South America

BoliviaBrazilColombiaCubaEcuadorGuyanaPeruVenezuela

Brazil Spearheads UNASUR Defense Council, but in a Surprise move, Colombia Withdraws

• Implications for Brazil
• The Venezuela-Colombia Rift
• Regional Autonomy
• The Rebirth of the Fourth Fleet and with it the Ghost of Gunboat Diplomacy
• The new Pattern of United States-South American Relations


Member states of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) signed a pact on Friday, May 23 in Brasília to establish judicial and political components for the emerging, limited union. On the docket was a plan to create a military coordinating component of UNASUR, the Conselho Sul-Americano de Defesa (CSD). However, the CSD was destined to be founded without the important exception of Colombia, which recently confused its neighbors by revoking its intention to join. Brazil, in collaboration with Venezuela, spearheaded the creation of the defense portion of the pact, which will be increasingly NATO-like in structure.

Successfully founding the CSD, which had been scheduled to include Colombia, would have represented an enormous victory for what has been called President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s “pragmatic left” leadership. It was no secret that Brasília hoped to use the CSD to strengthen regional ties across highly sensitive boundaries, with Colombia on the right, Venezuela on the left, and Brazil hoping to act as the mediating middle. However, the withdrawal of Bogotá, with one of the region’s most advanced militaries, has significantly weakened the pact from its onset. Brazilian defense minister, Nelson Jobim, described the basic tenets of the CSD as an integrated alliance without an operating field capability. CSD forces would cooperate, for example, in contributing to UN and other humanitarian missions if necessary. The alliance will also be expected to coordinate military technology and resources.

Read More
ArgentinaBoliviaBrazilChileEconomicsEcuadorOp-EdParaguayUruguayVenezuela

Still on the Drawing Board: the Banco del Sur a Half Year Later

COHA and the history of the Argentine human rights situation

COHA Director Larry Birns was recently mentioned in Hugo Alconada Mon’s article, “Piden desclasificar los archivos sobre los desaparecidos,” in La Nación. The article may be accessed by clicking on the following link:

http://www.lanacion.com/ar/politica/nota.asp?nota_id=1013271

• In the wake of the third summit of heads of state for the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), the newest development is the creation of a South American Defense Council. One question still in the air, however, is what happened to the Banco del Sur, the South American development bank that was so heavily hyped a half year ago?
• The Banco del Sur may become an important actor throughout the continent, but for this to happen its members first need to agree on the subscribed capital upon which it will be levied.
• Once the bank’s capital subscription is decided, future challenges await: How to allocate the voting shares distribution and how to achieve high quality portfolios and credit ratings.

In December 2007, presidents from seven of the thirteen South American countries met in Argentina to create the Banco del Sur, a development bank originally advocated by Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez as a substitute for international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF )and the World Bank. However, as the Banco del Sur is still on the drawing board and its purpose still debated, the only relatively fixed points are the countries which have agreed to be members: the leftists Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela, and the moderate left-leaning Mercosur countries, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. The question at hand is whether the newborn Banco del Sur will be able to live up to the challenges of running a successful sub-regional development bank while still making a coherent and strong ideological statement.

Read More
ChileCuba

COHA’s Women’s Studies Series: SERNAM and the Underrepresentation of Women in Chile

COHA on Cuba

The latest ill-fated salvo in President Bush’s poorly-focused rhetorical war against Cuba, which was just issued, once again fell far short of the target. In minimizing the importance of the reforms now being witnessed in Havana, Bush continues his record of trivializing U.S.-Latin America policy and undermining its lack of coherence and relevance regarding the important reforms now occurring almost daily on the island.


It is not an exaggeration to say that, under Bush, U.S. influence in Latin America is at its lowest point since the end of World War II. Much of the low esteem in which Washington is now held is due to the dead weight of its unremitting sterile policy toward Cuba that has pulled the State Department down to where its regional initiatives are scorned by almost any other country inside or outside of the region.


