Migration

This Blog has also been posted in FPA’s Latin America Blog.

  Since the election of the PAN in Mexico and Vicente Fox, there has been a slow movement towards Free Trade economics, policies in cooperation with the US and a cooling of relations with Cuba. In the late 1970s and early 1980s it was quite the opposite, with new oil wealth in Mexico pushing the government at the time into a position of a regional leader in Central America. With the collapse of the oil prices in the early 80s, the ambitions of Mexico as a regional power were extinguished and relations via NAFTA and the free market took hold in order to pull Mexico out of the numerous pesos crashes that plagues the country in the 1980s and 1990s. With the election of Vicente Fox and the diminishing of the PRI party which ruled Mexico for over 75 years, the PAN and Fox set Mexico on a new path, trying to create a framework for trade, jobs and immigration with the Bush administration in 2000 and after.

While the War on Terror took attention away from immigration and Mexico until 2007, Mexico still has been on the path of solidifying external relations since the victory of Fox and within the administration of the current President Calderon. Part of the reintegration of Mexico into the world community and its transformation as a strong emerging market came with political changes as well. Traditionally, Mexico has been seen in the light of policies which saw the US as an aggressor, with much of the 20th century being framed in policies from Cardenas and nationalisations of foreign industry that took hold in the interwar period and into the 1960s. Mexican-US relations were minimal until the late 1960s, and with these policies also came the support, at least verbally, for anti-US movements in Latin America, especially passive support for Cuba via trade and cultural ties. With ties came immigration, and until this week Cubans who can gain asylum in the US have been coming through Mexico as well as the sea in order to make a new life in the United States.

While over 11,000 Cubans came into the US through Mexico last year, Mexico has finally taken actions to close many of the routes for Cubans coming into the US through Mexico, mainly for security reasons, but also satisfying many Cuban officials who saw their citizens leaving for the US via Mexico as politically damaging to Cuba itself. While Cuban-Mexican relations have become more tense since 2000, this action, while likely not for the benefit of the Cuban Government is seen as an olive branch between the two nations. In the end, the tightening of borders will only stop a fraction of migrants from passing into the US. While economic troubles and tighter security may deter some from coming, economic osmosis will still bring Cubans and Mexicans across the border to seek a living in the US and escape intense poverty in their own countries.

This blog has also been posted in the FPA Latin America Blog.

CNN made a great acquisition taking on policy expert Fareed Zakaria and giving him his own show, Fareed Zakaria GPS which allows for a diverse perspective and a balanced international approach to a network which is often known for its Washington point of view as opposed to the perspective of global politics and policy. The international perspective needs to be understood from the point of view of Paris, Singapore, Beijing and others. Originally the host of a PBS show and author of the book The Post-American World, Zakaria will likely become one of the most important authors on foreign policy in the next few years.

In a week of economic turmoil, Zakaria in his show F.Z. GPS decided to interview political experts from Singapore, India and China in order to get their point of view on current economic and political activities involving the US and other countries. While many perspectives were discussed, it was diverse in that countries like Singapore, India and China did not fare poorly during the last eight years of the Bush administration. While criticism did come about regarding Afghanistan and Iraq and perspectives regarding Russia’s current move into Georgia, Bush’s reputation is not wholly being shared by many in the Asia-Pacific, standing out in contrast to the distain for Bush in Europe, the US and even in Canada. The Canadian example is an interesting one. Currently there is a national election underway where in a recent election debate, issues concerning the country came down to 3 of 4 opposition leaders bringing the debate down to its lowest level and simply accusing the current Prime Minister, Steven Harper of being another George Bush. While Bush is not a Canadian leader and is extremely different to any existing Canadian politician, the real policy debate was wasted and the electorate was treated as people who only decide how their communities are formed based on whether George Bush’s name is shouted out enough times on television. While Bush may not be popular in the Western world, the effect of using him for political gains outside the US can be just as harmful in forming illogical policy decisions based on someone who has no real effect or relation to a government outside the US at all. While the responses from many Asia-Pacific experts was logical and measured, often similar debates about the last 8 years in the Western world are foggy at best.

While new economic giants such as China and India had their perspectives shown on F.Z. GPS, it is curious to see what the last eight years have brought to countries in the Americas, and why certain policies such as immigration has been largely ignored in the recent election campaign. The focus of the Bush administration in early 2001 was immigration and the relationship between the US and the rest of the Americas regarding free trade and the FTAA. Mostly in 2008, the issue of immigration has remained a regional one in the US, concentrating around states on the US-Mexico border which take immigration to heart, but has not become a major election issue. Trade, mostly an issue with China for the US has been brought up in many border states along the US-Canada border. Talks of renegotiating NAFTA to bring jobs back to Americans was rampant, despite the issue having a lot to do with the US relationship north and south as opposed to its ties eastwards. While Mexico has ever increasing numbers going to the US illegally and a severe drug war which has taken more lives in 2008 than US lives in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, the debate on immigration was mostly nullified last year when Bush tried to pass one of his final bills opening up an immigration policy that might rationalize the current status quo on the border. After 7 years of the War on Terror, the original policy issues from 2001 were addressed, but with such complex problems and the lack of support for anything Bush ties his name to, the issue of immigration in the US will not change at all for years to come. In reality, as pointed out in the FPA Immigration Blog, some illegal immigrants are even leaving the US due to the current economic crisis and many in the US are starting to see the effect of Bush policies as changing the perception of America into a country which as one CNN reporter said, is no longer a “beacon of freedom and hope”.

