Many stories of the fate of Iran’s young protestors, journalists, and academics have become front page news as allegations of rape and torture on those arrested this summer comes to the front page of papers worldwide. The infamous Evin Prison is where many of those arrested political prisoners have been detained this summer, but what is known by many in Iran and ignored by many outside of the country is that rape and torture of political prisoners did not being this summer, but has been going on over the last thirty years.

Marina Nemat, a victim of Evin Prison who was lucky enough not to be executed during her time there wrote her account in prison in Evin, in her book called The Prisoner of Tehran. In her time there she was arrested for having negative views of the Revolution of 1979 and was put in prison for many years. Her perspective is an interesting one, as one of her interrogators, who was a political prisoner himself under the Shah became her husband in the end. While she was forced to marry him, there was some respect between the couple and the views he held as a prisoner himself. In the end Marina was released from prison and while all these years she has refrained from telling her story, in her book she reveals for the first time her life as a political prisoner. Marina now lives in Canada.

Another account of how foreign journalists were treated in Evin Prison was discussed when a Canadian Journalism of Iranian descent and birth, Zahra Kazemi was beaten to death in Iran in 2003. Acknowledgement of the story and actions by the previous Canadian Government was virtually absent until her son, Stephan Kazemi pushed for public protests and for help from the Canadian Government. Accounts of her ordeal in Evin Prison were that she was beaten to death and raped as well in order to defile her reputation and soul. Her body was then not returned to Canadian authorities amidst much protest. Currently Canadian Newsweek journalist Maziar Bahari is being held with other political prisoners in Iran. He is one of those accused in Iran’s political court for inciting protests in the country.

The Baha’I of Iran, who’s governing council was arrested late last year for false charges echos the past arrest of the Baha’I council in the past, all who were executed after their arrest. Government persecution of this religious minority often is recycled over history via Apostate laws, accusations of anti-state activities and associations with foreign elements, and continuous monitoring of community and community leaders leading to unpublicized tragedies in many forms. One clear example of this repeat of history was the open discrimination in the early 80’s after the Iranian Revolution. In 1980-81 the arrest and the execution of the leaders of the Baha’i religious and community leaders took place. The council, named the National Spiritual Assembly, were collected and imprisoned and eventually murdered by the government. This trend continued against members of the community and any other “political” dissidents in Iran since that time. Since then, little coverage of this issue has taken place in Western and Eastern media.

All these accounts of the terrors of Evin Prison will likely lead to its destruction by the people of Iran. An argument may be made to have the prison destroyed as a means of mercy for those who will certainly be tortured and raped until death for crimes such as speaking their mind and simply being of a different political or religious ideology. To ignore Evin Prison or to be only shocked by recent activities that have been going on there for thirty years when a modern event occurs is to legitimize the history of brutal torture that has been taking place there. By all rights, it should have been destroyed years ago..now that journalists and citizens of foreign nations and peaceful Iranians are there being murdered, international focus should be finally set on and legitimately encouraged against Iran’s dictators. Evin Prison should fall as did the Bastille in France’s Revolution.   

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

Mexico in 2009 has become the recipient of at least half of the most famous biblical plagues starting in 2008. This past week brought yet another earthquake to Mexico, the second this month that received some media coverage outside the country. In addition to a full scale drug war, H1N1 flu, an economic crisis, political jockeying, immigration issues, drug related and everyday corruption and a persistent high level of poverty, Mexico and its leaders could claim to have more on their plate than Barack Obama has to deal with in the US today and for the rest of his Presidency.

Debates of where the blame for much of Mexico’s ills comes from has brought in voices from opposition within and outside of Mexico, its NAFTA partners, the WHO, IMF, World Banks and the UN itself. However in a general perspective has Mexico’s leaders performed worse than most other leaders in similar positions? Felipe Calderon’s government while blamed for igniting much of the drug conflict has tried to do more to fight narcotrafficking than any other Mexican leader in the past. Support for his anti-drug initiative has come from the US and Canada and South America, and while drug markets and demand has been claimed as the root cause of Mexico’s conflict by many in Mexico and by even Obama himself, NAFTA has become collectively aligned fighting against cartels that are well entrenched from Cancun to Vancouver. While NAFTA has always been exclusively a trade agreement, heavy cooperation in fighting drugs that come through many commercial and immigration sources also is the route of much of North America’s trade wealth boom since 1994. Markets which create demand for narcotics also demand other products from Mexico, Canada and the US which are not drug related, but may open for easier access to narcotrafficking across borders. The end result is that cooperation and addressing the drug issues are the only option in reducing the drug trade in North America by maintaining strong ties between the three NAFTA neighbors. I request that if other policy alternatives are a better option that readers voice their opinion.

