El Norte (14)

El Norte (13)

El Norte (12)

El Norte (11)

El Norte (10)

El Norte (9)

El Norte (8)

El Norte (7)

El Norte (6)

El Norte (5)

El Norte (4)

El Norte (3)

El Norte (2)

El Norte (1)

Latin America rebels against Obama over Cuba

http://news.yahoo.com/latin-america-rebels-against-u-over-cuba-193839285.html


CARTAGENA, Colombia (Reuters) - Unprecedented Latin American opposition to U.S. sanctions on Cuba left President Barack Obama isolated at a summit on Sunday and illustrated Washington's declining influence in a region being aggressively courted by China.

Unlike the rock-star status he enjoyed at the 2009 Summit of the Americas after taking office, Obama has had a bruising time at the two-day meeting in Colombia of some 30 heads of state.
Sixteen U.S. security personnel were caught in an embarrassing prostitution scandal before Obama arrived, Brazil and others have bashed Obama over U.S. monetary policy and he has been on the defensive over Cuba and calls to legalize drugs.

Due to the hostile U.S. and Canadian line on communist-run Cuba, the heads of state failed to produce a final declaration as the summit fizzled out on Sunday afternoon.
"There was no declaration because there was no consensus," said Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos. He bristled at suggestions the summit had been a failure, however, saying the exchange of different views was a sign of democratic health. For the first time, conservative-led U.S. allies like Mexico and Colombia are throwing their weight behind the traditional demand of leftist governments that Cuba be invited to the next Summit of the Americas.

Cuba was kicked out of the Organization of American States (OAS) a few years after Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution and has been kept out of its summits due mainly to U.S. opposition.
But Latin American leaders are increasingly militant in opposing both Cuba's exclusion and the 50-year-old U.S. trade embargo on the Caribbean island. "The isolation, the embargo, the indifference, looking the other way, have been ineffective," Santos said. "I hope Cuba is at the next summit in three years." Santos, a major U.S. ally in the region who has relied on Washington for financial and military help to fight guerrillas and drug traffickers, has become vocal about Cuba's inclusion even though he also advocates for democratic reform by Havana.

CLINTON PARTIES IN "CAFE HAVANA"

In an ironic twist to the debate, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went dancing in the early hours of Sunday at a Cartagena bar called Cafe Havana, where Cuban music is played.
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez, who has insisted without success that Washington recognize its claim to the Falkland Islands controlled by Britain, was one of several presidents who left the summit well before its official closure.

She missed a verbal gaffe by Obama, who referred to the "Maldives" instead of the "Malvinas" when using the name Latin Americans give to the disputed islands. The leftist ALBA bloc of nations - including Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua and some Caribbean nations - said they will not attend future summits without Cuba's presence. "It's not a favour anyone would be doing to Cuba. It's a right they've had taken away from them," Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said from Managua.

Although there were widespread hopes for a rapprochement with Cuba under Obama when he took office, Washington has done little beyond ease some travel restrictions. It insists Cuba must first make changes, including the release of political prisoners. Obama told a news conference after the summit he was "puzzled" that nations that had themselves emerged from authoritarian rule would overlook that in Cuba. "I and the American people will welcome a time when the Cuban people have the freedom to live their lives, choose their leaders and fully participate in this global economy and international institutions. We haven't gotten there yet," he said.
Obama urged Cuba to look at political and economic transformations in Colombia, Brazil and Chile for inspiration.

PROSTITUTION SCANDAL

The prostitution saga was a big embarrassment for Obama and a blow to the prestige of his Secret Service, the agency that provides security for U.S. presidents. It was the talk of the town in the historic Caribbean coastal city of Cartagena. Eleven Secret Service agents were sent home and five military servicemen grounded after trying to take prostitutes back to their hotel the day before Obama arrived. Obama said in general his security personnel did an extraordinary job under stressful circumstances but he would be annoyed if the allegations were proven by an investigation.

"We represent the people of the United States and when we travel to another country I expect them to observe the highest standards," Obama said of the reports. "If it turns out that some of the allegations that have been made in the press are confirmed, then of course I will be angry."
A local policeman told Reuters the affair came to a head when hotel staff tried to register a prostitute at the front desk but agents refused and waved their ID cards. Locals were unimpressed and upset at the negative headlines."Someone who's charged with looking after the security of the most important president in the world cannot commit the mistake of getting mixed up with a prostitute," said Cartagena tourist guide Rodolfo Galvis, 60. "This has damaged the image of the Secret Service, not Colombia."

The divisive end to the summit added to strain on the U.S.-dominated system of hemispheric diplomacy that was built around the OAS but is struggling to adapt to changes in the region.
"I'm not sure the next summit will even be possible," said Carlos Gaviria, a Colombian politician and former presidential candidate. Perceived U.S. neglect of Latin America has allowed China to move strongly into the region and become the leading trade partner of Brazil and various other nations. Regional economic powerhouse Brazil has led criticism at the summit of U.S. and other rich nations' expansionist monetary policy that is sending a flood of funds into developing nations, forcing up local currencies and hurting competitiveness.
Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff called it a "monetary tsunami" that Latin American nations had the right to defend themselves from. Cheering the mood a bit, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk announced that a U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement will come into force in the middle of May. With a presidential election looming, Obama had portrayed his visit to the summit as a way to generate jobs at home by boosting trade with Latin America.

