Venezuela’s recent downward spiral illustrates the profound economic and political effects oil price fluctuations have on the world’s oil-producing countries. Venezuela’s economic crisis continues to go from bad to worse. The Venezuelan Bolivarian socialist economy has collapsed from a fatal collision of low oil prices and poor economic policy. The result is economic chaos, from rampant inflation to import fraud to shortages of basic consumer necessities. As the economy plummets, political unrest builds in Venezuela.

Current president Nicolas Maduro, Hugo Chavez’s handpicked successor, has sought to continue the Chavez socialist dream and align himself squarely with the revolutionary leader’s popularity and charisma. However, as falling oil prices have made government spending (especially spending on major social programs) unsustainable and destroyed the economy, Maduro has been confronted with the failure of his political vision. He has turned to attacks on political opposition to appear strong and United States-bashing and conspiracy theories to distract his people—for example, claiming that, “there’s a world campaign against Venezuela.” Recovery for Venezuela will not come easily or at all as long as sound economic policy comes second to rhetoric, and the nation’s economic and political instability will have implications for both South America and the United States’ interests in the region.

The drop in oil prices dented the economies of many oil-producing countries around the world and had an especially significant effect on highly oil-dependent economies like Venezuela. Oil is Venezuela’s economy—Venezuela’s petroleum revenues account for about 50% of the country’s GDP and contribute more than 95% of the country’s hard currency income. It has been estimated that President Maduro’s government will require oil prices of about $117 a barrel in 2015 just to break even with government spending. As oil prices hover around $60, the economy faces a fiscal chasm.

The revenue-budget gap has been made much, much worse by historically poor economic policy. For example, strict currency controls (including an overvalued, three-tiered dollar-to-bolivar exchange rate) along with a heavily import-reliant economy have fueled a raging currency black market, incentivized fraudulent imports and created shortages of essential consumer goods like food and medicine. These extreme shortages have been created by several factors including a lack of diversified domestic production, price controls and scarce funds with which to pay for imports. The scarceness of consumer goods has truly brought the economic crisis home for ordinary Venezuelans who frequently must do without or wait in extremely long shopping lines. In February, Venezuelan officials at last announced and began to implement a plan to tackle one major political roadblock and retool currency controls—but this change may well be too little, too late.

Meanwhile, the economic crash has evolved into political instability, with massive street protests rocking Caracas since February 2014. Protestors, mainly students, have focused on social and economic problems like the collapsing economy and shortages of basic necessities. Although protest-associated violence seems to have peaked in early 2014, the causes of Venezuelan instability have not been addressed; Venezuela’s economy remains dire, Maduro’s approval ratings are around 25%, and the fairly recent imprisonment of well-known opposition leaders such as the mayor of Caracas has amplified public outrage. Smaller protests and demonstrations continue to occur and the country teeters on the brink of fresh unrest, while political opposition groups and leaders remain highly visible and vocal. Maduro does not fully control the media or public political debate, and will likely continue to face noisy opposition and low approval ratings.

Distract, deny and blame has been Maduro’s chosen response to political upheaval—Maduro has become a bit of a conspiracy theorist, claiming that the imperialist US government is plotting a coup against him, creating artificial instability and threatening Venezuela’s statehood. The Obama administration’s first major response was a March Executive Order that declared Venezuela a national security threat and placed sanctions on seven Venezuelan officials accused of corruption and violating human rights. Maduro sought to make political hay out of this move via noisily aggrieved measures such as starting a 10-million signature petition drive (to be presented to President Obama at April’s Summit of the Americas) and banning several US diplomats from the country, saying, “They can’t come to Venezuela because they are terrorists”. Such scapegoating techniques have neither significantly improved his domestic approval ratings nor done anything at all to address the real economic, political and social problems Venezuela faces. Meanwhile, Maduro has sought to enhance his personal power, winning expanded decree powers in the name of “anti-imperialism” in the face of supposed US aggression.