H1N1, or Swine Flu as it was called before the WHO’s public relations people set out to change the definition did start in Mexico despite some claims otherwise in the country of its origins, and it is still in debate who is to blame. Blame has been knocked around quite a bit in this latest crisis, starting with slow action by Calderon and Mexico’s government to voice the issue abroad, leading to the WHO’s slow action in issuing alerts, leading to practices by Mexico’s agricultural industry and large multinationals, to claims of a poor health system in Mexico that is often a stereotype of many in developed countries abroad. The political fallout will determine the end result of the Swine Flu, but what should be noted is the effective actions taken by Calderon, Mexican public health officials, industry and citizens who completely shut down the most populated city in human history numbering almost 30 million and the other 70-80 million Mexicans who quietly kept indoors and patient over more than a week in order to end the spread of Swine Flu in Mexico and abroad. This enormous feat of public health control should be awarded to Mexico who despite having so many current problems, lack of funds, and large populations to deal with was still able to better handle H1N1 than many developed countries handled SARS. While it was not able to contain H1N1 entirely, and a small outbreak in Chile and Japan has occurred recently, it will certainly be studied for generations to come in how to deal with national and international health crisis.

Some issues that have received little attention this past month have been the persistent drug war and some earthquakes in Mexico in the last few weeks. As always, immigration issues while always a constant on the borders only were addressed when Mexican immigrants got the Swine Flu or the influence of drug cartels or were linked to Mexico’s drug war in the US. These mainstay issues will likely reemerge very soon, which often ignore successes by Mexican officials and highlight possible threats to the US which vary in urgency. With deaths in Mexico easily competing with those in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mexico will likely keep its place on the front page and tv screens of many of its NAFTA neighbours…for better or for worse.

This post can also be seen on FPA’s Latin America Blog.

One of the greatest and diverse minds in public policy today is Fareed Zakaria. Once the host of a wonderful public policy show Foreign Exchange on PBS, Fareed Zakaria GPS is now likely CNN’s best and most in depth show on American media today. Zakaria has done much to add colour in the shadows of the current financial crisis debate. In the last two weeks he has written an interesting article on Canada in the financial crisis, and last week interviewed Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper regarding Canada’s relative financial successes during the crisis, speaking about the future of Afghanistan where Canadian soldiers have been fighting, and often with many causalities in the process. The article and interview compliments President Obama’s meeting in Ottawa with Mr. Harper in February and brings Canada into the sphere of the North American policy dialogue.

Zakaria’s Newsweek article has received a great deal of attention from Canadian media and bloggers. While he is correct in many of his conclusions, there are some details which should be taken in a more critical light. An invitation from myself to explore these issues with Fareed is always open. I will address some of my concerns below.

In Zakaria’s Newsweek article “Worthwhile Canadian Initiative” he argues that Canada, while being seen as an generally unexciting, uneventful and thus safe place, has been successful in creating conditions apart of all the banking systems in the developed countries in the world. Canada has not been affected by financial crisis like the US, UK or other similar nations and Canadian banks were indeed ranked number one by the World Economic Forum as the healthiest banking system worldwide. High leverage by Canadian banks have kept many of them afloat due to strict regulations and strict business practices that has kept Canadian banks secure, but that often have left many smaller healthy businesses from obtaining loans from private sector lenders. Canada’s banks traditionally were largely protected from outside investment, resulting in Canada having on average five major banks throughout the country over the last century. While this has kept many banks safe, it has also allowed a lack of competition in the Canadian banking market. Two examples of problems with this sector are very high returns coming from service charges laid on customers for many bank activities and overly restrictive loan conditions for SME’s. Protection from foreign competition and service fees have created excess cash for many Canadian banks, often being sourced directly from lower income customers who cannot invest the amounts of cash to avoid excessive fees to use essentially their own funds. In addition, mergers between Canada’s five main traditional banks have restricted open competition for service fees and banking services for customers in Canada. An opening of the banking sector a few years back did not curb fees, but allowed banks to enter the insurance market and offer those additional services. While foreign banks were able to enter the Canadian market a few short years ago, many had to run their retail banking services through established brick and mortar Canadian retail bank branches, taking further fees for clients who literally have no saving with the Canadian banks in order to use their account with another bank. While there are positives to the secure Canadian banking system, the end result where business takes loans and credit from these banks often are done so the bank assumes no risk whatsoever. Often incorporated company loans are tied to the personal assets of their principal investors, eliminating the tradition of Legal Incorporation and limiting further the ability of Canadian businesses to grow and be successful. With the security of Canada’s banking system is praised, a lack of credit to business is not a proper method to grow commerce in this economy in any nation.

