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

It came as no surprise to those who knew about the past rights abuses by Iran’s government when many Iranians, especially young Iranians, took to the streets in the last two weeks and were met with brutal retribution affecting every sector of Iran’s vibrant society including intellectuals, the media, youth and diverse cultures. While much of Western media sought to compare the protests in Iran to those of Eastern Europe and China, Iran is unique and is forming what must be regarded as its own unique movement that will produce its own unique results. A comparison of best judgment is one that would compare opposite popular political movements to that of the one in Iran, namely those in many left leaning governments in Latin America.

This week while the protestors in Iran were slowly being arrested and assaulted, Honduras had its own coup with the Judiciary, Legislature and military forcing out the Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya. Honduras’ other policy branches sought its own change by placing its own leader in power in order to quell the Executive Branch from leading a populist move to allow the President to stand for election indefinitely. Such a constitutional change for the benefit of the President and the Executive branch was successfully accomplished by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela a few short months ago. This altering of constitutional powers that limit the Executive from seeking election past a designated term in office is a common limit to the power of the President in many nations with a similar political system. While Parliamentary Democracies often have leaders stand for election well past six years (as technically you are electing the party, and not the leader), it is seen as a violation of the democratic system in many nations and allows the tyranny of the majority to rule over all sectors of society in those countries considered a Republic. In those systems, the power of the President is paramount and is only limited by the legislature and judiciary. While Venezuela’s battle over control between the branches took hold in debate and via legal measures, Honduras’ branches of government took the direct route, upsetting many supporters of the President as well as supporters of Zelaya outside of Honduras, including Mr. Obama who often is seen as the culprit of actions against leftist leaders in Latin America.

The irony of these latest popular protests in Iran and Honduras come from the support given by those who ideologically would naturally support “the other” in these conflicts. As mentioned above, Obama, who represents a US that allows for power to be tempered against the Executive by the Judiciary and Legislative branch when the Executive tries to unbalance its influence in the Republic, has openly supported the power of President Zelaya in Honduras and is helping to return the President to his office in the capital. While the support obviously comes from the manner in which Zelaya was removed, the election of Obama and great support no doubt came from the result of accusations of abuse of the Executive branch by Bush and Cheney when in office as claimed by many constitutional experts in the US and abroad. The other twist in this narrative comes from Chavez’s support of Iran’s illegitimately elected president and ruling Religious Council. While Chavez and Ahmedinejad do get a lot of support from rural and urban poor in both their respective countries, popular support for Mosavi and opposition leaders in Iran are coming from the people themselves, who are protesting against unelected leaders via a populist uprising. Hugo Chavez, the poster child for populism in Latin America, won his own support for his government and changes to the constitution via a majority of people who legitimized his power in office, yet seeks to be a populist against populism when supporting the establishment in Iran. While debate continues to whether or not Chavez forcefully silenced his opposition during elections and referendums in Venezuela, support for Iran’s current government by Chavez may have more to do with Venezuela’s geopolitics than the will of the people in Iran. In the end, the fight for power in Iran did not start with hard opposition to Iran’s Ayatollahs, as true reformers were not allowed to run for government in Iran. Iran’s leadership crisis is one of oligarchs in Iran’s leadership pushing to gain more influence and leverage over Iran’s dominant Councils and clerics and to gain support from Iran’s youth that make up more than 70% of Iran’s population as noted by many experts. As a result of violence however, many in Iran wish to move beyond a simple election of Mosavi dominated by the Religious Councils and wish to move towards a free vote and debate in society.