Venezuela is in the midst of a storm of economic disaster and political turmoil, made much worse by falling oil prices but inseparable from corruption, deceit and mismanagement in politics. As President Maduro fails to implement substantive political and social reforms or practical solutions to the country’s economic problems, Venezuela will remain a domestically unsteady and destabilizing force in South America. The United States will also remain closely involved as Maduro works to dodge blame and incriminate US “imperialism”, and as the US tries to achieve policy objectives in proximate countries, such as attempting to normalize relations with Cuba. Of all of the world’s petro economies dented by the oil price dive, Venezuela has fallen fastest, loudest and hardest because, in Venezuela, instability runs deeper than oil. President Maduro’s Chavez-socialist policies and interest in building personal power have historically trumped realistic economic policy. Venezuela today combines this problem of governance with collapsed oil prices—economic chaos and political unrest has been and will continue to be the result.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post How do you solve a problem like Maduro? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The US has maintained complete dominance over the North American continent at least since the end of the 19th century and arguably since the year 1865. No foreign power has been able to establish a sustained foothold in North America and the Greater Caribbean Basin since the French puppet emperor of Mexico, Maximilian I, was executed during the American Civil War. The obvious exception of Soviet-backed Cuba, from 1962 onwards, and the great lengths the US went to remove and then contain the Castro regime, illustrate the strategic importance of such unchallengeable hegemony over the American near abroad.

This consolidation of the US’s near abroad closely parallels the consolidation of the American home front, which certain Conservative Realist policymakers, from Hamilton to Clay to Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt, strove to do through the adoption of the Constitution, the adoption of the American System, the preservation of the Union and the progressive reformation that each of those individuals respectively pursued. So American consolidation at home paralleled the rise of American dominance abroad. However, consolidation at home was closely paralleled by development at home, whereas domination abroad was not followed by the infrastructural, social and economic development of the young nation-state’s sphere of influence. Thus, the individual states surrounding the US were left to their own devices to develop while constrained under the US’s military and political dominance of the region. This cap on true political competition shackled policymakers in Canada, Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela to varying geopolitical fates, which in part explains the sheer difference in the current conditions of those states.

Canada, of course, had the best situation of all the neighboring states. Blessed by a British system of governance, vast resources and a reasonably homogenous population, and beset by no particularly harsh struggles, Canada was able to integrate effectively with the US as an attractive neighbor and trading partner—in fact, the biggest trading partner to the US today. The Canadians had already been cowed by the Americans in the War of 1812, after three failed but devastating attempts at invasion by the Americans. They made little pretense of nationalism against the US, and strove to integrate their economy and society with the colossus to the south.

Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela were not so lucky. Beset with the Spanish colonial tradition of a neo-feudal hacienda economy and society, possessing little to no manufacturing infrastructure (but being stricken by the resource curse endemic to many former colonies) and inhabiting tropical and semi-tropical lands more susceptible to disease, they were prey to the social corruption unfortunately common to most of the Latin American republics. Mexico, in particular, might have had an easier time integrating with the US had it not been for the perennial chaos it experienced in its northern border area. Pancho Villa exemplified this trend a century ago; the horrors of the drug wars exemplify it now. Cuba and Venezuela, further away and not directly bordering the US but still strategically significant for naval and commercial reasons, were always targets of US foreign policy, but were never party to a sustained commitment to shared economic development. The rise to power of socialist regimes in both countries during the Cold War further stalled any progress towards a Pan-American coalition or economic zone of which enterprising US politicians might have dreamt.

So now, we of the 21st century observe a curious phenomenon—a US, imperial in its domination of the northern half of its hemisphere and completely unable to effect modernizing change in its near abroad. Regimes sympathetic to its former greatest foe inhabit strategic naval points on the American Mediterranean; vast drug wars of untellable violence consume its southern neighbor, while corruption prevents that neighbor from weeding out the violence or stemming the flow of illegal migrants flooding across the northern border; meanwhile, Canada enjoys all the benefits of a free and orderly society, and exemplifies the benefits of partnership and solidarity of international neighborhood. Canada is integrated into the broader North American system, while Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela succumb to internal weaknesses without being fully let into the broader system.

