Tensions in Latin America Over a Wall, a U.N. Seat and a Chunk of Land
The uneasy relationship between the United States and the rest of the hemisphere reverberates in three stories generating headlines and fueling commentary throughout Latin America -- the final approval of a U.S.-Mexico wall, Hugo Chavez's ongoing fight for a seat at the United Nations, and rumors that have spun out of a visit by Jenna Bush to Paraguay.
'The Wall of Lies'
With President Bush's signing of legislation authorizing the construction of a 700-mile border barrier, the widespread Latin American opposition to "el muro" has returned in force.
Peruvian novelist Mario Vargas Llosa, politically conservative and often pro-American, is among the most caustic critics. Writing in Peru's El Comercio (and reprinted in El Pais of Spain and La Opinion in Los Angeles), Vargas Llosa flatly predict that "the wall of lies" will never be completed.
"The seven billion dollars that the wall of the lies will cost would serve much more effectively, with respect to illegal immigration, if instead of being squandered on a cement fiction that will soon have more holes than a gruyere cheese, was spent on factories or credits to create jobs on the other side of the border...But all this belongs to the dominion of the strict reality and it is well known that human beings -- even gringos, who pride themselves on being so pragmatic -- often prefer the magic of the fiction to the crude life as he is," he wrote.
Google's translation is crude, but gives the flavor of Vargas Llosa's polemic.
Mexican commentators are especially negative. Talli Nauman of El Universal calls the fence, "a chicken-hearted response by weak-kneed U.S. elected representatives who do not care about resolving migration conflicts."
Ruben Duenas, columnist for Hoy Tamaulipas, a Spanish-language news site in the Mexican state adjacent to the tip of Texas, says the wall will change "the flavor of the relationships and friendship" between the two countries and their peoples.
With Chavez Under Fire, U.N. Fight Goes On
Further south, the geopolitical struggle over Latin America's seat on the United Nation's Security Council continues to foster an ideological debate in the media.
With Venezuela lagging far behind Guatemala after 35 rounds of secret balloting, leftist President Hugo Chavez's hopes of winning a platform for his crusade against U.S. foreign policy seems thwarted. But Guatemala's campaign, strongly backed by Washington, has come up just short of winning the necessary support from two-thirds of U.N. members.
Venezuela is now offering to withdraw, proposing Bolivia as a "consensus candidate." But Guatemala will not step aside for a candidate opposed by any other country, wrote Foreign Minister Gert Rosenthal in the International Herald Tribune. Since the United States is sure to reject Bolivia, a staunch Chavez ally, the impasse continues.
Chavez said on Sunday that "we have taught the empire a lesson thanks to the support of a group of countries that has not allowed calls by Washington to influence them," according to Radio Nacional de Venezuela (in Spanish).
The support for Venezuela "is a clear sign of the determination with which a significant section of the world's governments and the world's population wants to put brakes on US dominance in the world and in the UN," said Venezuela Analysis, a pro-Chavez site.
But memories of Chavez's speech at the United Nations last month in which he called Bush "a devil" have not faded. Brazil's O Estado de Sao Paulo called the speech "a demonstration of contempt for the UN," according to a translation done by Opensource.gov.
"Latin America's representative on the Security Council should be a promoter of cohesion and a defender of the interests and the common positions of the region. In other words, it cannot be Chavez's Venezuela," said the Portuguese-language daily.
Colombia's El Tiempo said Chavez' words might excite "innocent leftists" but "in diplomacy between serious countries they only cause consternation."
In Guatemala's business daily, Siglo XXI, opinion editor Edgar Rosales said Chavez has suffered a "blow to his ego."
"The use of oil and the buffoonery of dancing with Noam Chomsky is not enough to capitalize on resentment generated by the Empire," he wrote last week. But Rosales added that Guatemala should withdraw its candidacy. "Rightly or wrongly, the country is seen as the stooge of the United States, a high price that was paid in each round of voting," he said
On Wednesday afternoon, Reuters reported that talks between Venezuela and Guatemala to settle on a third candidate had broken down. The mediator, Argentina's U.N. Ambassador Cesar Mayoral, said, "There's no deal."
Rumor of Bush 'Land Grab' in Paraguay Denied
A White House spokeswoman on Wednesday denied rumors that President Bush is planning to buy 98,000 acres of land in northern Paraguay.