The Canadian government over the last few years have been very sensible for the most part as argued by Fareed. The issue in Canada however is not the success of the Federal Government in Ottawa, but the lack of success of many regional governments and increased responsibilities of municipal governments over the last few years. Housing and the financial systems supporting many transactions have boomed in many Canadian cities, but like in many other places in the world it came from investments losing their popularity in mutual funds, and like in many markets being placed into real estate. While Canadian cities have currently stable housing prices in comparison to the US; where housing began the current decline, loss of employment, even in Canada and highly inflated prices and accompanying taxes have made cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary into municipalities where affordable living no longer exists. With large populations living in the centre of Canadian cities, it has become unaffordable for many who cannot afford starter homes or have had to move to another municipality due to increased taxes during boom times, and even more taxes being promised by cities in this bust time. While Canada has great fundamentals, some provinces and cities have often mismanaged their communities or have yet to feel the effect of a Canadian recession.

Federally, the Canadian Government has done well to shield itself from the worst of the global recession. The governing party of Canada made great commitments in 2007 and 2008 to bring attention to a waning economy and had put in many economic measures that likely kept Canada as a topic of praise for journalists like Zakaria and commercial and policy experts worldwide. The greatest challenge to Canada had received little attention however, where Canada’s Parliamentary Opposition recently attempted to bring down the current government only a few short weeks after an election. While never attempted Constitutionally in any Parliamentary democracy before, the opposition leaders sought to join into a coalition to take control of Parliament and remove the current sitting government after an election had taken place. The controversy to force policy changes on Canada’s current government met with much anger and reduced Canada’s sensible government into a holding pattern during the key months of an economic crisis, producing a new opposition leader, staunch lack of support by smaller opposition parties and has kept a Canadian bailout package in limbo to date despite having support by the two largest parties in Parliament. While Canadians are often seen as uneventful and sensible, many Canadians likely felt a great amount of shame, and party politics to date is still withholding proper policy from being implemented.

Fareed Zakaria also praised Canada’s immigration system, but security and immigration, while for most policymakers would have simple conclusions, looks better on paper for Canada than it exists in reality. While Canada has an unlimited acceptance of skilled workers, many professionals who come to Canada are not hired or given a reasonably acceptable opportunity for re-training to work and use those skills once they arrive in Canada. Canada in immigrant communities is seen by many as a country with the second most doctors driving taxis after Cuba. While a glib comment on the situation, in studies of a food bank in the Toronto area the majority of recipients of food aid were immigrants, and out of those, the majority had studied in universities before coming to Canada, many to Masters level or higher. In a CNN interview with Canadian Prime Minister Harper, Afghanistan was addressed as likely an unsolvable conflict due to the nature and history of the region. While debate in US media and political infighting in Canada followed the interview, a major issue of great future importance to security and immigration will be the current drug war in Mexico. In recent weeks drug violence in Vancouver has reached its limit with likely connections to the drug war abroad. Many in Mexico will likely seek refugee status in the US and Canada, and further security issues have likely started in connection with the transnational drug trade. While Afghanistan and the economy are major issues facing both countries, security and refugees from Mexico will likely absorb many concerns of all three NAFTA neighbors in 2009. Canada is indeed sensible, must be praised for its successes/or lack of losses, but also needs to be addressed in real terms, whether good or bad. The NAFTA partners can learn a lot from each other, but can also realistically focus its goals towards more “exciting” issues of North America. With praise should always come criticism. Thank you again Fareed Zakaria for your work!