The regional strategy the US ought to pursue to amend this iniquity, I think, can be put as follows: strive to make the US’s relationships with Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela as much like the US’s relationship with Canada as possible.

Clearly none of the relationships would or should ever actually mirror the US-Canada relationship, as, positivism be damned, national characteristics are real and relevant to the formulation of policy. That said there are a few basic characteristics of the US-Canada relationship that statesmen working on the US-Mexico/Cuba/Venezuela relationships could focus on.

Social stability and integration. The US and Canada are similar in culture and society, largely due to the fact that both have dynamic yet reasonably stable societies. Cuba and Venezuela might have possessed these once, but their present regimes and economic systems appear increasingly volatile; Mexico has struggled with internal dissension for the entirety of its history. Before any kind of regional infrastructure could rise, it would be crucial for the US to do its part to encourage the development of stable regimes and societies in these countries. As the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate, nation-building is a borderline impossible feat and can only truly be taken on by nations themselves; therefore, a working partnership coupling local administration and US support is the only way such a policy could ever be effective. In Cuba and Venezuela, this would likely involve improved trade and diplomatic relations justified by the doctrine of power pluralism, the acceptance and outreach to regimes capable of keeping order in their own house. It might also involve advisory relationships, increasingly generous trade deals, and even subsidies to encourage those states’ development towards mixed-market economies and away from the largely statist model both have now. In the case of Mexico, this would involve similar pressure for political reform and immensely generous support for a renewed campaign to extirpate the various drug cartels from the Mexican borderland. It would likely also involve comprehensive immigration reform and deals for shared border security with the Mexican government, and perhaps even drug legalization within the US as an effort to neuter the cartels at their base source of funding. The US would pursue, by whatever practical means possible, the development of orderly, prosperous leviathans in its three primary Caribbean neighbors. Only in this way can the societies of the US, Canada, Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela become a more cohesive unit.

Economic and Political independence, yet unity. The broader North American system would be entirely useless if it became a power-client relationship between the US and its neighbors. While the US must dominate the region politically and militarily to ensure that no outside power can threaten it, the members of the coalition must be treated as equals. Moreover, there cannot be economic imperialism either—while to some degree it is inevitable that regions will specialize, such specialization should not make any one state dependent on any other. Each state should be independent within an interdependent framework, possessing a mixed economy and tied intimately, though not inseparably, to all its neighbors. Each state ought to have its own manufacturing, commerce, agricultural, information, creative, exploitation and service sectors; each should trade reasonably freely with all its neighbors. This North American-Greater Caribbean Bloc, united by continental infrastructure but dotted with national borders and national interests and shepherded by the US, might work wonders to build a prosperous future for the hundreds of millions living within its domain. It is crucial not to centralize too much and wind up with a dysfunctional system (like the EU), yet it is crucial not to decentralize political and military power too much and wind up with a system of ravenous, competing, equally powerful nation-states capable of turning North America into a competitive battleground.

Ultimately, before such a system as this can work, each of the prospective candidates has work to do. Mexico needs to fight corruption and win the drug war; Cuba and Venezuela need to build more sustainable societies; Canada and the US have a lot of nationalist political reform to do on their own. But as they modernize into the Information Age, these states might all align under the common interests of North America. This would be a security and prosperity boon to all, but most especially to the US.