(Editing by Bill Trott)

The United States is taking its Latin American partners for granted which is opening the door for other countries to step in

By Laura Ebert
April 2, 2012

In March 2011, President Obama pledged a new era of partnership with Latin America during a 5-day trip to the region. The focus did not remain on Latin America for long, as the trip was overshadowed by the U.S. decision to intervene in Libya. More recently, the Obama administration announced a shift in foreign policy focus from the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific region, while largely ignoring Latin America. Moreover, as the presidential election approaches, none of the candidates has yet put forth a comprehensive policy towards Latin America, and the region is rarely discussed on the campaign trail.

Latin America is a vital region to U.S. interests and merits more attention from the Obama administration and the presidential candidates. In additional to its geographic proximity, Latin America is strategically important for many reasons. Most Latin American countries support U.S. policies and have embraced democracy and open economic systems, making the region a natural partner for the United States. The U.S. economy is deeply intertwined with that of Latin America, and the region is exceptionally open to U.S. business. Latin America is also the fastest growing U.S. export market. Between 1998 and 2009, trade to Latin America grew by 82%. Furthermore, over half of the U.S. foreign-born population comes from Latin America, which allows the United States to take advantage of close cultural, personal, and professional connections between the regions.

The United States has always played a dominant role in Latin America, but while our attention is focused elsewhere, other countries are making inroads and gaining influence. China, in particular, has been lending to and trading with the region to an unprecedented degree. In 2010, China lent more to the region than the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and United States Export-Import Bank combined . China also recently supplanted the United States as the top trading partner in several Latin American nations including Brazil, Peru, and Chile. Failure to engage the region economically means the United States is losing market share in this fast growing export market.

Similarly, by failing to make progress on regional problems like the illegal drug trade, corruption, poverty, and violence, the U.S. is losing the region's trust in its policies. Drug trade-related deaths in Mexico rose 11% in 2010 on top of a 70% rise in deaths in 2009. Even while progress appears to have been made in places like Colombia, the problems have only been pushed elsewhere, as surrounding countries such as Peru, Venezuela, and Ecuador experience rising violence attributed to drug cartels. Similarly, while poverty rates have fallen, Latin America remains the world’s most unequal region with significant barriers to social and economic mobility.

The result of these failures is regional polarization and instability, which threaten U.S. national security and contribute to illegal immigration. Increasing violence and corruption threaten rule of law and democratic institutions in already weak and struggling states like Honduras. The drug trade displaces legitimate economic activity and increases transportation and security costs. This discourages investment, which has a negative effect on economic growth. The lack of jobs and security has caused many to flee, often illegally, to the United States. Others have embraced policies touted by U.S. rivals. Countries like Iran have already taken advantage of the diminished support for U.S. policies in places like Venezuela and Nicaragua, garnering support for pursuing Iranian policies instead. Recent reports of covert Iranian activities in Latin America demonstrate the potential security concern.

In response, the President and the presidential hopefuls should develop comprehensive strategies aimed at engaging Latin America and participating in multilateral partnerships to deal with the issues at stake. Particular focus should be placed on further integrating the region's economies and encouraging open, pro-democratic, and sustainable economic development. Sustainable development will go a long way to alleviate the poverty and address the lack of alternatives that currently drive illegal immigration and participation in the drug trade. Multilateral initiatives and trade agreements will strengthen inter-country cooperation and economic integration, bringing the region closer together and counteracting polarizing forces like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Other initiatives that can revitalize and refocus the U.S.-Latin American relationship include regional cooperation on security, immigration reform, simplification of the visa process faced by Latin American businessmen in the U.S., and support of non-governmental organizations that promote human rights, education, and democracy.

The U.S. is taking its Latin American partners for granted. If the U.S. continues to place little emphasis on the region, it may soon see its influence erode and its partnerships weaken. Other countries with significantly different values and political goals will take its place. As the President and the presidential candidates formulate and debate their economic strategies, they would be wise not to forget Latin America.

Why Bilinguals Are Smarter

SPEAKING two languages rather than just one has obvious practical benefits in an increasingly globalized world. But in recent years, scientists have begun to show that the advantages of bilingualism are even more fundamental than being able to converse with a wider range of people. Being bilingual, it turns out, makes you smarter. It can have a profound effect on your brain, improving cognitive skills not related to language and even shielding against dementia in old age.

This view of bilingualism is remarkably different from the understanding of bilingualism through much of the 20th century. Researchers, educators and policy makers long considered a second language to be an interference, cognitively speaking, that hindered a child’s academic and intellectual development.

They were not wrong about the interference: there is ample evidence that in a bilingual’s brain both language systems are active even when he is using only one language, thus creating situations in which one system obstructs the other. But this interference, researchers are finding out, isn’t so much a handicap as a blessing in disguise. It forces the brain to resolve internal conflict, giving the mind a workout that strengthens its cognitive muscles.

Bilinguals, for instance, seem to be more adept than monolinguals at solving certain kinds of mental puzzles. In a 2004 study by the psychologists Ellen Bialystok and Michelle Martin-Rhee, bilingual and monolingual preschoolers were asked to sort blue circles and red squares presented on a computer screen into two digital bins — one marked with a blue square and the other marked with a red circle.

In the first task, the children had to sort the shapes by color, placing blue circles in the bin marked with the blue square and red squares in the bin marked with the red circle. Both groups did this with comparable ease. Next, the children were asked to sort by shape, which was more challenging because it required placing the images in a bin marked with a conflicting color. The bilinguals were quicker at performing this task.