The rest of the Americas in the last eight years have done better than many would expect in the Western world despite many issues impacting the US itself. Canada currently stands out as one of the only countries in the G8 that is not suffering economic collapse, due to very prudent financial policies, good leadership by many governments over the last 5 years and a long term economic boom and national surplus. While being attacked in the Clinton campaign over NAFTA, Canada has been able to not be seen as another China to the US on trade and was able through a great deal of legal debates to come up with a deal on softwood lumber and push Chapter 11 decisions on NAFTA towards a more equitable framework where states have regained much of their power over companies in the NAFTA rulings. Canada has separated its support from the US, ie. regarding not supporting with troops in Iraq, but many citizens support Canadians in Afghanistan and trade with the US. Canada has not fared poorly at all, even weathering the current global crisis with merely slow growth, and keeping a lot of funds in the country and allowing cash rich Canadian companies to buy out many American and European assets if they wish. Canada’s oil industry had a lot to do with this, but in the long run 8 years in Canada has not had many ill economic effects.

Brazil is currently lead by prudent left wing leader Lula and has become a beacon for reform and investment in South America. Since financial collapses that characterized the country in the 1990s, Brazil has been able to maintain a balanced level of growth and social reforms that has brought confidence into Brazil and has made it the next likely emerging economy to become another China or India. While political issues still exist to a great degree, oil and slow progress seems to be paying off and Brazil will likely weather this economic storm with a few scratches and bruises, but keep afloat. Chile is in a similar situation. With left leaning leaders and prudent economic policies and progressive social policies, stability may become a mainstay of many countries in the Americas in the future.

Venezuela also has stood out from many of its neighbours. While Brazil has benefited a lot from its oil reserves, Venezuela has had its oil reserves propel it into a forum for Chavez’s influence in the Americas and remains Venezuela’s only notable source of revenue. Venezuela often uses actions by Bush as the motivator of policy decisions, mostly in cases where the US has ignored Venezuela and Latin America in the last 8 years. In reality, the involvement the US has had beyond some trade policy in the last 8 years has been very minimal, only opening up further ties with economically stable countries who stabilized themselves, and not having any heavy response to populist claims by Chavez and others who often use Bush and supposed actions by the US to justify all types of local policy decisions by populist leaders. While the degree of US involvement in Venezuela is not known but likely is minimal, countries like Colombia have been able to use local and US assistance to independently address local issues. The Colombian Army’s rescue of Ingrid Betancourt and American hostages from the FARC was seen as a Colombian initiative and praised by the US as solely Colombian. Ironically the FARC later was accused of having been supported by Chavez himself, mimicking accusations he had against Bush in interfering in local politics. Increasingly criticisms of Chavez come with the diminishing influence of Bush. Without Bush as a scapegoat, it will be hard to place Obama in a negative light and accuse the causation of problems in Venezuela on the President of the US. Recently a critical report on Venezuela lead to the coercive expulsion of human rights leaders from Venezuela…actions which will reflect poorly in Chavez in the future with no Bush to blame for the future.

Many other countries in the Americas have been set with their own local issues and have had some support and acknowledgement from the US in positive and negative manners. Mainly the US in the last 8 years have ignored Latin America due to The War on Terror, and minimal support and ties with the US has not had a negative effect for many in the region and their development. Ignoring the Americas, the backyard of the US and important future allies is not an option, as pointed out by Zakaria in his statements and book. A strong America’s’ will do nothing but help the US reintegrate into the international community if respect and independent policies are supported by the next President of the US and progress of the Americas is valued and not hindered. Reactionist trade policy and calling the opposition George Bush when no coherent discussion is available to win votes in an election is not acceptable on any level. Policy cannot be formed by name calling, and any politician who uses this tactic does nothing but to embarrass themselves and their supporters in a democracy. The Bush era is over, and only working for new opportunities is an acceptable conclusion.

Today’s Wall Street Journal is running an insightful piece on a relatively new development in US immigration policy: return migration. Faced with fewer economic opportunities, in part through tightening regulations and the overall economic slide, illegal immigrants are returning home. This, in turn, has a significant effect on the economies in their countries, who have long come to rely on remittances sent from relatives working the construction sites and factories in North America.

The article quotes a Pew Hispanic Center study, to be issued on October 2nd, according which “estimates that annual undocumented arrivals from Mexico are down about 25% this year from 2005, to about 350,000. Undocumented arrivals from Central America have been halved since then, to about 120,000.”

The long term impact on sending communities cannot yet be deduced. The World Bank, however, estimates that remittance flows are more than twice as large as total development aid and represent the largest source of foreign exchange for numerous countries. This means that the exodus to which the article alludes could seriously impact the prosperity and development of thousands of communities in developing countries in South America. This interactive graph shows the degree to which remittances are playing a role in supporting local communities.