believed Latin America is dead too. The visit of the British Minister for Latin America to Bolivia from 26-27 July went almost unnoticed in the UK press. The BBC had one online page of coverage of the trip; a YouTube video Jeremy Browne, the Liberal Democrat MP with responsibility for Latin America, put online had only been viewed 42 times by the time this blog was published.

In November, the Foreign Secretary made this speech about the relationship between the UK and Latin America. He was right that Britons have played a role in forging Brazilian and Uruguayan independence and being the first European nation to recognise Mexico. Welshmen took football to Argentina. Cornishmen helped develop the Mexican silver mines.

But it seems that there has been an invisible colonial barrier barring the UK from closer relations with the region; a whispered admission that this was Spain and Portugal’s domain. Africa and the sub-continent have received far greater attention from the UK, mainly owing to the colonial links. Millions across India, Pakistan and sub-Saharan Africa speak English. Charities and aid workers regularly channel their efforts (rightfully) on the many social, political and medical needs of these nations but Latin America also needs support. And the UK can help the region in a different way.

It need not abandon Uganda or Bangladesh but the old colonial frontiers that stood are long gone. New-age imperialism is booming. China has already muscled in on the old UK ground: Beijing is a massive investor in many African countries now, often exchanging construction workers and architects for coal. India is turning into a global power capable of looking after itself. South Africa has now joined Brazil, Russia, India and China in their strong, emerging-powers BRICS bloc.

Latin America is full of successful, healthy and democratic countries. Mexico, Argentina and Brazil are in the G20. The region does not need stabilising support but it would welcome closer trade and investment links. As Mr Hague noted in his speech “We export over three times more to Ireland than we do to the whole of Latin America”. That needs addressing fast. China is becoming the dominant power in Africa. As Brazil outgrows Latin America and sets its sights on global ambitions, the UK would do worse then re-focusing a little of its ring-fenced international development budget and a lot of its trade desires on Latin America.

Advertisements

Building the foundations

Domestic success for the BRICS countries backs up their global posturing

Following on from a recent update post about where Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa are on the world stage at the moment, (see ‘A fortress made of BRICS‘– 08/06/11), it is worth taking a moment to look at the foundations of their international acclaim.

This week, the Brazilian Department of Work and Business released encouraging figures showing that the economy added 252,067 net payroll jobs in May. Despite some financial woes at the start of her presidency, Dilma Rousseff is clearly focused to try to continue the boom at home that her predecessor, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, kick-started.

India has become a hotbed for foreign firms basing themselves in the country or outsourcing many of their operations there. This expansion of the boundaries of domestic business, be it through Indian or overseas companies, allows India to move out itself. A report by US congressman Jim McDermott last year showed how Indian firms created nearly 60,000 jobs in the States between 2004-09 in deals worth $26.5 billion.

There is no doubt that a shift in the global circles of dominance is underway. Commentators in the US believe that, despite the lack of credible Republican candidates, Barack Obama may still lose next year’s election because of one main issue: domestic economic problems. The eurozone is also worryingly wobbly. Greece has to match China’s growth just to get itself out of what is fast becoming a deepening hole from which the only exit seems to be through a door marked ‘Drachma this way’. In contrast, as the Chinese deputy bank governor said in March, his country has the ‘market depth, liquidity and safety’ to see the Chinese yuan replace the US dollar as the major world reserve currency.

It is a cycle which allows an non-stop wheel of development for the BRICS countries. Their success at home breeds success abroad and the rising powers feel confident to challenge established countries on the world stage. By ensuring domestic growth, they can back up their international vision with internal achievements.

A fortress made of BRICS

The BRICS countries are building a formidable global power base but there are still cracks in the foundations

With the addition of South Africa to the group late last year, the emerging markets bloc has expanded its reach and capability considerably. It now has fingers in pies cooking in all corners of the globe and each member-state has a rough home ‘region’ where it is the dominate force. Brazil has majority sway over Latin American affairs, China rules the construction industry in Africa and Russia has diplomatic and industrial control throughout the former Soviet Union nations. But the way they influence and react with each other – let alone other countries – is both a cause for celebration and concern.