The collective evidence from a number of such studies suggests that the bilingual experience improves the brain’s so-called executive function — a command system that directs the attention processes that we use for planning, solving problems and performing various other mentally demanding tasks. These processes include ignoring distractions to stay focused, switching attention willfully from one thing to another and holding information in mind — like remembering a sequence of directions while driving.

Why does the tussle between two simultaneously active language systems improve these aspects of cognition? Until recently, researchers thought the bilingual advantage stemmed primarily from an ability for inhibition that was honed by the exercise of suppressing one language system: this suppression, it was thought, would help train the bilingual mind to ignore distractions in other contexts. But that explanation increasingly appears to be inadequate, since studies have shown that bilinguals perform better than monolinguals even at tasks that do not require inhibition, like threading a line through an ascending series of numbers scattered randomly on a page.

The key difference between bilinguals and monolinguals may be more basic: a heightened ability to monitor the environment. “Bilinguals have to switch languages quite often — you may talk to your father in one language and to your mother in another language,” says Albert Costa, a researcher at the University of Pompeu Fabra in Spain. “It requires keeping track of changes around you in the same way that we monitor our surroundings when driving.” In a study comparing German-Italian bilinguals with Italian monolinguals on monitoring tasks, Mr. Costa and his colleagues found that the bilingual subjects not only performed better, but they also did so with less activity in parts of the brain involved in monitoring, indicating that they were more efficient at it.

The bilingual experience appears to influence the brain from infancy to old age (and there is reason to believe that it may also apply to those who learn a second language later in life).

In a 2009 study led by Agnes Kovacs of the International School for Advanced Studies in Trieste, Italy, 7-month-old babies exposed to two languages from birth were compared with peers raised with one language. In an initial set of trials, the infants were presented with an audio cue and then shown a puppet on one side of a screen. Both infant groups learned to look at that side of the screen in anticipation of the puppet. But in a later set of trials, when the puppet began appearing on the opposite side of the screen, the babies exposed to a bilingual environment quickly learned to switch their anticipatory gaze in the new direction while the other babies did not.

Bilingualism’s effects also extend into the twilight years. In a recent study of 44 elderly Spanish-English bilinguals, scientists led by the neuropsychologist Tamar Gollan of the University of California, San Diego, found that individuals with a higher degree of bilingualism — measured through a comparative evaluation of proficiency in each language — were more resistant than others to the onset of dementia and other symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease: the higher the degree of bilingualism, the later the age of onset.

Nobody ever doubted the power of language. But who would have imagined that the words we hear and the sentences we speak might be leaving such a deep imprint?

Colombia’s oil industry-- Gushers and guns

IT HAS attracted much less attention than the big deep-sea oil finds in Brazil, but Colombia is also enjoying an oil boom. Its output of crude has nearly doubled in the past six years, from 525,000 b/d in 2005 to a daily average of 914,000 last year. But as exploration pushes deep into the country’s eastern lowlands, oil companies face a familiar problem in rural Colombia: security.

Emerald Energy, a British subsidiary of China’s Sinochem, has endured repeated attacks by the FARC guerrillas on its small Ombú field in Caquetá. Security officials in the area say the FARC is demanding $10 for each barrel of oil. Because the company refused to pay, three of Emerald’s Chinese staff, together with their translator, were kidnapped last June. After a bomb attack on a well, Emerald announced on March 6th that it would suspend operations “until security conditions improve”. After receiving assurances from military commanders, production resumed the next day, but six days later oil tankers carrying crude from Ombú came under guerrilla fire, leaving two civilians dead.

Although Colombia is generally a much safer country than it was a decade or more ago, attacks on oil infrastructure more than doubled between 2008 and 2011, according to the Centre for Security and Democracy at Bogotá’s Sergio Arboleda University. In January and February there were 13 separate attacks on the country’s main pipeline, from Caño Limón to Coveñas, which was able to pump oil for only 20 days in that period. The trans-Andean pipeline in the south was attacked 51 times last year. In February the ELN, a smaller guerrilla group, kidnapped 11 men in Casanare who were building the Bicentenario, a big new pipeline. Officials say that guerrillas are behind some disruptive protests by local people in oil areas, demanding more money and jobs.

The spike in violence “has us worried”, says Alejandro Martínez, president of the Colombian Petroleum Association, which groups together private oil companies operating in the country. But he adds that the industry’s security problems are in part a consequence of its own success. It offers a much bigger target nowadays.

Several things lie behind the oil boom. To attract investment, the governments of Álvaro Uribe, Colombia’s president from 2002 to 2010, licensed large areas of the country for exploration and offered tax breaks. Private firms were no longer required to form partnerships with Ecopetrol, the state oil company. And the government sold shares in Ecopetrol, allowing it to increase its capital spending fourfold since 2007. At the same time, Colombia benefited from the improvement in security, and the hostility of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina to foreign investors.

In all, foreign direct investment in the oil industry jumped from $278m in 2003 to $4.3 billion in 2011, according to the central bank. Many of the new investors are start-ups, listed in Canada but run by technicians sacked from PDVSA, Venezuela’s state oil company, by Hugo Chávez after a strike in 2003. Though some new fields are in Caquetá and Putumayo, where few foreign firms dared venture before, most of the extra output comes from using new technology to increase recovery at old wells. Production at the Rubiales field, discovered in 1981, has risen from 8,000 b/d in 2007 to 165,000 last year.

