Grand Plans in Latin America

Andres Oppenheimer wants grand strategy in Latin America.

By contrast, several of Obama’s predecessors often referred to their grand plans for the region during their U.N. speeches. But Obama, unlike former Presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, has not proposed regional trade or investment plans with Latin America.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/09/28/3655423/andres-oppenheimer-us-should-avoid.html#storylink=cpy

I've noted the problem with his logic before. Why are so many people so intensely focused on "grand plans"? There is no reason to assume that such plans are good for Latin America, and are not necessarily even good for the United States. George W. Bush had a grand economic plan that was so blind to Latin American realities that it soon died an ignominious death.

Oppenheimer seems to be saying that failure doesn't really matter. What matters is a symbolic gesture of Latin America's "importance," which in his opinion cannot be cultivated on a daily basis on the ground but rather must be based on a big announcement with big ideas. That the idea is poorly thought out, can never work, or is viewed with skepticism in Latin America, matters much less.

Cuba Rents Baseball Players

A student pointed out this story to me by Anne-Marie Garcia and Peter Orsi. There is a long history of Cuban baseball players defecting to the United States. (In fact, Yasiel Puig or José Fernandez will certainly get the NL Rookie of the Year instead of the Padres' Jedd Goyrko. But that's another story). Now Raul Castro says Cuban players can essentially be rented to U.S. teams as long as they fulfill certain professional responsibilities at home. And, of course, pay taxes on their lucrative contracts.

I'll be curious to see whether the Obama administration opens the doors to this initiative, which requires waivers of some sort because the Cubans will not become permanent residents. They will simply be Cubans making money in the United States and sending a large amount of dollars back to Cuba.

Of course, this also higlights the authoritarian nature of Cuban immigration policy. You can leave the country only under certain specific conditions that benefit the government, and in this case presumably there are plenty of strings the governments can pull.

At the very least, it seems less like indentured servitude as the Cuban doctors in Venezuela (and, interestingly, my student's cousin, a Cuban dentist, was sent to Venezuela and then defected).

Voting and the Venezuelan Municipal Elections

David Smilde and Hugo Pérez Hernáiz make a very interesting point about the December Venezuelan municipal elections. The opposition has been hammering on the fact that the presidential election was fraudulent. Henrique Capriles' completely failed regional tour was intended to broadcast that message and generate sympathy. Yet at the same time, they want to make the municipal elections into a referendum on Nicolás Maduro, which means basically accepting the fact that elections in Venezuela are worthwhile.

They argue that seeing the vote as a protest will bring people out, and that both sides run risks:

Thus the December 8, nationwide municipal elections pose a set of opportunities and risks for both sides. The Maduro government’s candidates will surely win most municipalities, but if it loses the national popular vote it will effectively have lost its first “plebiscite.” This would leave the opposition strengthened and in good position to seek a recall referendum on Maduro in two years. Maduro’s standing as Chavez’s successor would be seriously weakened and probably challenged by other leaders within Chavismo.

However, if Chavismo wins most municipalities and the national vote, it could be disastrous for the opposition. Capriles’ leadership would be questioned, and opposition voters would be demoralized thereby complicating an eventual push for a recall referendum.

True enough. But I think there is another risk to the opposition. How many times can you participate in elections while claiming they are fraudulent? I've argued before that boycotting elections is counterproductive. If you keep voting, though, then you do have to accept losing. I would expect Maduro and others in the government to make the most of that.

I wonder, further, to what degree the opposition is split between those who believe in the fraud and those who just think they lost. At what point do they splinter?

No Doctrine is Great Doctrine

Foreign policy critics of Barack Obama are deeply concerned that he has no doctrine. For some reason we demand doctrines. Otherwise, we think, the United States is adrift.

From the Latin American perspective, however, we should be glad. U.S. foreign policy doctrines have always meant a coherent articulation of the abuse of sovereignty and/or human rights. No U.S. doctrine works out well for U.S.-Latin American relations.The Monroe Doctrine is an obvious case. Even the minority of 19th century Latin Americans who applauded the Monroe Doctrine were disappointed to learn the U.S. ignored it when it wished and did not protect them from European threats. The Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe Doctrine was not good for Latin America nor was the Olney Doctrine. The Mann Doctrine opened the door for supporting brutal military dictatorships, as did the Reagan Doctrine. To the extent that there was a coherent Bush Doctrine, it contributed to the most strained ties in decades. Having no Obama Doctrine is a relief.

We should applaud the lack of a grand strategy or doctrine for Latin America. Having good relations should not entail a rigid way of formulating policies. Inevitably, in large part because of policy makers' belief in U.S. exceptionalism, doctrines become finger wagging. Latin Americans are screwed up, doing things we don't particularly like, and so we need to impose solutions.

British Military & Argentina

There is one sure way to raise a stink in Great Britain, and that is to say Argentina is a stronger military power. At that point you don't just say the claim is inaccurate, but that it is a direct insult. Plus, we can whup those Argentines any day!

"To claim our military ranks below Argentina's is absurd and a gross slur on the calibre and capability of our troops. 

“Argentina struggles to get its ageing Falklands-era fighter jets off the ground even on a good day, and if any did reach the islands they'd be no match for the RAF's top-of-the-range Typhoons.”

Pretty pathetic, really, as it was clearly intended to stir up fears that Britain would lose if it went to war again over the Falklands/Malvinas. But fear is how you get nice, fat defense budgets.

Conference "Free Riders"

Someone just pointed this out to me from the Midwest Political Science Association conference webpage:

When the MPSA negotiates a contract with a conference hotel, the association receives free meeting space in exchange for a guarantee that it will use a specific number of sleeping rooms. If attendees do not use the required number of sleeping rooms, the MPSA must pay the cost for these unused rooms, which could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. In addition, the more sleeping rooms that conference attendees use, the more attractive the MPSA conference becomes to a hotel, and the MPSA can negotiate even lower room rates. In essence, the attendees who stay outside the conference hotels are "free riders."

WTH? It costs $90 for a graduate student and $180 to register for the conference if you do so early and stay in the hotel. They jack it up if you don't stay in the hotel. Meanwhile, the special conference rates for the hotels are all over $200 a night, even for a single. The only other option they'll accept is a hostel.

Whoever wrote that may have a very generous travel budget, but most people don't (and grad students often get nothing). Even a reasonably generous travel budget will be entirely blown very quickly. Considering people "free riders" when in fact they are just trying to make ends meet is excessive and insulting.

The American People and Immigration

One of the most overused phrases these days is "the American people" (let's say TAP for short). For every topic, there are completely contradictory assertions about what these mysterious creatures want. They are a bloc of people, us in fact, that all think a particular way about something. They are good, patriotic, people who reflect the good common sense of this country.

In the case of immigration, TAP believe everything. Just Google "'american people' immigration." They hate and love everything Congress is doing and not doing, and they especially like and dislike President Obama's policies. They think there needs to be a path to citizenship and no path. It's great, because Obama can talk about them but so can John Boehner. TAP agree with everyone.

In practice, of course, the definition of TAP is "people who agree with me," or "the people I hang out with." We could get a little more precise, look at polls, and say that a majority of TAP believe such and such, but that's not categorical enough for those who invoke the will of TAP and so is rarely used.

At any rate, I am fully convinced that TAP agree with me.