Iran will likely slowly degrade from within, but maintain its same structure in the process. The true measure of change for those outside of Iran is whether or not a new government, in a similar, form will choose to involve itself in the Arab world, continue to divide and conquer diverse political groups, religions and cultures in Iran and decide to promote Iranian culture and economy outside of Iran towards the West or the East. The reposition of the US and the oil market may grow the influence of populists in Latin America and illegitimate governments in the Middle East, but eventually economics and popular movements will create a debate where the people must choose between two unstable alternatives and hope for great leaders to build their nations. At best, Lebanon without political assassinations would be a welcomed outcome for Iran. Lessons from Latin America for Iran may come from those same intellectuals that are currently sitting in Evin prison in Tehran for speaking their views. One academic from Latin America similar to those imprisoned in Iran is Guillermo O’Donnell, a Latin American intellectual who often writes on differing forms of democracy. Many of his theories surround the issues of democratic institutions and voting. Simply voting does not create a democratic society in itself, but the interaction between different ideas, from grassroots movements, journalists, professors, politicians and communities produce institutions which seek to balance power in the hands of the people, and not in that of a religious oligarchy or simply the Executive. Unfortunately in Iran, once violence takes hold of any election, voting becomes not simply the symbol of a healthy democratic society but it transforms and becomes a means of protest when all other democratic institutions become disenfranchised of their legitimate authority. Equality and rights does not come from a simple ballot, as important as the process is, but comes from institution building and seeking of rights in every unique society. This is what many often abuse in Latin America, and seems to not be understood by religious oligarchs in Iran. The original form of ancient Greek democracy has evolved, and will leave those behind who do not understand it beyond its basic elements. Unfortunately as many Latin American oligarchs have known, the end result is always the same, albeit in differing and unique forms of anarchy.

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

BBC World and BBC Persian services have done a remarkable job in the last two weeks highlighting the Muslim world after President Obama’s speech in Cairo, elections in Lebanon and today’s election in Iran, as well as international links to changing events in the region. To begin, various stories put out by BBC, while not directly linked, do have an effect in relation to each other. I thought an interesting comparison would be Obama’s speech in Cairo and a story this week on Youssou N’Dour, a famous singer from Senegal who put out an album a few years ago ironically called “Egypt” which won critical acclaim and awards internationally. N’Dour is well known for his music worldwide, but as he stated, he felt that the music, liturgy, and peaceful side of Islam was not being portrayed properly in many forms of media globally. His album, which is a combination of well-known religious songs in Arabic makes up most of the tracks and is quite remarkable. N’Dour noted in the interview that many believed that because he was African, he was not Muslim, and as a result he has been touring and will tour into the United States to not only show the multi-ethnicity of Islam, but to also show the brighter side of the faith which has inspired much of his talent.

Obama’s speech in Cairo touched on many of the same issues but instead of focusing a speech on the entire Muslim world, it was focused more on the Middle East, namely Arab and perhaps the Persian world, leaving much of Africa, The Balkans, South East Asia, India, Pakistan and Turkey and Central Asia out of the main focus of the dialogue. Beyond focusing on solely the Middle East, the speech really came to represent Muslim Arabs, leaving out the recognition of the various other groups which have resided and built up communities in Arab lands over many generations and thousands of years who are not Muslims but are Arab and Persian just the same. While many of these groups have lived in the Middle East peacefully, many have outstanding issues in their respective countries that should have been addressed by the President, especially when concerning issues of human rights. While there are many cases and many cultures that deserve attention in the region, Iran’s detention of the leaders of its Baha’I community should be paramount in any speech and policy in the region as it is recent, shows evidence in the past of a likely negative result for the detained leaders, and comes from generations of persecution of this group above all others in Iran. N’Dour’s music and respect for Islam in many ways adopted the focus that Obama’s speech should have used in speaking to a Muslim world that is as diverse, multicultural and politically energetic as N’Dour’s view of a religion and culture. The challenge is not simply to build bridges between Muslims and Americans, it is to challenge the cultures that dominate North America, the Middle East and the entire Muslim world to break bread and open communications between all cultures and faiths which have roots and seek influence in the Middle East. Acknowledging all Muslims and non-Muslims who live in Islamic societies is crucial and still lacking in much of the dialogue in the region. It may be the result that people who live in the Middle East will create a change on their own, as opposed to waiting for Obama to create change for them.

The best example of real change in the Middle East came from the recent elections in Lebanon. Lebanon is the most diverse country in the region religiously as groups living in this tiny nation are relatively numerically balanced between different faiths and different perspectives on the same faith. Many believe that the coalition supported by Hezbollah would finally defeat the government of Lebanon in this last election. After years of direct protest, assassinations and political manoeuvring against Lebanon’s elected multi-party legislature and the Hariri family; who lead many of the reforms and were victims of many assassinations over the last few years, Lebanon’s people decided to give the mandate to the current government and challenge the popularity of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Many Muslims, Christians and other groups in Lebanon fought for the right for fair elections and a popular vote that challenges not Hezbollah’s work with many of the poorer communities and lack of health care in the country, but with a perspective that would likely take Lebanon back into a time of civil war and conflict with its neighbours in the region. This power to change did not come from Obama or his reengagement with the Muslim world, but from the needs and perspective of many of the people inside Lebanon itself.