The denial came after a spate of news stories in the Latin American online media suggesting the first family intended to buy land in a remote region in northern Paraguay. The governor of the region told Neike (in Spanish), an independent news site, that he had heard the story but could not confirm it. A visit to the region by Jenna Bush prompted more speculation. Jenna Bush, now an intern for UNICEF, was traveling with other volunteers doing humanitarian work, according to The Post's Reliable Source column.
"Bush Paraguay Land Grab Incites Unease," reported the Cuban news service Prensa Libre, prompting a leftist cabinet minister in neighboring Argentina to tell the Infobae (in Spanish) news site that it was "a bad sign" for the region that Bush was settling down on an important aquifer located near a U.S. military base.
In a telephone interview, White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore said the story that Bush was planning to purchase land in Paraguay "is not true."
By Jefferson Morley |
October 26, 2006; 12:18 PM ET
| Category:
Americas
Previous: More on Counting Civilian Casualties |
Next: Firestorm Over Australian Cleric's Remarks
Posted by: P. J. Casey | October 26, 2006 04:00 PM
This ridiculous partial wall will join the Maginot Line and the Great Wall of China in world history, as a massive but futile barrier. I wonder if it will be visible from the Moon?
It's a slap in the face to all brown-skinned Spanish-speaking folks in this hemisphere. Wannabe Hugo-Chavez-clone politicians will use it to verbally berate the USA. Do we really need to become that much more unpopular?
We'll need to build another 4,000-mile wall along the Canadian border, just to prove that this wall isn't racist and nativist. And of course it's a waste of our tax dollars; remember what Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen once said, "A billion here, a billion there, and before you know it you're talking about real money."
Posted by: oldhonky | October 26, 2006 08:00 PM
check
Posted by: defr | October 26, 2006 08:05 PM
Agree compltetely.
Posted by: Bob-Chicago | October 26, 2006 08:06 PM
Terrorist Problems in the Americas- The US is aware that Chavez has the vast money from oil revenues to send Arab terrorists in large numbers from Venezuela through the Mexican border. They have been arriving in Venezuela inlarge numbers for years, learning Spanish in Venezuela, and preparing for their trip north, masquerading as poor mexican laborers in search of jobs in the US. Everyone in Venezuela knows it. The schools in Venezuela already have Cuban teachers instructing the masses in anti-American rhetoric.Cuban advisors have arrived in huge numbers for years. Chavez has had Fidel Castro advising him on what to do. The cities and towns in Venezuela have informants on every block who record anti-Chavez incidents, and the spies get rewarded with new housing, jobs, etc. The vast majority of Venezuelans in the middle class have long left Venezuela and are living in Florida (Miami Lakes,Boca Raton, etc.) and those left are the children of the poor, who will eventually be shooting at our young American boys when they are sent to fight a guerilla war once Chavez goes on a binge with whatever he decides to use on the US to terrorize our population. Chavez is a very dangerous, insane, megalomaniac individual who can cause great harm because we have been ignoring his potential as a threat to our security. It is time to get him out and thwart the eventual harm that he will cause.He is not worth the maiming of one of our young men or women in combat. The only reason we were safe in America for decades was that foreigners knew that we would destroy them if they attempted to harm us.It is time to put that policy in force once again.
Posted by: CC Bonchance | October 26, 2006 08:09 PM
CC Bonchance,
Get real! Terrorists are trained by the United States: Saddam was friendly with the US and helped by Ronald Reagan; Bin Ladin was sponsored and trained by CIA operatives to fight Russia, and if more classified information would probably proof that the United States use "Poison" as good medicine, only to collect side effects later. How can you be so silly to think that Cuba, Venezuela, or mexico can threat the USA by helpin terrorists, when these are countries that suffer as much as the USA when something terrible happens. It's time for Americans to stop blaming the whole world for the problems and admit that their leaders (republicans) are wrong on a many number of things. Starting with spaying on you, curbing your rights and freedom, by sending your children to fight unprovoked and dubious wars, and by sponsoring terror through torture, unlawfull imprisonment, and by flat lying to the people. Again, get real.
Posted by: Anderson | October 26, 2006 08:47 PM
Either you support the notion of a country or you don't. If you do, a country is supposed to act like a family or tribe in the sense that it is supposed to act in support of its members first. I dont see why it is unreasonable to deport illegal aliens, require residency for driver's licenses or healthcare, etc. The definition of a country automatically creates an "us" and "them".
Otherwise you need to follow John Lennon's idea of imagine no countries. However I just have a feeling that all these people coming up here and benefitting from the US would never reciprocate and probably hate us even as they enjoy better lives.