For a US as primus inter pares of a North American-Greater Caribbean regional order would be an empire of greater power than the US empire has ever known before. It would know greater security and greater prosperity, become a more vigorous and vibrant society, and command the most fruitful territory on the planet. The political and international ramifications of this development would be huge. But such a system of greater integration cannot arise on its own. A clear vision of such a continental system must come first. It is for us to see whether our statesmen will see any value in it, and only then will its foundations be laid.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Toward a Continental System appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

With the exception of commodity exportation, Argentina’s recent economic condition has soured. The last half-century has been marked by economic decline, political instability, and diminishing geopolitical influence. Consider that when President Obama visited the Southern Cone in 2011, he flew from Chile to Brazil deliberately passing over Argentina. While significant capital inflows from China largely insulated Argentina from the global economic crisis, economic and political turmoil persist to this day. Inflation estimates are above 30%, its expropriation of Spanish petroleum giant Repsol have made those in the international business community wary of FDI, and its export and import quotas have proven disastrous to farmers, businessmen, and consumers alike.

If President Kirchner’s successor seeks to guide Argentina towards a path of economic and political stability, he/she must assuage concerns of an impending crisis, and work swiftly to ignite a stagnant economy. Reviving the economy will be easier said than done in a country whose Ease of Doing Business ranking is 127 out of 189, trailing, among others, Nigeria and Pakistan. A more challenging hurdle will be reducing Argentinean dependence on natural resource exports. As tempting as it may be to ride the commodity wave to economic solvency, diversification of the nation’s income will prove imperative to Argentina’s future growth and stability. Developments in added-value manufacturing and the service industries will better isolate Argentina’s economy from fluctuations in global commodity prices. Diversification will also require improvements in education and infrastructure, areas in which Argentina is particularly deficient.

Attempts to curtail government spending will likely aggravate an already sluggish growth rate, particularly after several years of costly welfare programs and President Kirchner’s wasteful spending. Also unpopular will be the inevitable currency devaluation once Argentina’s currency exchange is liberalized. Such unpopular policies have been postponed for far too long. Argentina must follow in Chile’s footsteps by increasing economic competitiveness in the global arena. For a country blessed with bountiful resources, its political malfeasance and bureaucracy remains the only thing slowing down what would otherwise be impressive growth. By fostering more competitive industries and implementing basic economic reforms, Argentina may become the gold mine it once was.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff and editorial board.

The post Improving Economic Prospects in the Land of Silver appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

In search of a new leader, the conclave of cardinals met in Rome with determination to fill the void. Huge crowds amassed in St. Peter’s Square anxiously awaiting the secretive vote. Crowds hummed with anticipation as white smoke poured from the chimney after a swift deliberation. Jorge Bergoglio, Cardinal and Archbishop of Buenos Aries, emerged to a cheering crowd in papal white to take hold of the highest holy office as the 266^th Pontiff, Pope Francis.

Pope Francis lays claim to a number of “firsts” for the papacy.  The native Argentinian is the first non-European pope in nearly 1,200 years, as well as being the first Jesuit Pope, the first Pope from the Americas, and the first Pope from the Southern Hemisphere.  With over 40% of Catholics hailing from Latin American states – the largest region of Catholics in the world – this was an exciting opportunity for nearly 500 million people to be represented in the Vatican.

Since Pope Francis’s appointment, he hasn’t wasted any time becoming a renowned international figure.  Named Time Magazine’s Person of the Year in December and being generally approved by even the toughest of critics, Pope Francis has had a whirlwind first year.  On the Pope’s one-year anniversary of taking leadership, here is a look back on the last year and a glimpse forward as to what lies ahead for the Vatican.

A global perspective.

Pope Francis is the first Pope from the Southern Hemisphere and, consequently, his appointment can be viewed as a way in which many are chipping away at the North-South socio-economic divide. Following his appointment, the Pope named 19 new cardinals predominantly hailing from poorer countries. The Pope has also been quoted commenting on economic policy, one area where Catholicism is particularly liberal.  Francis denounced trickle down economic theories and raised concerns about the growing gap between the poor and the rich. Having lived and preached in the slums of Argentina, it is clear that he has feels for, and connects with, those less fortunate.

A change in tone.

In an interview last June, the Pope asserted, “Who am I to judge” when asked about homosexuality.  His statement encompassed a definitive and pragmatic shift away from judgment and toward a new attitude of mercy. Although Pope Francis assured the world that the church’s doctrine is not going to be undone, he also asserted that conflict over issues, such as homosexuality, distracts from the greater goals of the church.  Putting aside differences and finding common ground has been at the top of Pope Francis’s achievements.