The spate of attacks on oil installations, however, meant that output fell short of the government’s forecast of 1m b/d by the end of last year. Reaching the target of 1.5m b/d by 2015 will require continuing pressure on the guerrillas.

The violence is in part a reaction to a reform of royalties by Juan Manuel Santos, Mr Uribe’s successor. Most used to go to mayors in oil areas, and were often stolen by guerrillas or paramilitaries. Royalties now go to the central government, which hands them out according to stricter criteria. So the gunmen have switched to extorting from oil companies rather than mayors. That, too, looks like a problem of success—but one that needs to be fixed.

Draft dodgers no more - Can the Dominican Republic avoid Puerto Rico’s fate?

http://www.economist.com/node/21546064

Baseball in Latin America

Draft dodgers no more

Can the Dominican Republic avoid Puerto Rico’s fate?

Feb 4th 2012 | SANTO DOMINGO | from the print edition

 

Try a cricket bat instead SEEN from the air, much of Puerto Rico’s northern coast is a mosaic of rooftops and treetops dotted with countless baseball diamonds. The island of 4m has sent a total of 234 players to America’s Major League Baseball (MLB)—twice as many as Mexico. Its Baseball Hall of Fame, just outside San Juan, features a salon full of life-size statues of Puerto Rico’s athletic pantheon. It even includes a famous broadcaster seated at his microphone.

Today, however, the fields are mostly used for football. Just 2.6% of MLB players are Puerto Rican, down from 4.3% in 2001. The island’s renowned winter baseball league cancelled its season in 2007. A typical game now draws fewer spectators than nearby women’s volleyball matches. Its four teams are on the block for around $750,000 each. No one is buying. Several factors account for this decline. They include better job opportunities outside sports and competition from basketball, reggaetón music, multiplexes and malls. But the biggest was MLB’s inclusion of the island in its amateur draft in 1990.

Every year, MLB teams select 1,500 players from schools and universities. The clubs get to pick in reverse order of their finish in the league the previous season. Draftees can negotiate only with the team that chooses them. Officially, the draft is meant to help the worst teams by giving them the best young talent. But all clubs love it because it reduces signing bonuses.

When the draft began in 1965, only Americans were eligible. But 25 years later MLB extended it to Canada and Puerto Rico. In theory, this should not have affected the number of Puerto Ricans signed, since undrafted players become free agents, who can sign with any team they wish. But in practice, MLB clubs rarely sign them; they tell them to go to university and try their luck in the draft later on. The draft thus forced Puerto Ricans to compete with Americans for a fixed number of places.

Moreover, whereas Puerto Ricans could previously be signed at age 16, a high-school degree (usually given at 18) is required for the draft. Since the island’s schools do not have baseball teams, its 16- and 17-year-olds had nowhere to train. As a result, the number of Puerto Rican MLB signings fell by 13% in 1991-92. Meanwhile, players from the Dominican Republic (DR) and Venezuela remained free agents. Their numbers soared (see chart).

Now those countries may be facing Puerto Rico’s fate. As more clubs started to recruit in Latin America, signing bonuses took off: the average payout in the DR rose from $29,000 in 2004 to $108,000 in 2008. In response, teams tried to cut costs. In November MLB’s teams and its players’ union reached a deal that levies a tax on clubs whose spending on foreign free agents exceeds a cap. It also sets up a committee to institute an international draft by 2014.

In the DR, MLB’s biggest source of foreign players, the reaction has been apoplectic. Baseball is big business there: MLB’s direct value to the economy is $125m-150m a year (0.3% of GDP). Its 30 clubs all have training academies for their players, mainly in poor rural areas. They employ 1,200 people, many in new professions like groundskeeper and sports nutritionist. And in response to criticism that they exploit youngsters, they are offering better education. The Pittsburgh Pirates require four hours of class a day, and last year granted 13 high-school degrees.

The indirect benefits are bigger still. An estimated 2,000-3,000 scouts and trainers, called buscones, scour the country for players and house, feed and instruct them until they sign an MLB contract. They charge 30% of the bonus. Some buscones employ dozens of workers. The winter league plays nearly 200 games a year, each drawing thousands of fans. Casa de Campo, a golf resort, now has a Latino Baseball Hall of Fame. Many players also have charities: Pedro Martínez, a star pitcher, has built a youth centre offering art, cooking and computer classes to 300 students. A draft could put all this in peril, by reducing bonuses and possibly the number of contracts.

Rafael Pérez, MLB’s director of Dominican operations, insists that MLB wants at least to maintain the current number of foreign signings. But many buscones accuse MLB of selling out Latinos to protect American players’ jobs. They note there is just one Latino on MLB’s international-talent committee—who, as the son of an MLB player, mostly grew up in America. “I feel like we’re being invaded, like it’s 1965 all over again,” says Astin Jacobo, a buscón, referring to America’s occupation of the DR. “We’re only number one in one thing, and that’s baseball. We can’t give that away.”

A group of Dominican buscones has already held anti-draft protests. They might convince MLB to set up a separate draft for foreigners with an eligibility age of 16, which would be less disruptive than extending America’s draft abroad. But stopping the draft entirely will be hard.Many buscones talk of a strike. But they have not formed a union. Even if they do, they could not stop their players from opting to sign with MLB teams.That leaves the government. Felipe Payano, the sports minister, has already written a letter to Bud Selig, MLB’s commissioner, expressing his opposition to a draft. He says his office is investigating whether it might violate the DR’s free-trade agreement with America. Another option would be to sue MLB for collusion under Dominican antitrust law. But it would take a lot of pluck for a small, poor, baseball-dependent country to pick a fight like that.