Posted by: Brian | October 26, 2006 08:51 PM
human excretia, passing himself off as the president is pointing towards....
nothing.
His intention is to simply to dissuade you from thinking.
The money has already been redirected to other projects that have nothing to do with _illegal_ immigrants, which are okay in his book if you remember....he's all for amnesty.......
He's putting up the wall to please you, photo OP, it's all about the visual, not what he's doing.......
He's doing nothing.
The middle class has been outsourced. Now they will have to compete with people that are used to getting $4.00 a day for labor in Mehico and Central America....for your job.
I worked Tysons Corner at a think tank, for a number of years. 10 Years ago, I was priveleged to watch an Apartment Complex going up on what used to be MITRE property, or at least it was leased to MITRE........and everyone working on the site appeared to be from Southern Mehico or South America, they were working behind a fence doing everything from plumbing, to heavy machinery like bulldozers.......100% foreign made buildings, with 10 miles of CIA headquarters off of route 123, otherwise known as Dolley Madison Boulevard.
Check it out, see if I'm lying.
Your jobs, even government jobs are flying to India. Heck even doctors will have to compete with other countries soon.....you'll be flying to Singapore to get that kidney transplant.
Yeah, National Security is not the issue that the president and his obfuscationary troops are painting it to be. Otherwise the middle class would be expanding, not shrinking.
You're looking ata rob peter to pay paul economy, and if you're making less than $200,000 _this_year_ you're peter. Next year, that number could be higher, it'll have to be.
The people in charge, couldn't even plan a gay wedding without screwing up the cake.
.
Posted by: asking yourselves this question will help you understand what it is that that useless piece of | October 26, 2006 10:58 PM
for the money, not the citizen ship, otherwise they would be legal.
The expresidente' of Mehico, Fox, bushes good friend was lobbying for _amnesty_ for illegals.......
they sent 45 Billion of your money home to Mehico last year....
You can build a big house in Mehico, with an American salary. They stay here, start a company, and bring in other illegals......outbid their US competitors. And you think you gota deal.
Apparently you've not noticed that the jobs that they're taking are the professional level too, not just washing dishes. Architects, plumbers, store owners, construction crews.....
Posted by: the people are coming to this country | October 26, 2006 11:08 PM
I have no illusions that the wall will be built or that it will deter illegal immigration, but that's beside the point. The core issue is to find out the root causes of why so many people risk life and limb to enter the United States. The leaders of the countries whining about the "unfairness" of the wall reek of hypocrisy and incompetence. On one hand, they publicly deplore the exodus of their people, but on the other hand, they privately encourage it because the billions their countrymen receive in remittances from the illegals quell social unrest and provide little motivation to clean up their own corrupt and incompetent governments. By the way, who's screaming against the wall that the Indians are building in their border with Bangladesh?
Regarding Chavez naive pretensions of global influence, he has been rudely and happily given a "wake up and smell the coffee" by most of the international community. You gotta love it.
From PJ Casey:
"As Alexander Hamilton taught us in his Report on Manufactures, Tariffs are the only way that a country can develop and keep industries along with the jobs that support them. Every country need tariffs and secure borders in order for development to benefit every citizen and legal resident of their country."
Yeah, tell that to the Latin Americans who tried the Prebisch recipe during the 50s, 60s, and 70s with "import substitution" and "infant industries" and the disaster it caused. Even the authors of such recipes had to admit that they were mistaken.
By the way, Vargas Llosa is mostly a libertarian in economic issues, so he is as much against corporate welfare as he is against tariffs and the lack of free trade.
The countries with the most economic freedom are the most stable and prosperous in the world. And that's a fact.
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=852
Posted by: Matedecoca | October 27, 2006 07:55 AM
The United Nations Security Council is a double-humped oxymoron well known for dragging its tail through Rwanda and Darfur from Clinton to Bush. Why not let both Guatemala and Venezuela in, but put them in one of those breakout rooms beltway brokers live so much and let Chavez and Rios Montt arm wrestle for bragging rights on YouTube.
Posted by: Reynolds | October 27, 2006 01:28 PM
Hamilton's tariffs made the U.S. a major industial nation and the "Arsenal of Democracy" through two World Wars. Without those tariffs, we would have become a dumping ground for British goods, and a northern version of a banana republic. Oddly enough, without Hamilton's tariffs, Great Britain might be speaking German after the first World War, or Russian after the Second World War. If we hadn't met the Russians at the Elbe, the Soviet Union would have gone all the way to the English Channel.