A shift in priorities.

Pope Francis’s chosen papal name is in honor of Saint Francis of Assisi who was a champion (and patron saint) of the poor.  It should come as no surprise then that the impoverished masses sit at the heart of the new Vatican agenda.  Pope Francis has never been one for luxury; in Argentina he was known for taking the bus and not chauffeured cars, and spending time with the poor. It is even rumored that since becoming Pope, Francis slips out at night to tend to the poor personally, although the Vatican denies this rumor. 

An exile of corruption.

Focusing on those with less, the Vatican has proposed large spending cuts.  With an audit on finances of the Vatican Bank and a reshuffling of leadership, the Pope aims to flush out any corruption. One part of this initiative called for removing four of the cardinals that preside over the Vatican Bank and naming new Cardinals and officials to refresh Vatican leadership.  Although he has made it clear that the Vatican is not a political state, he has not been removed from politics. Rather, he has recently called for an end to violence in Ukraine and champions peace worldwide.

The Pope Francis Effect.

The international influence of the Pope is undeniable. With a following that rivals the population of China, many people look to the Pope for both moral and spiritual leadership. What might be even more important is the influence the Pope can have on developing countries. In particular, Pope Francis’s emphasis on the value of women in the church and society sends an important message to developing countries. Some of these countries, especially those in Latin America and Africa where Catholicism is rapidly growing, face conflict over women’s rights and society. The pope’s advocacy for women’s role in the church and broader society could lead to a profound impact on societal perceptions, and treatment of, women. In short, the Pope’s actions are an encouraging step for the Vatican.

The post The Vatican’s New Groove appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

President Cristina Kirchner’s health concerns last year are emblematic of the issues that have enshrouded Argentina’s economy and political scene for the past half-century. Over the past few decades Argentina has suffered economic crises, political scandals, and national tragedies. From a failed invasion of the Falkland Islands to the La Guerra Sucia (The Dirty War), in which the Argentinian military killed thousands of its own citizens and kidnapped thousands more infant children, the land of silver has had its share of national embarrassments. More recently in 2001, an attempt to peg the Argentinian peso to the US dollar resulted in default, runs on banks, and an enduring distrust in their financial system.

This distrust continues to manifest itself today. So much as stroll down Florida Street in Buenos Aires and shout, ‘Yo tengo dólares’ and you will be attacked by swarms of porteños (people of Buenos Aires) desperate to buy American currency for many pesos above the government-regulated exchange rate. Even a decade after the economic crash, there remains tremendous distrust in banks. Many Argentinians choose to stash loose cash under their mattresses rather than confront the risk of entrusting it in a financial institution.

Cristina’s leadership has hardly put her citizens’ fears to rest. Over a year ago, she expropriated YPF, a Spanish-owned oil company that her husband sold the rights to decades earlier while governor of Santa Fe. Curiously enough, the money from this deal has never resurfaced. As if encroaching on international law isn’t enough, Cristina has sought to alter the constitution to eliminate the term limits that prohibit her from seeking re-election. While she did not hesitate to dole out welfare benefits to the poor prior during the 2011 election, she was quick to scrap these pay outs following her successful re-election.

In spite of the billions of dollars in agricultural products and commodities being exported to China and other nations in recent years, little of this money has led to domestic development. Driving from San Isidro into the capital, one will pass by thousands of impoverished Argentinians squatting in sevillas, shack-like dwellings constructed out of discarded metal, wood, and concrete. Critics of Cristina are quick to point out that when Cristina entered office there were only one-story shacks in this shantytown, but now it is hard to find a single shack under three-stories high.