Corruption in Argentine football -- Foul play

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2012/02/corruption-argentine-football/print

Feb 18th 2012, 14:23 by D.S. | BUENOS AIRES

RENOWNED worldwide for their sublime skills, Argentina’s footballers are a source of great pride to their countrymen. Yet few law-abiding Argentines hold their football league in similar high regard. Many of those involved in it are tainted by corruption, from club presidents down to security guards at matches. Money laundering in the system is thought to be rife. In a long-overdue effort to clean up the game, the government this month introduced new financial-disclosure requirements for the league and its teams. But these still pale in comparison with the scale of the problem.
Argentina has been under pressure to combat corruption since last June, when the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an international body set up to fight money laundering, placed it on a “grey list” of countries whose efforts to root out wrongdoing do not measure up. Although the FATF did not single out football, it had expressed its concerns about money laundering in the game in a report published in July 2009, which made reference to Argentina. Inclusion on the grey list carries an implicit warning that a country risks ending up on the FATF’s notorious “black list” unless it makes progress. Countries in that category have, in the past, found it extremely difficult to do business with any of the FATF’s 34 members, which include big economies like America, Britain and France, as well as Mexico, another Latin American heavyweight.
Largely in response to the FATF’s criticisms, the government this month forced the Argentine Football Association, the sport’s national governing body, to adopt a new set of rules. For a start, it must file an annual report on every member of staff paid at least $13,800 a year (including bonuses, prizes and gifts), as must every club in the top two divisions of the league. They also have to provide details of payments they make to corporate sponsors, government officials and anybody else with whom they do business. Failure to disclose this information can result in a fine of up to $23,000. And if reports uncover evidence of illegal payments, the fine can be as much as ten times the sum involved. Unless the Argentine Football Association strictly enforces the new rules, the government says it will withdraw the $200m it provides each year so that football fans can enjoy televised matches free of charge.
None of this is likely to be sufficient to stop the rot. Corruption has flourished due largely to the activities of the so-called barrabravas, violent groups of fans with interests in organised crime. The story of their rise dates back to the 1950s, when officials started trading free tickets for fans’ votes, which they needed to win election to a club’s board. As these fans grew more powerful and demanding, they began to take illicit control of club affairs like ticketing and the sale of refreshments during matches. Today, club directors often owe their positions entirely to barrabravas. Footballers are also under their control, sometimes splitting wages with them. Players from Boca Juniors, Argentina’s most popular club, even visited Rafael Di Zeo (pictured), the former boss of the team’s barrabrava, when he was in jail (he was released in May 2010 after serving more than three years for assault).
Barrabravas have already taken some blame for the decline of several big clubs in recent years. The most notable case is that of River Plate, one of the oldest teams in Latin America, which was relegated to the second division last year for the first time in its 110-year history. Its demotion followed years of mismanagement and corruption—exacerbated by infighting between members of the club’s own barrabrava—that left it saddled with huge debts, forcing it to sell its most gifted players to wealthy European clubs.
The new rules are certainly a step in the right direction for Argentina. Besides making it harder for miscreants to launder money with impunity, the government has given the Argentine Football Association an incentive to police the system effectively by threatening to withdraw its funding of television coverage. But having shown scant regard for existing laws and regulations, the barrabravas seem unlikely to pay much heed to new rules on financial disclosure. If Argentina’s government is serious about ending the corruption, it will need to confront the gangs on the terraces and in the streets. That is an altogether tougher prospect.

Women in Mexican politics. The XX factor -- Can a woman candidate count on female voters’ support?

http://www.economist.com/node/21547282

UNTIL this year, no woman had ever been the presidential candidate for any of Mexico’s main political parties. That changed on February 5th, when Josefina Vázquez Mota, a former secretary of education and of social development, won the primary of the conservative National Action Party (PAN). “I will be Mexico’s first presidenta” (female president), she said in her victory speech.

Ms Vázquez is a clear underdog in the July 1st election. Polls taken before the primary put the centrist Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) nearly 20 points ahead of the ruling PAN (see chart). Voters have tired of the PAN, which has presided over slow growth and rising violence during 11 years in power. Ms Vázquez could even finish third behind Andrés Manuel López Obrador of the Party of the Democratic Revolution, a left-winger who narrowly lost the 2006 race.

No one knows if Mexico’s supposedly macho voters are open to a female candidate. Women only gained the right to vote in 1953. But Mexican politics is not especially male-dominated: women hold over a quarter of congressional seats. That is a higher proportion than America’s and twice as high as the share in Brazil, which elected a female president in 2010.
Ms Vázquez has said she considers her sex an advantage. It certainly helps to distinguish her from Felipe Calderón, the unpopular current president and a fellow PAN member. According to Mitofsky, a polling firm, women outnumber men by a fifth among her supporters.
Meanwhile, her rivals’ attempts to woo female voters have not gone well. The PRI’s handsome Enrique Peña Nieto, whose rallies draw throngs of swooning señoritas, was thought to have an edge with them. But when he was recently asked if he knew the price of meat and tortillas, he replied that he was not “the lady of the house”. A few weeks later an ex-girlfriend accused him of neglecting children he fathered outside marriage. The fiery Mr López has tried to soften his image by promising a “loving republic”. But women seem unmoved. A majority of both candidates’ fans are male.
Women have always been less likely to vote than men in Mexico. Might that change this year? The gender gap has disappeared in school-attendance and literacy rates. A third of women work outside the home, helped by a fall in the fertility rate from nearly seven children per woman in the 1960s to around two today. But younger Mexicans of both sexes are less likely to vote than others; and Ms Vázquez’s opposition to abortion may not appeal to the new generation of empowered women. She clearly needs their support to close the gap.

