Excelsior: La Politica Exterior, El reto Del Nuevo Gobierno

La Politica Exterior, El Reto Del Nuevo Gobierno
Comentario
Excelsior (Mexico)
Marzo 18, 2013
Seccion Global, Pag. 5
Disponsible  http://www.excelsior.com.mx/periodico/flip-global/18-03-2013/18-03-2013_flip-global.pdf

VOXXI: A predictable outcome: The Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas Referendum

A Predictable Outcome: The Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas Referendum
W. Alejandro Sanchez
VOXXI
March 15, 2013
Originally published: http://www.voxxi.com/predictable-outcome-falkland-islands/

On March 10, the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas voted on a historic referendum that addressed the islands’ territorial status. The query that was asked was “Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?” With a 92 percent participation rate, 1,513 residents voted in favor and only three voted against maintaining the islands’ current political relationship with London. Reactions in Buenos Aires and London thus far have been fairly predictable. If anything, the recent election of an Argentine citizen as the new Pope may bring an unexpected opening for new developments to occur on the South Atlantic front, as the Vatican is no stranger to conflict resolution initiatives in South America.

Predictable reaction so far

After the results were made public, U.K. Foreign Secretary William Hague released a statement explaining, “I welcome today’s result [and that] all countries should accept the results of this referendum and support the Falkland Islanders as they continue to develop their home and their economy.” On the other hand, following her well rehearsed script,Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner declared that the referendum had been a “parody.” She has repeatedly stated that the referendum is invalid, since the inhabitants of the islands are not an indigenous population but rather colonizers. Additional criticism came from the Argentine ambassador to the U.K., Alicia Castro, who said in a recent interview, “For how long can the islanders live isolated from the rest of the continent?” Like President Kirchner, the diplomat also called for negotiations with London over the sovereignty of the islands.

The Hemisphere responds

Aside from the declarations from London and Buenos Aires, it is important to note reactions by Western Hemisphere governments. In recent months, the Argentine government lobbied for Latin America and Caribbean states not to send delegates to the islands to observe the referendum. This tactic was only partially successful as several Latin American nations sent observers (namely Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Uruguay).

It’s not surprising that Chile sent an observer, as Santiago has been at odds with Buenos Aires for decades, partially due to a territorial dispute that almost ended in a war during the Beagle Canal conflict in the late 1970s. Furthermore, during the 1982 Falklands War between Argentina and the U.K., Santiago (then ruled by General Augusto Pinochet) provided the British military with intelligence that was used against Argentina. Meanwhile, Mexico resisted pressure from Buenos Aires, most likely as a result of President Enrique Pena Nieto’s desire to assert his nation as a Latin American powerhouse. The fact that Brazil and Uruguay sent observers, on the other hand, is somewhat surprising as both countries have repeatedly stated that the Falklands belong to Argentina. In the case of Uruguay, this decision created a small political scandal in Montevideo.

Finally, it is worthy to note that Washington has remained neutral, much to the chagrin of London, which was hoping for diplomatic support for this democratic electoral process. To make matters worse, right wing conservative commentators have criticized the Obama White House for Washington’s neutrality.

Where do we go from here?

As previously mentioned, the referendum and its predictable results don’t actually change the situation in the South Atlantic. Argentina will continue to openly voice their claim to the islands, because Malvinas has become a part of Argentine national identity. Meanwhile, London will continue to maintain its position that it’s willing to address different cooperation initiatives with Buenos Aires, as long as it doesn’t involve the discussion of sovereignty. The White House will most likely continue to be criticized for not more openly supporting London and protecting the historical “special relationship” between the two nations. But it’s in Latin America where the referendum provided some examples of the complicated inter-regional relations as Western Hemisphere states are trying to balance supporting Argentina’s claim (to promote regional unity) while also improving relations with Britain.