Zakaria Speaking with Canadian PM Harper

 This article has also been posted on FPA's Latin America Blog

TVO.org out of Ontario, Canada presented a show this week concentrating on Colombia, security, human rights, trade and relations with the US and Canada. The panel consisted of 5 experts on Latin America and Colombia from FOCAL, The Latin America Working Group, The Inter-American Dialogue and a number of North American universities where issues and statistics were discussed in an open and concise manner.

Questions which arose in the discussion surrounded many key statistics. Some notable stats on the drastic drop in crime albeit with a slight drop in narcotics being sold were key issues in the discussion. Internal Refugees also resulted in some shocking discussions. Behind Sudan with nearly 6 million internally displaced people, Colombia has between 2.2 and 4.4 million internally displaced people, second worldwide above Iraq with 2.8 internally displaced people according to the program. Human rights abuses and the opinion of President Alvaro Uribe were also discussed, with the fight against FARC and ELN being compared with threats against native groups and labour leaders in Colombia, balancing rights for some against threats to others.

Colombia's foreign relations and Plan Colombia were discussed heavily. Plan Colombia, which sent $US1.3 billion to curb drug trafficking since 2000 was seen as a failure in many regards by experts on the panel. The result was the militarization of Colombia against internal threats which often were met by a cold peace with its neighbours while bringing Colombia closer to the US and its allies. Recently, trade agreements between Canada and Colombia and talks pushing the US to open a Free Trade Agreement with Colombia briefly brought Colombia's human rights record into debate among US politicians.

For video, show blogs and other info. on the Colombia Panel, please click on the link here.

Guests

Albert Berry is professor emeritus of Economics, and research director of the Programme on Latin America and the Caribbean at the Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto.

Carlo Dade is executive director of the Canadian Foundation for the Americas (FOCAL) where he also directs research programs in Diasporas and Remittances, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Canadian engagement in Haiti.

Lisa Haugaard has been executive director of the Latin America Working Group since June 2002. She has also served as senior associate at the LAWG, where she worked on Colombia and Central America policy.

Cristina Rojas is an associate professor at The Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University.

Michael Shifter is vice president for policy at the Inter-American Dialogue. He is also adjunct professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, where he teaches Latin American politics.

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

There are a few realities that have hit the world this past year and this past month, to which most of the world has been affected by to some degree. Luckily enough, the issues which affect most Americans have made the greatest impact in the last few weeks of the election campaign, and the decisions people will make when casting their vote will be based on how they wish to change the past, and how they wish to see themselves in the future. Both candidates have accomplished something remarkable. The last two election campaigns offered many a lack of choice in a candidate who they felt would really push the country in a proper direction. Eight years of George Bush, Iraq and Afghanistan, the Economic Meltdown, 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, have left only candidates who can do the job available to be elected. Both Obama and McCain are good people, and either one is capable of placing their efforts into repairing a slightly damaged, well used and still well running America with a lot of work. Americans can do little wrong in choosing either candidate, but with the election close by and Obama likely to win, the following is a letter to Mr. Obama, and with some luck, Mr. McCain from the rest of the world who does not have a vote, but will be affected by their decisions as much as any American.

To start, the neighbours of the United States should be acknowledged for their constant support and connection to the United States. Canada and Mexico, despite issues of trade and immigration have done much in the last few years to accommodate not just Mr. Bush, but Americans as a whole. Currently Canada is one of the only developed nations who did not face complete economic collapse and places over 90% of their trade with the US. It should be acknowledged that trade and manufacturing in Canada has been hit as hard as in the US, and while NAFTA is blamed on Canada and Mexico, Canada is losing the same jobs, the same companies and the same households to tough foreign competition as much as the US. Canada is one of the world's largest oil producers and has always worked to move US energy out of the Middle East and grow stronger ties with Canada's energy and Canada's economy. Jobs being lost in the US, means jobs are lost in Canada as well. When the loss of jobs is blamed on NAFTA, it focuses energy and time on those who were never to blame for the economic problems in the US. To fight Canada and Mexico is to create scapegoats and lose four more years in improving the economy for all of North America.