What does "Latin Music" mean to you?

What does "Latin Music" mean to you?
It what way is it representative of the culture?
It what way isn't it?
Do you have a favorite Latin music video?
Include the link in your comment.

The Discontents of Progress

 <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/21534798"></a>

LATIN Americans are demanding more of their democracies, their institutions and governments; they worry about crime almost as much as about economic problems; and fewer of them think that their country is progressing. Those are some of the findings of the latest Latinobarómetro poll, taken in 18 countries and published exclusively by The Economist. Because the poll has been taken regularly since 1995, it does a good job showing how attitudes in the region are changing.

Despite Latin America’s strong recovery from the recession of 2008-09, this year’s poll, which was taken in July and August, reveals some diffuse discontents. It suggests that little over half of Latin Americans are convinced democrats, a fall of three points since last year (see table and chart 1). Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico all saw a sharp slump in support for democracy, probably because of high levels of violent crime in all those countries. Only 45% of Brazilian respondents were convinced democrats, a nine-point fall from last year: it is harder to pinpoint why, except perhaps that Dilma Rousseff, the new president has taken a tough line on corruption, thus drawing more attention to it.

Only 39% of respondents across the region said they were satisfied with the way their country’s democracy works in practice—a fall of five points compared with last year. Argentines were much more satisfied than in 2010—which helps to explain why Cristina Fernández easily won a second term in a presidential election this month. Chile leads several countries where disgruntlement is rising: only 32% of Chilean respondents were satisfied with the operation of their democracy, down from 56% last year (see chart 2).

That doubtless reflects months of protests over the high price of education in Chile (see article). The quality of public services is becoming an increasingly important issue across the region, especially for what is dubbed the “new middle class”. “There’s a feeling among those who have left poverty that it’s much more difficult to carry on rising,” says Marta Lagos, Latinobarómetro’s director. “They want to compete on equal terms with the rich.”

Some Latin Americans feel that their governments are not giving them value for money: 96% of respondents in Brazil thought that taxes were “high” or “very high”, while only 13% think that they will be well spent. A clear majority continue to believe in the market economy. Such attitudes ought to provide an opportunity for politicians of the centre-right in a region that has voted for many leftish governments over the past decade. But against that, only 20% of respondents think that the distribution of income in their country is fair. (That number rises to 43% in Ecuador, which helps to explain the popularity of its populist president, Rafael Correa.)

This more demanding attitude is also reflected in falls in the number of respondents who think their country is making progress (see chart 3). These declines are particularly pronounced in Chile and Brazil, two countries where the “new middle class” is numerous, but also in the Dominican Republic and Costa Rica, whose economies have grown strongly in recent years. This year’s poll also reveals a slight fall in confidence in the region’s institutions of all kinds (see chart 4). In the case of governments (in which 40% of respondents expressed confidence, down from 45% in 2010), this follows several years in which public trust has risen. Confidence in the Catholic church among respondents in Chile has plummeted to just 38%, from 62% last year, following a paedophilia scandal.

This year’s more disgruntled mood is striking because public concern about unemployment and economic problems has returned to its pre-crisis level (see chart 5). But Latin Americans worry more about crime: 28% of respondents (and 61% in Venezuela) say this is the main problem in their country. Brazilians worry most about their health system, Chileans about education. In this, they may be trendsetters.

Latinobarómetro is a non-profit organisation based in Santiago, Chile, which has carried out regular surveys of opinions, attitudes and values in Latin America since 1995. The poll was taken by local opinion-research companies in 18 countries and involved 20,204 face-to-face interviews conducted between July 15th and August 16th 2011. The average margin of error is around 3%. Full details here

Crossing Over, and Over

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/03/world/americas/mexican-immigrants-repeatedly-brave-risks-to-resume-lives-in-united-states.html

By DAMIEN CAVE

AGUA PRIETA, Mexico — "My wife, my son — I have to get back to them," Daniel kept telling himself, from the moment he was arrested in Seattle for driving with an expired license, all the way through the deportation proceeding that delivered him to Mexico in June.

Nothing would deter him from crossing the border again. He had left his hometown at 24, he said. Twelve years later, he spoke nearly fluent English and had an American son, a wife and three brothers in the United States. "I’ll keep trying," he said, "until I’ll get there."

This is increasingly the profile of illegal immigration today. Migrant shelters along the Mexican border are filled not with newcomers looking for a better life, but with seasoned crossers: older men and women, often deportees, braving ever-greater risks to get back to their families in the United States — the country they consider home.

They present an enormous challenge to American policy makers, because they continue to head north despite obstacles more severe than at any time in recent history. It is not just that the American economy has little to offer; the border itself is far more threatening. On one side, fences have grown and American agents have multiplied; on the other, criminals haunt the journey at every turn.

And yet, while these factors — and better opportunities at home — have cut illegal immigration from Mexico to its lowest level in decades, they are not enough to scare off a sizable, determined cadre.