China is the most successful of the BRICS. It competes with Brazil in Latin America and rivals South Africa throughout Africa, be it through construction contracts in Angola or oil agreements in Sudan. Its conveyor lines drive European businesses back home and its markets are being opened up to foreign firms. It is powerful militarily, diplomatically and economically. China also is skilled at both comforting and irritating rival BRICS. It is happy to let South Africa be a diplomatic voice for Africa while it maintains its industrial strength there. But it has annoyed India by cosying up to Pakistan recently with economic agreements and plans for motorways and railways between the two countries. The transport links would pass through a part of Kashmir that India sees as its own and that Islamabad ceded to Beijing in 1963.

The other powers have also tried to carve out distinct paths across the globe. Brazil is promoting itself as a leader of a new international diplomacy by flexing its negotiation muscles and by engaging with Iran and the Middle East. Russia is still sending rockets to the International Space Station and is arguably the closest of the BRICS to Europe. India is starting to move its weight in South East Asia and has belatedly broken free from its comfortable domestic engine room to engage with African nations and make its nuclear-backed voice heard. South Africa is aiming to make the continent it foots its own, at first through diplomacy (President Jacob Zuma recently met Colonel Gaddafi for talks), and later by possibly challenging China industrially.

There are many sticking points. China and India have a disputed border and Beijing is cross that Delhi lets the Dalai Lama use India as his base-in-exile. Diplomatically, Brazil and South Africa are making an impact on the world stage, while quietly letting China continue to invest in their ‘home’ regions. But while China powers on, Russia is stalling and South Africa relatively inexperienced as the baby of the club.

It is up to Brazil and India to move the BRICS on from a second-class talking-shop to the most important international alliance. An Argentine writing his doctorate on Argentina and Brazil’s economies recently told me that “Brazil is big, very big – too big in fact” and the same could be said for India. They are outgrowing their respective Latin American and sub-continental origins and it is time that they give China a rest from pace-setting. They are certainly all building themselves up quickly and strongly and the West ignores them at its peril.

A modern Moscow mule

A Russian proposal to try to create artificial life receives Hollywood backing

The actor Steven Seagal once said “I have made a lot of mistakes. But I’ve worked hard. I have no fear of death. More important, I don’t fear life.” Lately he has become an enthusiastic supporter of a futuristic aim to secure exceptional advancements in human immortality. If it succeeds, he may not even have to face death, let alone fear it. Seagal is so taken with the plans that he recently wrote an open letter to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

‘Russia 2045’ is a movement established by a combination of fantasists and scientists with huge ambitions. They want to address what they see as an inexorable degradation of the concept of human life that we have at the moment. Amongst their proposals is the challenge of creating a ‘hologram body’.

Many scriptwriters and novelists have hypothesised over the possible ingredients of the ‘elixir of life’ and the notion of ‘living forever’ has simply been a romantic but unattainable projection of human achivement. Until now. Those believers gathering in Moscow are determined to produce an ‘immortal brain’, arguing that it is a natural course of research for progressive scientists of this day and age. They have set a deadline by which to create the make-up that a regular passer-by would need in order never to die. Some eager fans of the project are even predicting a competition similar to the ‘Space Race’ – but this time with Russia the undisputed champion.

Of course, the mission has its detractors and the scheme has come under fire from many in the Church. Alexey Osipov, a professor at the Moscow Spritual Schools announced that “[the human being is] a unity of body and soul, and separating one from the other is unthinkable from the point of view of Christianity and is vicious.” In response, the founder of the Russia 2045 movement, Dmitry Itskov, said that the ‘cyborg’ idea “[is not] running against anyone’s religious ideals or values.”

In his 2002 film, Half Past Dead, Seagal plays an undercover cop who gets shot and is declared ‘medically deceased’. If this scheme turns out to be a success, the idea that a person could ever have truly died might eventually become the stuff of legend.

An island life for me

Tempers have flared up again between Russia and Japan over the disputed Kuril Islands. Islands remain at the centre of many international territorial conflicts.

On Thursday 10 February Japan’s foreign minister, Seiji Maehara, restated his country’s commitment to the belief that the four southernmost islands of the Kuril group remain under Japanese jurisdiction. His call comes after Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visited the contested archipelago in November last year. During his trip Medvedev promised greater development and outlined an increase in military presence on the islands, clearly not a move that has been welcomed in Tokyo. Remarkably, the fractious nature of the two countries’ relationship over the Kurils means that they still have not got round to signing a joint peace agreement to end World War Two hostilities between them.