With soldiers dying in Iraq, and allied soldiers giving their lives in support of freedom and lives in their own countries as well as the US, Afghanistan and Iraq need to be taken as a whole and the support should be given by the US to help fix problems abroad. According to Southern Pulse in their Oct 28th newsletter, over 4,000 people have died in Mexico's drug war, with 1,000 being killed in the last 50 days. Canadian, French, British and other allied troops have been taking heavy casualties in Afghanistan, making the region into a stalemate over the last 6 years. The worst problems have yet to be approached, with Darfur and Africa having yet to receive tangible attention towards genocides in the region which mirrors Rwanda in magnitude and action from the international community. Security in the United States cannot be achieved when those who support the US are under constant pressure and attack. Mexico has had as many deaths in the last year in battling the drug lords as soldiers have died in Iraq since 2003. A serious attempt in Afghanistan and a creative approach to Iraq must be achieved soon so other regions do not fall into chaos.

Immigration, while being solidified as a failed policy must start to acknowledge the existence of many from Latin America and Asia as players in the social framework, even if the legality of many residents are non-existent, they still are a part of every community in the United States. While illegal immigration needs a cathartic debate in America, those who have suffered from action, namely 2 million Iraqi refugees need to be addressed as well and accepted as people who are running from an Iraq which the US has not been able to claim victory and peace over. No greater respect to US soldiers and Iraqi citizens would come from a realistic approach that helps Americans, soldiers and their families, but also those so many fought hard to save; the Iraqis themselves. The use of the word "Change" and "Pull Out" will not stop violence and death in Iraq, only proper leadership will help end the conflict.

With a world depending on the US economy to operate, those nations in Latin America and Europe need a strong United States that will work and support their nations as those nations wish to work and support the US itself. While there is much criticism coming out of socialist governments in Latin America, the majority of nations who have spent the last few years in cooperation with the US and achieving great stability and peace within their own borders should be supported by the US and credit given to their development. Bad policy has created a situation where Chavez can attack Bush, as failure in leadership creates a large scapegoat, but good leadership with focus the attention on those local leaders like Chavez and allow for those democracies to eject problems in their societies. While not to the same degree, America's European partners have actually moved to re-engage with the US in a discussion to not only repair the current economic troubles, but also to re-invigorate the relationship of values and equality that should have always existed between Europe and the US. Elected leaders in the EU, Canada and Mexico have moved towards policies which have been considered traditionally American, and America will move towards a position where it adopts some trends from its partners, as well as hopefully cultivating respect with Europe and Latin America in the process. The future of the US will come with the future of Europe and the Americas. Leadership will only allow for a successful relationship in the future.

Emerging economies must be addressed to end this letter. China, India and Russia, as well as other nations have achieved a great deal of development, and with recent funds have been able to address national problems of poverty and development, many thought were impossible to tackle only 5 years ago. These countries have a right to compete and gain wealth, but if companies from the US and EU seek to find fortune in those countries and work with local companies which may produce harmful products or take away American jobs, than those American and European companies should be challenged and blame should not be placed on Canada or Mexico, who have lost much as well, and irrational barriers should not be placed on developing economies because companies from the US and EU take advantage of their consumers. To create scapegoats in this debate, is to create a situation where no one can foresee economic troubles, and regulation is left to create blameless policymakers in its wake. The crisis of the last 20 years was always not one of tangible losses, but in confidence, that companies and the government might and have lied to you, and that anarchy is unavoidable when problems ignite. Trade, finance and economics needs to work in society, as a parallel to democracy, in order to allow a leader to create any "Change" that is needed. The world needs a US presence, one with clear foresight and the ability to stop alienating its friends and address real threats to everyone's security. Only an understanding of the world who cannot vote will allow for any positive change to take place. A failure is no longer an option for America and their friends.

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 Venezuelaactions 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.

This post can also be read in the FPA's Latin America Blog.

With Olympic fever set to bring the world to China, much interest on the future of China on the world stage is seen as having its debut today, crowned by the lucky number in Chinese culture, 08/08/08, set to being at 8pm. With external writers and leaders and internal government officials set to bring China into its new position of influence, the effect of Chinese foreign policy, timid by Western standards, has become an issue of global public discussion, highlighted by internal struggles from the recent earthquake, housing issues and of course Tibet.