"We have it boiled down to the hardest lot," said Christopher Sabatini, senior director for policy at the Council of the Americas.

Indeed, 56 percent of apprehensions at the Mexican border in 2010 involved people who had been caught previously, up from 44 percent in 2005. A growing percentage of deportees in recent years have also been deported before, according to Department of Homeland Security figures.

For the Obama administration, these repeat offenders have become a high priority. Prosecutions for illegal re-entry have jumped by more than two-thirds since 2008. Officials say it is now the most prosecuted federal felony.

President Obama has already deported around 1.1 million immigrants — more than any president since Dwight D. Eisenhower — and officials say the numbers will not decline. But at a time when the dynamics of immigration are changing, experts and advocates on all sides are increasingly asking if the approach, which has defined immigration policy since 9/11, still makes sense.

Deportation is expensive, costing the government at least $12,500 per person, and it often does not work: between October 2008 and July 22 of this year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement spent $2.25 billion sending back 180,229 people who had been deported before and come back anyway. Many more have returned and stayed hidden.

Some groups favoring reduced immigration say that making life harder for illegal immigrants in this country would be far more efficient. They argue that along with eliminating work opportunities by requiring employers to verify the reported immigration status of new hires, Congress should also prohibit illegal immigrants from opening bank accounts, or even obtaining library cards.

"You’d reduce the number of people who keep coming back again and again," said Bob Dane, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. The alternative, says Doris Meissner, the country’s top immigration official in the mid-1990s, is to accept that illegal immigrants like Daniel "are people with fundamental ties to the United States, not where they came from."

"Our societies are so deeply connected," Ms. Meissner said, referring primarily to the United States and Mexico, the main source of illegal immigrants. "And that is not reflected at all in policy."

The administration acknowledges that immigrants like Daniel are rooted in the United States and typically have otherwise clean criminal records. But under its new plan introduced in August — suspending deportations for pending low-priority cases, including immigrants brought to the United States as children — repeat crossers are singled out for removal alongside "serious felons," "known gang members" and "individuals who pose a clear risk to national security."

Administration officials say they are trying to break the "yo-yo effect" of people bouncing back, as mandated by congress when it toughened laws related to illegal re-entry in the 1990s.

But some experts argue that this commingling actually undermines security. After a decade of record deportations, critics argue, it has become even harder to separate the two groups that now define the border: professional criminals and experienced migrants motivated by family ties in the United States.

"If you think drug dealers and terrorists are much more dangerous than maids and gardeners, then we should get as many visas as possible to those people, so we can focus on the real threat," said David Shirk, director of the Transborder Institute at the University of San Diego. "Widening the gates would strengthen the walls."

Crime and the Border

The border crossers pouring into Arizona a decade or two ago were more numerous, but less likely to be threatening. David Jimarez, a Border Patrol agent with years of experience south of Tucson, recalled that even when migrants outnumbered American authorities by 25 to 1, they did not resist. "They would just sit down and wait for us," he said.

Over the past few years, the mix has changed, with more drug smugglers and other criminals among the dwindling, but still substantial, ranks of migrants.

The impacts are far-reaching. In northern Mexico, less immigration means less business. Border towns like Agua Prieta, long known as a departure point, have gone from bustling to windblown. Taxis that ferried migrants to the mountains now gather dust. Restaurants and hotels, like the sunflower-themed Girasol downtown, are practically empty. On one recent afternoon, only 3 of the 50 rooms were occupied.

"In 2000, we were full every day," said Alejandro Rocha, the hotel’s manager.

New research from the University of California, San Diego, shows that crime is now the top concern for Mexicans thinking of heading north. As fear keeps many migrants home, many experienced border guides, or coyotes, have given up illegal migration for other jobs.

In Tijuana, across the border from San Diego, one well-known coyote is now selling tires. In Nogales, the largest Mexican city bordering Arizona, power has shifted to tattooed young men with expensive binoculars along the border fence, while here in Agua Prieta — where Mexican officials say traffic is one-thirthieth of what it once was — the only way to get across is to deal with gangs that sometimes push migrants to carry drugs.

It is even worse in Matamoros, across from Brownsville, Tex. Just standing at the border fence brings out drug cartel enforcers demanding $300 for the right to pass. Migrants and the organizations that assist them say cartel lieutenants roam the shelters, looking for deportees willing to work as lookouts, earning $400 a week until they have enough to pay for passage north.

"I was thinking about doing it, too," said Daniel, looking down. "But then I thought about my family."

American law enforcement officials say the matrix of drugs, migration and violence has become more visible at the border and along the trails and roads heading north, where more of the immigrants being caught carry drugs or guns — making them more likely to flee, resist arrest or commit other crimes.

"There’s less traffic, but traffic that’s there is more threatening," Mr. Jimarez, the border agent, said.

Larry Dever, the sheriff of Cochise County, Ariz., which sits north of Agua Prieta, agreed: "The guys smuggling people and narcotics now are more sinister."

His county, 6,169 square miles of scrub brush, ranches and tiny towns in the state’s southeast corner, has been an established crossing corridor since the mid-1990s. Since 2008, the police there have tracked every crime linked to illegal immigrants, in part because state and federal officials frequently requested data, treating the county as a bellwether of border security.