At this point, the most we can hope for is that other domestic issues will attract the attention of both governments and their populations in the coming months and away from the islands. For London, the U.K.’s struggling economy and the 2014 referendum over Scottish independence are immediate priorities for Prime Minister David Cameron. Meanwhile, Argentina is suffering from the global recession and the effects of its default in 2001 (the government ordered in February a freeze on supermarket prices), as well as ongoing unrests by various sectors of the population (like the country’s school teachers). In other words, President Kirchner also has several domestic priorities that she should focus on.

The offshore oil and gas deposits around the islands notwithstanding, the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas are hardly the key to a greater future for either Argentina or the U.K., and both the Casa Rosada and 10 Downing Street should focus on their numerous outstanding domestic problems.

A divine breakthrough?

As an appendix to the referendum, it is worthy to note that the Vatican has chosen an Argentine cardinal, Jorge Bergoglio, to be the next Pope. This is relevant to the Falklands dispute as Argentine commentators have already mused whether the new Pope, as an Argentine, could express an interest in mediating between London and Buenos Aires. Interestingly, this situation is not without precedent. During the aforementioned Beagle conflict between Chile and Argentina, Pope John Paul II became involved in the territorial dispute, sending Cardinal Antonio Samore, nicknamed “the Vatican Kissinger,” to South America. The Vatican’s involvement can be regarded as successful given that war was prevented (though bad blood between Chile and Argentina persisted, as exemplified by Chile’s role in the Falklands War). Certainly, a Vatican involvement in the Falkland Islands dispute is just a plausible but still an unlikely scenario, though it is assumed that with the Latino Pope Francis I, the Vatican will have a greater interest in Latin American affairs.

Regarding the Falklands, the referendum has demonstrated the will of the islands’ inhabitants. As previously mentioned, this will not affect Buenos Aires’ position, as the Kirchner government has made several aggressive statements, and it will not take a more neutral position anytime soon. Maybe it would indeed take divine intervention for some kind of positive progress, such a rapprochement between London and Buenos Aires, to occur in the South Atlantic.

Read more: http://www.voxxi.com/predictable-outcome-falkland-islands/#ixzz2NepEYCHi

VOXXI: Venezuela’s April Elections: Hola Presidente Nicolas Maduro?

Venezuela's April Elections: Hola Presidente Nicolas Maduro?
W. Alejandro Sanchez
VOXXI
March 14, 2013
Originally published: http://www.voxxi.com/april-elections-hola-nicolas-maduro/

Following the recent demise of President Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan government has called for new presidential elections to be held on April 14, barely a month from now. The interim head of state, Vice President Nicolas Maduro, has stated that he will run for office to continue Chavez’s vision of establishing a Bolivarian Venezuela (and Latin America). Meanwhile, the opposition candidate is Governor Henrique Capriles Radonski, who already unsuccessfully ran against Chavez in the October 2012 elections. Even though he appears as a likable person and a challenger to the status quo that has governed Venezuela for over a decade, Capriles will most likely be unable to defeat Maduro.

Too Late to Unite?

With elections just one month away, the pressure is on for Capriles and his followers to organize a successful presidential campaign. In the October 2012 elections, Capriles was the closest thing to a real contender Chavez faced in over a decade in power, but he still lost by around 10 percent of the vote (the incumbent head of state won 54 percent to Capriles’ 44 percent). Time is not only against Capriles but other issues offer a losing battle. For example, the government continues to have widespread control of the country’s media. In an ongoing development one of the last major media outlets (which was private-owned and renowned for being anti-Chavez), the TV station Globovisión, will be sold due to unsolvable financial losses. Hence, it will be an uphill battle for Capriles to obtain air time to deliver his message and attract followers. Resorting to the internet is an option as Venezuela has a high degree of connectivity, but internet usage in that South American nation is still not as widespread as in the U.S. or Europe, and poses its own set of challenges. In other words, Capriles will have a difficult time getting his message to the masses.