Another external issue has yet to be discussed, that may prove to be the greatest influence on world commerce and culture coming out of China, the people themselves. For generations Chinese communities have crossed to other Asian countries, the West and even parts of the Middle East, Africa and Eastern Europe. The Americas have been one of the greatest recipients of Chinese culture and communities, having not only come to the US, but with large communities in Canada, the Caribbean and Latin America as well.

In Canada's largest city alone, Toronto according to many experts has a community of between 200,000-300,000 alone. Many of these immigrants have come after the opening of Canadian immigration in the 1960s, which was closed to many non-white immigrants after the late 1800 to well into the second half of the 20th Century. More recently, ties with the Commonwealth and interest in Canada brought many from Hong Kong to Canada before the return of the small nation to China. Mainland Chinese, as well as Taiwanese and Chinese communities from Malaysia, Vietnam and Singapore also have resided in Canada, many mainlanders living in central Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver, know for its diversity and home to many from different parts of Asia.

Latin America and the Caribbean also have received large communities from China as well, albeit more historically than recently in large numbers. In Mexico, the early 20th Century brought more than 5,000 Chinese immigrants to northern Mexico, near Mexicali. This small community which survives today at one point outnumbered traditional Mexicans and formed many cultural organizations to bring in other Chinese people from the East, while developing their community in Mexico and as Mexicans over the last 100 years. Cuba also is known for its connections with China, seen in its prominent Chinatown in central Havana. While being very Cuban with a strong Chinese influence, many Chinese came to Cuba, a US protectorate for the late 19th to mid-20th Century, to work in labour and to build US infrastructure as in the US on the islands on Cuba and Puerto Rico. Jamaica, Nicaragua and Panama also obtained many of their Chinese migrants for similar reasons, making the Caribbean one of the notable destinations for Chinese and other immigrant groups from around the globe.

In South America, while many Japanese immigrated in large numbers to Brazil, Argentina to a lesser degree, many Chinese immigrants also moved to Peru with large numbers coming to Venezuela. Venezuela has one of the largest Chinese immigrant communities to historically settle in Latin America. Recently new immigration from Mainland China and Taiwan has come to Venezuela and Latin America as a whole. While this blog cannot go into great detail on every community, it is worth researching many of these communities worldwide and show how China's past might create strong ties to China's future in the world.

*This post has also been cross-posted in the FPA's Latin America Blog.

I was happy to read a clever article called: Linking NAFTA and Immigration by Ted Lewis of the San Diego Tribune as he discusses the campaign issues and how they are being spun to effect the campaign and America's neighbours in a negative fashion. Lewis suggests that reform in NAFTA and effects on the poorest in the three member states needs to be addressed in a logical fashion, and not via the lens of the complete benefit of free trade or lowbrow electioneering. Addressing poverty and its root causes of increased unemployment in Mexico needs to be addressed in any future NAFTA negotiation. Lewis states that much of the illegal immigration comes from a lack of economic progress in Mexico since the agreement began and has lead to massive amounts of immigration to the US. Lewis also mentions that the electioneering between Obama and Clinton creates arguments against free trade, and in my impression creates intentional dissent in the US against Canada and Mexico. While Obama was blamed for not being serious in changing NAFTA, Clinton has used this small scandal to re-ignite her campaign. Ironically, the alienation of friendly foreign governments was always something linked with Bush, but support for the next Clinton Presidency may rest on the backs of Canadians and Mexicans alike if it continues to hurt Obama.

With much of the support for the Clinton campaign coming from the blue collar democrats in the northern states and America's traditional industrial heartland, it makes sense that Clinton would use Canada and Mexico to blame for poor US policy in the past, much of which came under her husband's term in office. In reality, the Mexican economy has purged its traditional weaknesses since 1994 and has maintained a solidly valued Peso, growth in the long run and even produced a more equitable government with the PRI dominated Presidency toppling a few years after NAFTA came into effect. The reality is that Mexico is a developing nation in many ways and has problems which 10 years of trade policy could never resolve in its best performance. To end poverty and develop a country, a generation is needed to end generations of poverty and inequality. Targeted anti-poverty policy is needed to help remove the 30% of Mexicans who live in poverty and have always lived in poverty. Economic progress in Mexico has created such negative results because the flow of money often reaches the poorest last. This is the trend in almost every country where poverty dominates the political agenda. No one has addressed this in the Obama camp, and with the Clinton campaign it seems that immigration and NAFTA come second to embarrassing Obama as much as possible.