These failures as both a nation and as an economy are difficult for many Argentinians to face. Their sense of national pride is nothing to scoff at. In the 1980’s there was a common saying in Europe that one should buy an Argentinian for what he is worth and sell him for what he thinks he’s worth. Even a century after Argentina’s position as the hegemon of the Americas was usurped, many still feel as though their nation is destined to regain its past glory. What few Argentinians will deny is that their country is a land blessed by resources and cursed by politicians. From Peron to Cristina, there have been many crises of leadership. Only time will tell if Cristina’s inevitable downfall will lead to a century of progress and internal development or continued stagnation and corruption. Until then it would be unwise to make any large deposits into El Banco de La Nación.

The post Blessed by Resources, Cursed by Politicians appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Every minute, an area the size of 50 soccer fields is destroyed in the Amazon Rainforest.  Over the past 40 years, nearly 20% of the forest has been destroyed – an area roughly the size of Alaska. Simply put, in less than half of a century more of the rainforest was destroyed than in the previous 450 years – combined.  High-resolution satellite images tell a story of devastating deforestation in the planet’s largest and most diverse rainforest. Many areas that were once a sea of lush greenery have been transformed into a barren, muddy landscape.

The Amazon represents more than half the remaining rainforest on the planet.  Humans depend on these ecosystems as a source for the planet’s carbon, water, and climate systems. Thus, it isn’t surprising that losing 2.3 million square kilometers of forest in a mere 13 years, as new research indicates, is of great concern to both environmental groups and national governments. While the majority of the Amazon is located in Brazil, the forest expands across nine countries making deforestation an international crisis.

With 20% of the forest already cut down and another 20%, as expected by scientists, to be on the chopping block over the next two decades, it is only a matter of time until the Amazon’s ecology will begin to collapse. Adding global warming to the mix makes the outlook seem worse. Over 100,000 miles of illegal roads, forged by loggers who aim to reach the prime hardwood trees deep in the forest, snake through the labyrinth of vegetation. Consequences of these new roads turn out to be equally as destructive as the actual logging. Land sharks slide in unnoticed and claim the land making land thievery a common crime. As is the case with many lucrative businesses, with high profits comes violence and corruption. Armed guards, hired gunmen, and corrupt government officials all help to facilitate these illegal activities.

It isn’t all bad news for the Amazon, however. Since the devastating revelation in the early 2000s, Brazil and other South American countries have committed to reversing the damage. New data shows that while Brazil still suffers from very high rates of forest clearing, the country has cut the annual rate of forest loss to half of what it once was. In turn, many of the strategies that Brazil has implemented as a deterrent to deforestation will help policymakers in other countries respond to the troubling rates of forest decline.

Nonetheless, the deforestation rates of 2013 were far from encouraging. It is clear that changes have to be made, as deforestation is threatening the local populations’ basic needs. In the most recent Amazonia Security Agenda, it was reported  “compromising Amazonia’s ecosystems, deforestation is now threatening not only the wellbeing and rights of the region’s people, but also the economic sustainability of the very industries that it has enabled.” Scarcity of food, water, and even energy are all threatened by exploitation of the Amazon.

Escalations in forest clearing are primarily being blamed on the weakening of legal protections in the Brazilian Forest Code that were passed under Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. The reform was riddled with controversy, and was heavily supported by members of the farmer’s lobby known as the ruralists. In Brazil, where agriculture accounts for 5% of the country’s GDP, lobbyist influence has indirectly led to increased deforestation by loggers and farmers. At the United Nation’s Summit on Climate Change, the environment minister, Izabella Teixeira, chose to focus on Brazil’s triumphs, noting the overall trend was has been positive. She attributed the elevation in deforestation to organized crime and acknowledged that the government had taken steps to fight back, saying: “What is happening are crimes, we have 3,921 police investigations, some of them involving civil servants. We are cutting into our own flesh.” Teixeira strongly emphasized that eliminating illegal deforestation remained the goal in the eyes of the government and the crimes of loggers would not be tolerated. Going forward, it is up to the Brazilian government and their counterparts, as well as the global community, to secure the future of the world’s most important forest.

The post The Amazon on Life Support? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.