Islands are at the centre of an ongoing dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia. The San Andres and Providencia group in the Caribbean has been part of Colombia since the 1920s but Nicaragua took the issue to the International Court of Justice in 2001, which ruled in favour of Bogota. Managua’s main argument is over location, and the islands are much closer to Nicaragua, but it would not be surprising if the tourist factor also plays a part in their disquiet: the islands are beautiful Caribbean hotposts, an English creole is widely spoken and visitor numbers are growing.

Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela. Source: marcellogentile1, YouTube, 11/02/11

At the other end of the Americas, there are The Falklands, or Las Malvinas, as they are known in Buenos Aires. A well-known island disupte which provoked a war between the two claimants in 1982. The UK posititon is clear: the islands were, are, and will remain British, for as long as the Falklanders themselves wish to remain under British jurisdiction (which at the moment they do). The Argentine outlook takes a similar line: the islands were, are, and ought to be part of Argentina. One only needs to look at an Argentine national map to understand the geographical stubbornness. But there has been a change of dynamic since 1982. Back then, Chile and the US both openly backed the UK, and Spain supported Argentina. But now many of Latin America’s leaders have openly urged the devolution of the islands back to Argentina, and idea rejected by London. Hugo Chavez famously railed against what he views as another example of ‘Western imperialism’.

The Kurils are next to Japan and form part of a territorial island link chain that goes north to Kamchatka. The Falklands are nearly 8,000 miles away from the UK. But the issue of island disputes is extremely old, complicated and is prevalent across the world (the examples above are just three of the more prominent disputes). It is not an argument that can be simply resolved by stating history, distance from home country or ‘proper ownership’.

Rumblings of Delhi belly

Thousands marching in cities across the country. Politicians vilified. Demands for change. While the media spotlight has been on Egypt, the public have also been on the move in India.

The clamour has been over the increasing corruption that the nation fears is infecting their politicians and business leaders. Nepotism, embezzlement and abuse of powers are all charges that have been levelled at the political class. Manmohan Singh, the prime minister, has stood firm and said he will not ‘spare’ anyone found guilty of corruption.

In December, the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party-led coalition headed a huge anti-sleaze demonstration in the capital. However the latest protests were not party-specific and it seems that the public is tired of all political corruption.

India is at an interesting global intersection at the moment and must aim publicly to clean up politics to ensure the continued smooth running of the fast-developing country. In December it signed an historic arms trade deal with Russia, deepening the ties between the two BRIC countries. It is undergoing a census of its 1.2 billion citizens. Kashmir remains a sticking-point in the region but it can provide India with a platform for reformist and more open dialogue in the future, even though it will never accept secessionist plans.

The sub-continent is in a time of trial. Pakistan, despite the exciting news for adrenaline-loving snow enthusiasts that a ski resort has opened in the Swat Valley, is nearing boiling point. The war in Afghanistan is going on inside its borders, sectarian violence is increasing and as the pressure increasing on politicians, the risks become ever more deadly.

But the Indian government ought not to discard talks with Pakistan simply because of the violence and the historic entrenchment over the area. India can continue to grow politically and this would help it grow into its shoes as the second-biggest country in the world, a role it might be able to play in the years to come on all levels – not just in terms of population.

Reporting the dead: Part Two

The Press Emblem Campaign (PEC) has published its end-of-year report and it does not make easy reading for journalists. This is the second part of a two-part blogpost. Here we analyse the figures since 2006.

  • 2006 – 2010 – Death toll: 529

a) The five most deadly countries

1. Iraq 127

The ongoing insurgency has caused the most problems for reporters but religious conflict between the different Muslim congregations and ethnic troubles towards the Kurdish north of the country have contributed to make Iraq the most dangerous nation for journalists in the last 5 years. The withdrawal of UK and US combat troops was meant to herald a change in the fortunes for Iraqis but the militancy has continued.

2. The Philippines 59

Developing fast with a mushrooming population, the Philippines is becoming a deadly platform for reporting. Inter-religious divisions and ethnic bonds spill over into the politics, which sees a number of assassinations every year. Journalists are regularly caught up in the shootings.