Currently the votes in Iran’s elections are being counted, and the various minds and debates in Iranian society has come to represent itself verbally as well as through a large popular movement via waves of voters to choose the future of Iran. Iran’s current leader appeals to the rural and poorer urban voters and seeks to take the country’s oil profit and gear them towards social programs, challenged by the candidate Mosavi who seeks to open Iran internationally and build bridges between Iran and the West, representing many in the urban perspective of Iranian society. The internal debate in Iran is very much a local debate on where Iran’s future may be. With one of the largest and youngest populations in the world, the result of Iran’s election could make the country into an international power via economic and cultural opening, or could make Iran into a regional power where nuclear proliferation will become the main focus on the region. With North Korea pouring onto the scene and US involvement in Pakistan, any support for a nuclear Iran my illicit a strong reaction from the US and its allies. This week the BBC sought to detail links between Venezuela, Iran and Bolivia. While leaders in Venezuela and Bolivia often appeal to rural and urban poor as well, and seek to support those communities with revenue from oil profits, the ever growing connection between Bolivia’s uranium deposits and a possible sale to Iran may become the first issue Iran will have after the election. The end result and the difference between one candidate and another may be the difference between threats to others in the region and a strong US response, and Iran becoming the darling of the region’s economy with great natural wealth and a young, well travelled and educated population. While Venezuela and Bolivia might be dominated by the effects of poverty and class issues, Iran has a third element as it is in the middle of one of the most militarized regions of the globe and seeks to become part of a dialogue which would surely result in direct conflict with influential powers in the region. In reality, Islam is only part of the issues dominating the election in Iran, with culture, politics and diversity of class becoming part of the dialogue between Iranians and its leaders. The end choice is one for Iranians, but the end result will involve everyone in the region no matter what their faith.

The BBC World Service this month broke from their usually news and debate programs and showed an interesting documentary series on Iranian culture and flavour, in a four part series called The Taste of Iran. The host, Sadeq Saba goes through much of the country and explores the food which makes up a great part of Iranian culture. With each new reason for a meal, Saba also explores the history of the region of the country and festivals and traditions which come with each meal, tea and pastry. His adventure brings Saba from the top of mountains to cemeteries, from Mosques to Churches, and parks to tea houses across Iran.

In the most recent part of the series, Saba takes to Esfahan and explores many religious festivals surrounding different events and communities in the city. He discusses not only Shi’a festivals, but the history of Sunni and Armenian Christians in the city as well. The city, sharing a diverse past much like other Eastern cities such as Alexandria in Egypt in the 16th to 19th century and Damascus and Seville in the Medieval era, Esfahan was home to a mix of cultures and religions, which prospered under kingdoms of the past. Food of course, the focus of this programs was changed by this fact as well, but what stood out and what has become forgotten since after the First World War is that Eastern countries have had as much tolerance in the past as it is seen as having restrictions today. Addressing this past might help determine its future, not in Iran alone, but in the region as a whole.

While recent governments have moved more towards oil profits and agreements with Venezuela and North Korea as opposed to diplomacy with the West, the opening of culture and cooperation might help Iranian culture, and food, reach outside of the country and promote respected dialogue between the people in Iran and nations opposing the current government. Some important developments recently have taken place which might aid this progression. Firstly, former President Khatami had issued a statement that he will run again for the Presidency. While still part of the powerful elite in Iran, his pro-reform stance and support from a large youth community in Iran kept Iran on friendly terms for the years he was formerly leader of the government. Statements from many anti-Bush politicians also have taken place, offering some sense of a new dialogue with the US and Mr. Obama, likely a way to save face, but also a reality of unpopularity by many in Iran and other OPEC nations like Venezuela, and of course the cutting in half of oil prices worldwide. With so many negative relations due to past historical issues and threats of nuclear conflict surrounding the debate between the US, EU, Russia and Iran, a few positive developments in the region could not hurt. Culture, the root of pride for many Iranians can become a valued commodity outside Iran, and perhaps an export which is not produced by petrochemicals to boot.