Arguably, the anti-Chavez movement lost its chance to push for a leadership change back in January and February, while Chavez was still in Cuba. At the time there was very little information made available to the population regarding the head of state’s health status. This informational vacuum sparked concern as the population demanded to know how ill Chavez was and also who exactly was in charge of the government. The situation created a constitutional crisis in the country, as it was unclear whether Chavez’s poor health meant that elections were supposed to be called for and who was next in the chain of command. Nevertheless, the opposition, while making a plethora of statements calling for new elections, failed to apply enough pressure on the interim Maduro government.

Sticking Points

Does Capriles have a fighting chance to win the upcoming elections? His one ace in the hole will be his ability to organize a presidential debate against Maduro. This would allow Capriles to show the Venezuelan population that its interim president lacks concise policies for the country as well as the immediate challenges that Venezuela faces. Rather than attacking Maduro for being a chavista, Capriles must focus on specific areas that Chavez did not, arguably, properly address while in power and argue that if Maduro is elected, the situation will worsen.

An issue that Capriles could raise and use against Nicolas Maduro would be on the subject of the worsening Venezuelan economy. In addition, the opposition candidate could argue that Maduro plans to continue donating Venezuelan oil to Caribbean states, including Cuba, via the PetroCaribe initiative rather than selling the precious commodity to customers around the world, who would pay good money that can be used to help the country’s economy.

Moreover, Capriles could raise the issue that the government has spent billions in revenue on state-of-the-art weaponry (mostly Russian) for the armed forces, police and the Bolivarian militia. Nevertheless, major cities such as Caracas continue to be rife with low-level crime, such as robberies, gang-related violence and even murder. Capriles could promote the idea that citizen security will worsen under Nicolas Maduro.

Finally, Capriles could attack Maduro over Venezuela’s energy crisis, an ironic development given the country’s massive oil wealth. He could specifically focus on the energy crisis that affected Caracas back in 2010 due to a drought that affected the country’s main rivers. The lack of electricity brought about severe blackouts, causing the government to enforce electricity rationing. Capriles could argue that Maduro has no plans for alternative energy sources for the country (such as a controversial nuclear power plant center).

Voting for ‘El Heredero’

Ultimately, the aforementioned “discussion points” may give Capriles some extra votes, but it is highly questionable if he will be able to woo enough potential swing voters who voted for Chavez back in October in the next 30 days. The reason for this is that Chavez publicly declared Maduro to be his heir, and that the population should vote for him. Maduro has been quick to maintain this image and thus the “sympathy” vote, explaining that he will follow his mentor’s vision and lead through his footsteps. That should be enough to get him re-elected.

Finally, while Maduro is not as charismatic as Chavez, he does have an appealing story. The interim head of state was once a bus driver who moved up the ranks of the chavista movement as Chavez’s trusted sidekick to his current position. While Capriles could attack Maduro for his lack of education or governmental experience, Nicolas Maduro’s life is the kind of rags-to-riches story that resonates well with the masses of a country that still has a large sector living in poverty. Such a move worked well for Alejandro Toledo (2001-2006), who played the ethnicity card and emphasized his own rags-to-riches story in neighboring Peru. In Toledo’s case, using his life story and background as a tactic to gain a “sympathy” vote helped him get elected to the Peruvian presidency.

Barring some massive corruption scandal or some incident with powerful factions like the military, which already swore loyalty to him, it would seem that Nicolas Maduro will be Venezuela’s first president in the post-Chavez era.

Read more: http://www.voxxi.com/april-elections-hola-nicolas-maduro/#ixzz2NZ0xGkfP

Interview: Russia Today: Cross Talks: Falklvinas

Falkvinas (Falklands/Malvinas March 2013 referendum)
Cross Talk
Russia Today
Washington DC studios
March 12, 2013
Originally posted: http://rt.com/shows/crosstalk/falkvinas-uk-remaining-territory-158/