Ironically, Bush’s wasted words occurred some time after the E.U.’s senior development commissioner, Louis Michel, visited Cuba and urged all E.U. sanctions against the country be scrapped. Whatever shortcomings Cuba now exhibits in terms of the lack of civic guarantees it offers to its citizens—and there are many— President Bush would be well advised to inspect any number of important U.S. institutions that have been gored and disgraced by his own dysfunctional and constitutionally challenged administration and an all but illiterate diplomacy, that has produced neither tangible results nor appreciable leverage, over Cuba. In spite of the unrelenting hostility, the island today has a stronger economy and a brighter history of diplomatic success which consistently has out-trumped Washington on an almost daily basis.


President Bush’s verbiage may make the Florida delegation of exile representatives Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Connie Mack, full of admiration, but it has no standing with most Americans who look upon U.S.-Cuba policy with a sense of embarrassment and despair.

While the successful turnover of the Pinochet regime in 1989 presidential elections marked the formal beginning of civilian rule in Chile, it also brought on an important turning point in the relationship between civil organizations and the state. In focusing on the female sector, this transition has been shown to affect their movement in a number of ways. Though the women’s movement had presented a strong and often autonomous voice during the years of the Pinochet dictatorship, Chile’s transition to democracy began the institutionalization of women’s issues within society, changing the way that their demands were processed as well as affecting the types of issues that came before public agencies.

SERNAM’s Role

El Servicio Nacional de la Mujer (SERNAM) is an important state-sanctioned institution that was created after the transition to democracy had begun, in order to address issues of gender equality in the social, economic, political, cultural, and familial spheres of everyday life (Richards, 2003, 42). However, while some might suggest that SERNAM actually provides important resources and a set of objectives around which the women’s movement has re-mobilized (Franceschet 2003), others suggest that SERNAM is limited in its scope, and therefore, does not adequately represent the concerns of the popular sector when pushing the government for certain policies and programs high on its agenda. In addressing this second claim, we hope to show that SERNAM functions as a conservative organization for the concerns of a limited portion of the popular sector, by discussing the non-inclusive nature of SERNAM’s policy proposals, its low level of autonomy from the state government, and the general channeling of the popular women’s movement through state-sanctioned intermediaries. The conclusion reached is that the transition has pushed civil society organizations and their mobilization capacity to operate within a state-directed and institutionalized political arena.

Read More
BoliviaCanadaMexicoPress ReleasesUncategorized

One of History’s Great Atrocities: The Corporate Theft of the Public’s Natural Right to Water

Alternative Strategies: South Africa’s Water Policy

Andrea Arango’s article, entitled Alternative Strategies: South Africa’s Water Policy, will be issued on Thursday, May 1st. This COHA publication is another in the organization’s contribution to the debate over who will control the world’s water supply.

The Growing Debate on who will Control the World’s Water Supply

The current 1.1 billion people worldwide without access to potable water only opens one of the smaller windows on the injustices and the multiple casualties being wrought by private water-related industries. In fact, many are clueless to the magnitude of the victims— present and projected — of the growing water crisis as well as to the inhumane implications of the role of the private sector in regards to treating water as a commodity that can be owned and sold for profit. As of now, 2.6 billion people are at high risk for not having access to potable and an additional 1.8 million children die each year from water-related diseases.


In the mix of chaos, despair, and confusion, which most affects the poorer elements of society, it is important to note the private corporations’ role, which some critics have identified as being among the major culprits in causing the crisis. Within recent decades, water privatization firms such as Suez, Vivendi, and RWE have bought control of a number of communities’ municipal water services, and then drastically increased the price of water; with some of them failing to effectively purify the water resources they had come to monopolize.

An Innate Right

The heightened trend towards water privatization has gone almost undetected by the general public for well over a decade, despite the huge ramifications it is having on many lives. Public water advocates argue that it is a necessity of life and no individual or corporation has the right to seize ownership and place a value on the resource. Water is for life, not for profit. Author Vadana Shiva resolutely states that “water is a commons because it is the basis of all life. Water rights are natural rights and thus usufructuary rights, meaning that water can be used, but not owned.” Water privatization has caused considerable strife around the world, specifically in less industrialized nations. Major water companies, with the help of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), continue to divest communities of their natural right to water, thus undermining the essence of democracy as well as contributing to an insidious form of global deprivation.

Read More