3. Mexico 47

Five years ago, Felipe Calderon was sworn into office as Mexico’s president. In the same year he launched his ‘war on drugs’, an aggressive policy of taking on the gangsters head-to-head with the military spearheading the campaign. Five years later and a staggering 28,000 people have died in the violence. The majority have been gang members, but thousands of policemen and soldiers have died too. And so have 47 journalists, unsure over what to publish and what to broadcast as the cartels’ media influence grows. As the war intensifies and continues, it becomes an increasingly deadly news story to report.

4. Pakistan 38

The NATO coalition’s war in Afghanistan has spread to Pakistan and although operations began in Afghanistan in 2001, over the last 5 years there has been increased activity in Pakistan; both by the Taliban and by mainly US forces. When the militancy is added to religious strife, the ongoing Kashmir situation and corrupt politics, it is clear that the journalistic atmosphere is particularly dangerous.

5. Somalia 23

A country without a full-functional government since 1993, Somalia has been the scene of fierce fighting and warfare mainly between government troops and Islamist militias, of which Al-Shabab is the most prominent. Recently, African Union peacekeepers have been trying to improve stability in the capital, but intimidation and violence from the militants have meant very little press freedom.

b) The rest of the world

Africa (18): DRC 7, Nigeria 7, Angola 4

Asia (70): Sri Lanka 15, Afghanistan 14, India 14, Nepal 9, Thailand 6, Israel/Gaza 5, Indonesia 4, Lebanon 3

Europe (26): Russia 21, Georgia 5

Latin America (44): Colombia 19, Honduras 14, Venezuela 7, Guatemala 4

Reporting the dead: Part One

The Press Emblem Campaign (PEC) has published its end-of-year report and it does not make easy reading for journalists. This is the first part of a two-part blogpost analysing the data.

In 2010, 105 journalists were killed. Since 2006, 529 have died. The risky countries are not surprising. However, there are different reasons for the dangers faced by reporters and cameramen out on the roads.

There are two main sets of figures the PEC has released: this blogpost will look at this year’s figures and the next blogpost will analyse the global total of journalists’ deaths since 2006.

  • 2010 – Death toll: 105

a) The five most deadly countries in the last year

1 = Mexico and Pakistan 14 dead in both

With more than 3,000 people killed in Ciudad Juarez, a northern border town, this year alone, it is no great shock that the ‘war on drugs’ has claimed journalists’ lives in Mexico. The reporting of drugs deals and violence is often accompanied by death threats and in September the newspaper ‘El Diario de Juarez’ published a frank editorial to the gangs titled ‘What do you want from us?’ and agreed to print what the gangs wanted after one of its photographers was shot dead.

More than 3,000 died in violence in Pakistan last year. Militancy, tribal wars, US drone strikes and the Pakistani armed forces’ battles against Taliban insurgents have contributed to the rising deaths. Journalists covering the militancy have been shot as political, religious and international tensions grow.

3. Honduras 9

Since the 2009 coup, which installed Porfirio Lobo as the new premier, politically-motivated murders have been on the rise. In addition, the contagion of Mexico’s ‘war on drugs’ has spread to the country and that has caused further problems for journalists in the field.

4. Iraq 8

US combat operations ceased in Iraq this year but thousands of troops are still in the country training troops and aiding stabilisation policies. The insurgency has claimed 8 journalists’ lives this year alone.

5. The Philippines 6

Religious conflict in the mainly-Muslim south and the ferocious and deadly politics, where ethnicity, party allegiances, family ties and religion meet in a lethal mix, have created an unstable environment in which to report.

b) The deadliest nations in the rest of the world

Africa (14): Nigeria 4, Somalia 3, Angola 2, Uganda 2, Cameroon 1, DRC 1, Rwanda 1

Asia (16): Indonesia 3, Nepal 3, Afghanistan 2, Thailand 2, India 2, Bangladesh 1, Yemen 1, Israel/Gaza 1, Lebanon 1

Europe (11): Russia 5, Belarus 1, Bulgaria 1, Cyprus 1, Greece 1, Ukraine 1, Turkey 1

Latin America (13): Colombia 4, Brazil 4, Venezuela 2, Argentina 1, Ecuador 1, Guatemala 1