If pride and culture is exported from Iran, and exchange of ideas and interest in the country will inevitably take shape. Much of the problems surrounding issues in the region is that whether speaking about Gaza or Israel, Iraq and Syria, or Lebanon and Iran, often the view from those in the EU and US are either limited, overly positive or overly negative, or completely enlaced in short term policy that may benefit elites in both regions, but do not take account of those communities in the Middle East that are is grave poverty, are oppressed minorities throughout the whole region, or oppose the common lingua franca of Middle Eastern policy by local governments, foreign diplomats and radical groups which produce current problems. With a new dialogue, comes the responsibility to protest in a just manner, progress in the golden age of Iranian culture would have never existed without this ability to encourage tolerance. With history, food, and politics, another Middle Eastern tradition is recognized, that of some discussion to ponder over dinner…

 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 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.

In 1973, the murder of elected President Salvador Allende of Chile and many left wing and party supporters became the model of how repression and dictatorship in Latin America would dominate much of the region into the mid 1980s, and for Chile, consume the legal system and keep the nation in traumatic debate well into the new millennium. In a PBS documentary broadcast on August 19th 2008, filmmakers Elizabeth Farnsworth and Patricio LanFranco explore how one of General Pinochet's conservative judges at the time was now in charge of investigating the "disappeared" under Pinochet's rule since 1973. With the debate on Pinochet having its international rebirth in 1998 when he was detained in the United Kingdom on a question of whether he could be extradited to Spain for charges against him for conspiracy in the murders of a handful of Spanish nationals in the 1973 coup, the motivation for Chileans to challenge Pinochet's indefinite power in the Chilean political system and to question the old regime finally was presented to our Judge in charge of rewriting the past of a divided country. In their PBS documentary film The Judge and the General Judge Juan Guzman is interviewed and the past of Chile is examined as we follow his challenge in finding evidence after thirty years and his numerous troubles in charging and bringing justice to many of Chile's most important historical and current leaders.

The reality in Chile is often a surprise for many outside of the country who may not understand how Pinochet remained in power for so long and how a society could be able to challenge their past with many of the key figures in 1973 still obtaining so much influence and support in the country today. Many Chileans who were targeted by the government often left, if able to leave, or were arrested and murdered in their own country for their political ties and ideals. Many Chilean communities arose as refugees since that time and remain as strong contributors to their new nations. Like Judge Guzman himself, many in Chile at the time did not know of the repression occurring in their country, as much of the discussion was closed at the time and since then until relatively recently, and those who were disappeared often received more attention outside of Chile than inside the country. Much of this came in a lack of discussion by the repressed in the country by way of terror by the government, and by ideals which saw left wing movements as creating the narrative in order to unfairly discredit the leaders of the coup at the time. As many did not see in Chile, Guzman himself admitted to being unable to see beyond the political struggle at the time and closed to the limitations of media and the terror which was set upon political opponents of General Pinochet at the time. In the narrative of the documentary Guzman makes the clear point that evidence of the past criminal actions were sunk under the sea, physically and metaphorically, in an effort to erase the "disappeared" from history. Fortunately the Judge was made aware of this fact in his investigation and took to rediscovering the dead off the Chilean coast and finally succeeded in opening a legal case in Chile against its former dictator.

Like many situations of past repression and genocide, nations often are not able to prosecute past leaders of nations as their regime still remains in power or is able to limit discussion of their past actions due to current fears of reprisals in the country. Like Chile, much support in country which historically had strong institutions and government can turn into repression and violence if enough limits are placed on free debate and media, but also where some governments are supported, either innocently or directly, by a populace that may benefit from a change in power in any country. Chile, as a country which had some of the most vibrant political movements in Latin America was torn apart by infighting between left wing policies and violent reactions by right wing movements which set trauma as one of the main characteristics in Chilean society. While Judge Guzman will never fully succeed in his actions, the dialogue itself creates its own value in rewriting a history which has all but disappeared itself. The documentary film can been seen by clicking here.