Indeed, when a Cochise rancher named Robert Krentz was killed in March 2010 after radioing to his brother that he was going to help a suspected illegal immigrant, the county quickly became a flash point for a larger debate that ultimately led to SB 1070, the polarizing Arizona bill giving the police more responsibility for cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Yet, crime involving illegal immigrants is relatively rare (5 percent of all local crime, Sheriff Dever said). Mostly it consists of burglaries involving stolen food. And, public records show, in 11 of the 18 violent crimes linked to illegal immigrants over 18 months, immigrants were both the victims and attackers.

This is not the portrait given by Republican border governors, including Rick Perry of Texas, a presidential candidate who recently said that "it is not safe on that border." But while Mexican drug cartels have increased their presence from Tucson to New York — sometimes engaging in brutal violence after entering the country illegally — Americans living near the border are generally safe.

A USA Today analysis of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California in July found that crime within 100 miles of the border is below both the national average and the average for each of those states — and has been declining for years. Several other independent researchers have come to the same conclusion.

But the border is not safe for people crossing or patrolling it. The number of immigrants found dead in the Arizona desert, from all causes, has failed to decline as fast as illegal immigration has, while assaults on Border Patrol agents grew by 41 percent from 2006 to 2010, almost entirely because of an increase in attacks with rocks. The heightened risks have stimulated a debate: Has the more aggressive approach — bigger fences, more agents and deportations — contributed to, or diminished, the danger?

Sheriff Dever, lionized as an "illegal immigration warrior" by immigration opponents, says that increased enforcement has made Americans safer and should continue until his neighbors tell him they are no longer afraid.

But some immigration advocates contend that the government’s approach is too broad to be effective. "We have to really separate out the guy who is coming to make a living with his family from the terrorist or the drug dealer," said Peter Siavelis, an editor of "Getting Immigration Right: What Every American Needs to Know."

Home Is Where the Children Are

Deportations have muddled that delineation. In a recent line of deportees piling off a bus on the San Diego side of a metal gate leading to Tijuana, all were equal: the criminal in prison garb with the wispy goatee; the mother averting her eyes; and longtime residents like Alberto Álvarez, 36, a janitor and father of five who said he was picked up for driving without a license.

"Look, I’ve been in the U.S. 18 years," he said, slinging a backpack over his Izod shirt. "Right now, my children are alone, my wife is alone caring for the kids by herself — they’ve separated us."

During the immigration wave that peaked around a decade ago, deportations often meant something different: many deportees had not been in the United States for long; they were going home.

But now that there are fewer new arrivals, the concept of home is changing. Of the roughly 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States, 48 percent arrived before 2000. For the 6.5 million Mexicans in the United States illegally, that figure is even higher — 55 percent, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. There are now also 4.5 million American-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents.

Experts on both sides of the debate say this large group of rooted immigrants presents the nation with a fundamental choice: Either make life in the United States so difficult for illegal immigrants that they leave on their own, or allow immigrants who pose no threat to public safety to remain with their families legally, though not necessarily as citizens.

Steven A. Camarota, a demographer at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, said the government should revoke automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants, and seize assets from deported illegal immigrants so they have fewer incentives to return.

President Obama, having made no progress on getting his legalization plan through Congress, has instead been trying to make enforcement more surgical. Under the new guidelines, officials will use "prosecutorial discretion" to review the current docket of 300,000 deportation cases, suspending expulsions for a range of immigrants.

Several factors prompt "particular care and consideration" for a reprieve, including whether the person has been in the United States since childhood, or is pregnant, seriously ill, a member of the military or a minor, according to a June memo that initiated the change.

The issue of "whether the person has a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, child or parent" appears in the memo’s secondary list of factors to consider. But it is not clear how broadly leniency will be applied. Repeat crossers are given a special black mark, and the administration has already deported hundreds of thousands of minor offenders, despite claiming to focus on "the worst of the worst."

Several Democratic governors and law enforcement officials are particularly angry about Secure Communities, a program to run the fingerprints of anyone booked by the police to check for federal immigration violations. A large proportion of those deported through this process — 79 percent, according to a recent report by the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University — were low-level offenders, often arrested for traffic violations.

Administration officials dispute that, saying the ratio of serious criminals is increasing, and that ultimately they must enforce immigration law against all violators. They have mandated that the program be used nationwide by 2013.

Mexico’s border cities offer a portrait of what that could mean. Nearly 950,000 Mexican immigrants have been deported since the start of fiscal 2008. And in Tijuana — a former hub for migrants heading north, which now receives more deportees than anywhere else — the pool of deportees preparing to cross again just keeps growing.

Maria García, 27, arrived here after being deported for a traffic violation. She said she had spent six years living in Fresno, Calif., with her two Mexico-born sons, 11 and 7. She was one of many who said that without a doubt, they would find their way back to the United States.

"They can’t stop us," she said.

The constant flow of deportees has become a growing concern for Mexican officials, who say the new arrivals are easy recruits, and victims, for drug cartels.

One former deportee was arrested this year for playing a major role in the deaths of around 200 people found in mass graves. In Tijuana, a homeless camp at the border has swollen from a cluster to a neighborhood, as deportees flow in, many carrying stories of being robbed or kidnapped by gangs who saw their American connections as a source for ransom.

Minutes after he arrived, Mr. Álvarez, the janitor, said he was worried about surviving — "you’re playing with your life being here," he said. But his twin sons would turn 2 in a few weeks, and like many others, he said that no matter how he was treated in the United States, he would find his way back.

"I feel bad being here, I feel bad," he said. "I’ve got my kids over there, my family, my whole life. Here" — he shook his head at the end of his first day in Tijuana — "no."