While poverty and success in Mexico's economy can always be debated, the main issue of concern is that anti-immigrant and anti-NAFTA effects of running a negative campaign. It seems apparent that even though NAFTA is a mixed blessing, the current concerns with China seems to be targeted towards America's neighbours. While China has a right to progress economically and diversify its society as it wishes, Americans need to debate how they want to proceed with their neighbours and China in a logical, fair and respectful manner and choose where they wish to take America in the future. No country can live in a vacuum, but every country has the ability to take measured and fair responses to grow its own economy and produce trade and development to assist its own people, create a net benefit in jobs and reduce poverty.

In a response to one of the FPA's blogs, a candidate for Congress in the US claimed the wholly negative effects of NAFTA and America as losing its sovereignty over NAFTA. I responded in kind in order to dispel myths which seek to create straw man arguments of America's friends and neighbours. I encourage readers to read the responses to the blog and address their concerns in kind. All fair points of view are respected and I encourage open debate. The response is noted in the FPA's Latin America Blog: Paranoia on the Frontier: NAFTA and the US Election

**The Following Blogpost is a complement to the FPA's Feature on Canadian Immigration and Economic Rights: Great Decisions Analysis: Economic Rights and Migration by Rich Basas.

In an FT.com article published this week called Jobs for workers of the world, writer Bernard Simon discusses how the Canadian immigration system and local Canadian businesses address the vast number of foreign workers trying to make a living in the city of Toronto, Canada's largest and most ethnically diverse city. Mr. Simon makes a clear and direct point in discussing the changes made by the company Steam Whistle Brewery in its efforts in absorbing skilled foreign workers in an economy which treats all foreign experience as a burden rather than an asset.

While not known by most Canadians, Canada is well known in many immigrant communities as a place which offers dreams of skilled employment and promotes it via its embassies and cultural offices worldwide, but restricts the certification of foreigners and locals with foreign education so that many will never qualify for the skill which allowed them to come to Canada in the first place. Beyond these economic restrictions, Canadian Immigration policy has focused it efforts in bringing in skilled labour to offset the shortage of skilled workers being lost due to the retirement of Canada's baby boomers. This is not a problem only in Canada, as developed countries worldwide are desperate to bring in new immigrants to contribute to skilled labour markets, research and development, and create a new productive tax base for supporting those retirees who built the country over the last decades. In reality it is more Canada that depends on those immigrants, not the immigrants who are lacking opportunities in other countries.

Many of those born in Canada often do not go into the trades as commented on in the FT.com article, but often work in larger companies and government positions which afford a good salary and benefits to their employees. While many of the newcomers to Canada often have skills greater or equal to those trained Canada, the bias against any foreign experience including that from Western Europe is common and often discriminatory in its nature, but not considered to be illegal by the government in Ontario even though many newcomers have the same legal rights to work in Canada and are protected under the Canadian Constitution. While there are programs in Ontario and other parts of Canada to help immigrants find equitable employment, there are few true successes and little research and attention paid to these new workers beyond promoting Canada as having multicultural values, but not employing some of the most intelligent people in the country while pushing them toward the economic margins of society.

One of the main issues is that there is no legislated standards in certifying newcomers to Canada, but only private or university run offices which translate scores and qualifications into Canadian grades, but are wholly unofficial in Canada and not given much weight in the hiring process. Another major problem is that many professional associations which have great restrictions on newcomers to Canada are not on par with other developed countries in allowing a fair and equitable method for the re-qualification of people coming into Canada. Until the shortage of skilled labour was made a priority in the latest budget from the Government of Canada, there was no more attention placed on the issue than unknown advisories to companies to give foreigners a try with no concrete push for enshrining their Economic Rights in any Canadian legislative house or jurisdiction. The limitations are so insensible that in one case many nurses who come from other countries to work as foreign nurses on contract are not able to obtain the same job once they enter the process to become a Canadian citizen, but can work with no problems as foreign nurses on contract with the Government of Ontario.