During the Pacific campaign, we were down to two or three carriers soon after Pearl Harbor. A couple of years later with the invasion of the Phillipines, Admiral Halsey had 14 carriers. This industrial feat was based on Hamilton's tariffs and his plan to make the U.S. a major industrial state. By the way, during WWII, Industrialists and business men volunteered to work for the government for a dollar a year, and they didn't whine about tax cuts.
Because of Hamilton, we were once giants. I regard "Free Trade" as economic treason. Read American history and you have a roadmap on how to become a major world power. It's not brain surgery, we have done it all before.
Posted by: P. J. Casey | October 27, 2006 03:40 PM
The wall is a rather stupid waste of money that will not work because the majority of illegals come in on valid visas and just overstay. If the US really wanted to stop illegal immigration, it could tomorrow by simply jailing the red blooded American Citizens who hire the illegals in the first place. The wall is nothing more than a sop to the Republican base. The Republican leadership better pray that the base never realizes that it is being used.
That being said, how pathetic for Mexico to basically have to say "We are far too incompetent and corrupt to provide a decent standard of living for our own citizens, so, you Americans must let them into your country."
Posted by: Jerry B | October 27, 2006 11:07 PM
then arrest the employers,
IF the people in charge aren't doing that, then their intention is to
invite _illegal_ immigrants in.
to replace you.
the citizens.
downsize, outsource you in_country....
heh heh heh.....
.
Posted by: you wanna stop _illegal_ immigration? | October 28, 2006 12:10 AM
destroy stupidity, by simply telling the truth.
how much money would it cost to enforce the _do_not_hire_ law for six months?
send them home? why bother, they're here for the money, when that dries up it's adios pendejoes..........
end of reconquista....look that one up.
Posted by: I think it's important to | October 28, 2006 12:13 AM
It's a measure of just how far U.S. influence and power in the world have fallen under Bush that his adminstration is unable to convince the world to choose his preferred representative for Latin America, once considered "America's back yard," on the U.N. Security Council. Guatemala's floundering candidacy is emblematic of the extent to which Bush, and America, stand discredited on the world stage. The mere fact that Bush wants Guatemala to win is cause enough to turn global public opinion against this candidacy, and enough national governments are acquiescing to strong public anti-U.S. sentiment that the U.S. is now unable to muster enough votes for its preferred candidate to win. Thus the standoff between Venezuela, whose government is now openly hostile to Bush, and Guatemala, the U.S.' would-be puppet.
Expect more such situations in the future. Bush has squandered America's influence on the world stage.
It now seems inevitable that Guatemala and Venezuela will both have to withdraw. But as the recent vote for the OAS presidency demonstrated, a candidate backed by Bush cannot win even a straight-up majority of Western Hemisphere support today. Expect another country with an anti-U.S. administration (albeit one whose head of state is less inclined to the inflammatory kind of rhetoric of a Chavez) to take the second Latin American seat on the Security Council. My betting is on Uruguay or Brazil, both of which have responsible, popular, democratically elected leftwing governments that are determined to forge their own path and end their historic subordination to Washington.
Posted by: Pablo | October 28, 2006 12:20 PM
Jerry B wrote:
--If the US really wanted to stop illegal immigration, it could tomorrow by simply jailing the red blooded American Citizens who hire the illegals in the first place.--
Exactly. That is my yardstick for any politician talking about illegal immigration. We arrest the johns who promote prostitution. We arrest the drug dealers who promote drug use. We need to begin arresting executives who hire illegal aliens which promotes illegal immigration. The lack of enforcement that both political parties allow will only change when the American people do two things:
1) before hiring a company to mow your lawns, fix your roof or repair your car, question them as to whether they use illegals. They may lie, but over time with so many customers asking the question they may think twice about saving a few bucks to not hire an American or a legal immigrant.
2) Let the politicians know that any lack of enforcement is a reflection on them and something you will consider at election time.
Posted by: Sully | October 30, 2006 08:54 AM
Prohibition was to booze what the wall will be to illegal immigration. The human traffikers will make a higher per-head fee and the lure of smuggling money will corrupt yet more people on the U.S. side into cashing in on the bull market the wall will create.
We will see rival gangs of "wallbreakers" operating with the same criminal impunity as the border drug gangs and murderers who prey upon the defenseless prostitutes and single-mother maquiladora workers of the Rio Grande region and Matamoros.
In the mean, the system that has set up the human misery pipeline, to wit, the onerous caste system that exists throughout Mexico, Central and northern South America, will continue unchanged.