In the past it was assumed that immigrants were on equal footing with Canadians in obtaining those jobs which account for much of the middle class in Canadian society. The issues in letting immigrants work when their initial experience was not in Canada was seen in the past as solely a difference of culture as opposed to that of skill or language. In reality, 45.7% of Toronto's population was born outside Canada, and while the argument has been made presently that newcomers must adapt to Canadian culture, its often the case that people must adapt to several different cultures, but their skills are not diminished for the sake of lack of Canadian Experience in any way. The true barriers in the past were ethnic, but now even though many ethnicities work in the Toronto job market, "Canadian Experience" is being used as the term which is preventing good jobs from going to good skilled people. This is not uncommon as in the past those immigrants barred from employment in Canada's large companies and government now account for the majority of Toronto's Small and Medium Sized entrepreneurs and make up a good number of jobs and tax revenue going into the local economy. With approximately 30% of Canadians working for one branch of the government and large numbers working for Banks and larger institutions, in Canada's largest cities the small business is dominated by immigrants who came in the last few decades. The unfortunate reality is that these resource rich people if immigrating today to Canada would not have the points to qualify for citizenship as only immigrants with a high levels of education are allowed to come here and work. As we see above, the reality is that they just don't end up being considered to work in the areas Canadian's are desperate to fill. A competitive Canadian economy will not be able to compete if it will prevent its most skilled people from jobs it needs to fill in order to grow as a country. It is a classic lose-lose situation, for New Canadians and Old Canadians alike.

This week's news roundup features the Bush administration's last ditch attempts at addressing the immigration issue in absence of fundamental policy reform. We also look ahead to the immigration issues at stake in the Spanish elections on March 9. Germany breathed a sigh of relief, when the deadly blaze that killed nine Turks, including two children, was discovered to have originated from a construction problem in the basement rather than a xenophobic arson attack, as originally assumed.

• Despite the failure to push comprehensive immigration reform through the Senate late last year, the Bush government is stepping up its efforts to stem illegal immigration through the introduction of a “virtual fence”, enhanced border patrols and by making the use of E-Verify - the electronic system to check the status of employed immigrants - mandatory for employers.
• New demographic data by the Pew Research Center points to the fact that the United States will become ever more dependant on immigrants to float welfare programs, similar to the predictions made for Europe's demographic development: “What such an outcome could portend, other analysts have said, is a nation riven politically between older, whiter, voting retirees who are increasingly supported by a younger, darker, working population that, as immigrants, may be disproportionately ineligible to vote.”
• Spain takes to the polls next Sunday. As a relative newcomer to the circle of immigrant receiving countries, the last two governments have struggled to define functional policies that allow the country to benefit from the influx of people, while maintaining balanced social and welfare systems. Most recently, the Socialist government has issued an amnesty for illegals living and working in the country. The conservative Partido Popular has now put up its own plans for immigration policy under its candidate Mariano Rajoy. He would like to see immigrants sign an “"integration contract". This would oblige them to learn Spanish, to work hard to integrate‚ and to return home if they are unemployed for too long or commit a crime.” We will follow the immigration debate in Spain as election day draws nearer.
• The artery is clogged - that would be one way of describing the state of affairs at the Canadian-US border, which, according to the Economist, is having detrimental economic effects. Since September 11th the additional border control measures have meant that patients who need emergency medical care across the border are dying en route, red tape is tying up trade and hampering the exchange of services, as proven by the example of the volunteer firefighters held up at the border for so long, the building they were planning on saving had burnt to a crisp.
• Arson has been ruled out as the cause of the deadly housefire that killed nine Turks in Germany's town of Ludwigshafen. Reminded of the fires that ripped through asylum seeker homes throughout the country in the early nineties the fire was not only seen as a human tragedy but had reopened existing debates over xenophobia and integration policies. In a bold political move, Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had flown to Germany to both express his condolences to the victim's families but to deliver two key speeches, which were contradictory in nature. While he called upon his countrymen and women to integrate into German society in one statement, he demanded they resist assimilation into the dominant society in a speech to thousands of Turkish citizens in one of Cologne's largest arenas. More on the story can be read here.