Except - and this is a delicious,if not tragic, irony - in Venezeula, where an avowed "enemy" of the Bush administration is spending oil money on improverished peasants and urban slum dwellers. This type of direct social spending actually quells the urge among the disenfranchised to take the desperate plunge one takes when one commits flesh, bone and soul to a coyote who may (or may not) bring the typically terrified migrant safely across the U.S. border.
Instead of building the porous wall - perhaps the U.S. ought to give the billions it will cost to Chavez so he might set up a non-profit foundation to build sustainable industries and quality schools for the lower castes of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama, Honduras and Columbia to keep residents of those nations from heading north.
Posted by: saltzone | October 31, 2006 12:44 PM
Um, NO, we shouldn't be giving any of OUR money to Venezuela. They can help themselves, as can the Mexicans for that matter. And NO, we shouldn't feel any need whatsoever to build a wall along the Canadian border- they're not coming in! There's no problem there. Talk about stupidity. Who cares if this makes the Mexicans feel bad. Boo hoo. How about they take some responsibility, educate themselves, stop taking siestas and get to work on fixing their country. The invasion is destroying this country.
Posted by: stegman | October 31, 2006 01:47 PM
Agree with Sully and Jerry B, in part. Employer enforcement would work, but who will do it? The employers are also the source of reelection money for the city councils, the mayors, the chiefs of police, the judges. This organized crime is mostly local, and if the feds would bring in Elliot Ness, not Gonzales the puppet, and send a few major players to prison, then maybe local police would feel empowered to actually enforce some law, too. But employers are only part of the magnet. Crime is profitable on both sides of the border. For 20 million illiterate people living in abject poverty in Mexico, life is still better on THIS side of the border. End the social service magnet. No free education, healthcare, food, housing, social service benefits. This would be even easier than enforcement...just turn off the check printing machine. Build the wall, all 2000 miles. Even at 20 billion dollars, it is a bargain. We would save twice that amount the first year.
Posted by: Jeebie | October 31, 2006 08:29 PM
As for the comment of the wall being a slap in the face for all brown skinned Spanish speaking people in this hemisphere - TOO BAD!!!! Take a good look at Mexico's border policy with Guatamala and the Mexican border detention camps and military brutality that goes on there.
Posted by: Mark | November 1, 2006 01:59 AM
Mark:
Amen.
Posted by: Matedecoca | November 3, 2006 02:58 PM
October 26th article (which may soon disappear from free archives). Includes the phrase "according to a translation done by Opensource.gov". -Emily YMD
Posted by: craigville33@yahoo.com | November 4, 2006 11:19 AM
immagrants rule plus they make up our economy.
Posted by: juan | November 19, 2006 07:15 PM
immagrants rule plus they make up our economy.
Posted by: juan | November 19, 2006 07:15 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.












Vargas Llora is entirely correct. Little, if any, money will go for a real wall, but Boeing will build a "virtual" electronic wall that will work just as well as their missile defense system. Hopefully, it won't explode. More corporate welfare for defense contractors.
I was watching Lou Dobb's special on Broken Borders yesterday, and a border sheriff said that illegal immigrants had been crossing the border since it came into existance, and he wanted to know what had changed. Well, besides 9/11, there is "Free Trade", and, as in many countries, American jobs and industries have been shipped overseas to China for cheap labor. American workers are supposed to compete with Chinese workers who make a 1,000 dollars a year. The watch words are competiveness and productivity, which means working longer hours for less money. Illegal workers used to work in agriculture, and didn't compete for middle class jobs. With the disappearance of manufacturing jobs, American citizens and legal immigrants are being force to compete with illegal workers for jobs that use to be "Middle Class" jobs in the U.S. The building trades are one of the new areas of Competition between illegal workers and American workers. The purpose of the open borders lobby is to use the influx of illegal workers to drive down the wages and benefits for American workers and legal immigrants. The same process is now at work in Mexico with farm workers from Central America displacing Mexican labor. Manufacturing jobs are also disappearing from Brazil and going to China.
As Alexander Hamilton taught us in his Report on Manufactures, Tariffs are the only way that a country can develop and keep industries along with the jobs that support them. Every country need tariffs and secure borders in order for development to benefit every citizen and legal resident of their country.
Economic Imperialism use to work from developed manufacturing states that flooded underdeveloped states with their goods preventing development in those state. What is new is Corporate Imperialism, which underdevelops every state, creating a worldwide two class system of the wealthy and the working poor. This is the the goal of "Competitveness", "productivity", and "open borders".