Well this doesn't look good.

[Panama Jack]

Al-Qaida Said to Recruit in Latin America

By OLGA R. RODRIGUEZ, Associated Press Writer

MONTERREY, Mexico - Governments throughout Mexico and Central America are on alert as evidence grows that al-Qaida members are traveling in the region and looking for recruits to carry out attacks in Latin America — the potential last frontier for international terrorism.

The territory could be a perfect staging ground for Osama bin Laden's militants, with homegrown rebel groups, drug and people smugglers, and corrupt governments. U.S. officials have long feared al-Qaida could launch an attack from south of the border, and they have been paying closer attention as the number of terror-related incidents has increased since last year.

The strongest possible al-Qaida link is Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, a 29-year-old Saudi pilot suspected of being a terrorist cell leader. The FBI issued a border-wide alert earlier this month for Shukrijumah, saying he may try to cross into Arizona or Texas.

In June, Honduran officials said Shukrijumah was spotted earlier this year at an Internet cafe in Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras. Panamanian officials say the pilot and alleged bombmaker passed through their country before the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in May singled out Shukrijumah as one of seven especially dangerous al-Qaida-linked terror figures wanted by the government, which fears a new al-Qaida attack. A $5 million reward is posted for information leading to his capture.

Mexican and U.S. border officials have been on extra alert, checking foreign passports and arresting any illegal migrants. In a sign of a growing Mexican crackdown, eight people from Armenia, Iran and Iraq were arrested Thursday in Mexicali on charges they may have entered Mexico with false documents, although they did not appear to have any terrorist ties.

Jose Luis Santiago Vasconcelos, Mexico's top anti-crime prosecutor, said Mexican officials have no evidence that Shukrijumah — or any other al-Qaida operatives — are in Mexico. But Mexican authorities are investigating and keeping a close eye on the airports and borders.

"The alert has been sounded," Vasconcelos told The Associated Press last month.

In Central America, Honduran Security Minister Oscar Alvarez said officials have uncovered evidence that terrorists, likely from al-Qaida, may be trying to recruit Hondurans to carry out attacks in Central America. He did not offer details.

El Salvador authorities last week reinforced security at the country's international airport and along the borders after purported al-Qaida threats appeared on the Internet against their country for supporting the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. President Tony Saca, undeterred, is sending the country's third peacekeeping unit — 380 troops — to Iraq.

Terrorists have struck in Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East and the United States. Latin America could be next, analysts say, especially as it becomes harder to operate elsewhere.

"If there is a crackdown, they are going to pick up shop and move," said Matt Levitt, a terrorism analyst and senior fellow at the Washington Institute.

Officials worry the Panama Canal could be a likely target. In 2003, boats making more than 13,000 trips through the waterway carried about 188 million tons of cargo.

Earlier this month, the United States and seven Latin American countries — including Argentina, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Peru and Panama — carried out a weeklong anti-terror exercise aimed at protecting the canal.

In South America, U.S. officials have long suspected Paraguay's border with Brazil and Argentina as an area for Islamic terrorist fund-raising. Much of the focus has fallen on the Muslim community that sprouted during the 1970s, and authorities believe as much as $100 million a year flows out of the region, with large portions diverted to Islamic militants linked to Hezbollah and the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

The more immediate concern is Mexico, which shares a porous, 2,000-mile border with the United States and is the home to widespread organized crime.

In December, Mexican officials canceled two Aeromexico flights from Mexico City to Los Angeles, and a third was forced to turn around after takeoff because of terrorism concerns.

At the time, the United States, Canada and Interpol told Mexico that officials suspected terrorists might be using Mexican soil to plan an attack, Vasconcelos said.

Concerns increased this summer about whether Mexico was doing enough to screen international visitors after a 48-year-old South African woman arrived in Mexico with a passport that was missing several pages and then waded across the Rio Grande into Texas.

Farida Goolam Mahamed Ahmed was arrested July 19 while trying to board a flight in McAllen, Texas. She pleaded innocent Friday to immigration violations and was under investigation for links to terrorist activities or groups. Court testimony indicated she traveled from Johannesburg on July 8, via Dubai, United Arab Emirates, to London, then to Mexico City on or about July 14. The countries she traveled through do not require South Africans to have visas.

Mexican officials said Ahmed was not stopped upon entering Mexico because her name did not appear on any international terrorist watch-lists.

Mexican officials say they are closely scrutinizing visa requests from the Middle East and have heightened surveillance at the nation's largest airports since Sept. 11.

"The requirements for a visa for people from the Middle East have not changed, but all requests are being checked more thoroughly," said Mauricio Juarez, a spokesman with Mexico's Migration Institute.

The country is a popular U.S. entry point for people trying to sneak into the United States, and the majority — 46 percent — of all people arrested on immigration violations in Mexico come from Brazil. The rest are largely from the Americas, China or Singapore.

It has become nearly impossible for people from Muslim countries to get visas to come to Mexico since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Fayesa Amin, a 37-year-old Pakistani, started the process to get a Mexican visa two months before she was to attend a wedding in Mexico. The Mexican consulate in Karachi asked her to fill out several forms and to turn in copies of her credit card and bank statements for a full year.

Amin, who runs three beauty salons in Pakistan, said Mexican authorities told her a visa had been approved and it could be picked up in London. But Mexican officials there said her visa was being held in Ankara, Turkey. In the end, she ended up spending her holiday stranded in London.

"I knew it would be hard to get to that part of the world and that everything had become more difficult," Amin said in a telephone interview from Islamabad. "But I didn't realize how hard it could be."

[latinaviation]

Not good at all, Jack. Honduras is already becoming a hot bed with the mara's and drug trafficking off the Caribbean coast. The last they need (and can handle) is an Al Qaeda cell pinned to them. This was hot news when I was down there.

[Squawk7777]

Fayesa Amin, a 37-year-old Pakistani, started the process to get a Mexican visa two months before she was to attend a wedding in Mexico. The Mexican consulate in Karachi asked her to fill out several forms and to turn in copies of her credit card and bank statements for a full year.

Kinda sad to laugh about it. I flew roughly a dozen times on a private plane into MMPB/PBC. Every time I had to fill out a different immigration form and pay a different fee. :eek: :rolleyes:

Viva Mexico!

7 7 7 7

[Panama Jack]

The headlines read about the same in Nicaragua these days, latinaviation, with narco-trafickers on the Caribbean coast and maras in the cities. Fortunately, the problem is not as severe yet as in Honduras, and a wide cry from the crisis in Guatemala and El Salvador. We've even spoken about this scourage before on this forum with respect to Federico Bloch's murder in El Salvador earlier this year, supposedly the doing of members of the mara salvatruchos, and I suspect it will be a recurring issue in the future of this forum.

In sitting back and analysising the situation, I make the following observation. The events of September 11th and the issues that drives disillusioned youths into the camps of Al Qaeda can be linked in many ways to the dark hand of US policy abroad. Central America, as well as Latin America as a whole has historically been a victim to the shortsighted and often self-serving US policy and dirty dealings. Most people can put forth a strong arguement that many of the region's problems are in a large way due to this shortsightedness (a culture of violence, organized gangs, economic basket-cases, political corruption and meddling, and narco-trafickers). It would be indeed tragic irony if this same neglect and abuse by the US Government, that has created no shortage of hatred in the Islamic World and resulted in September 11th and other terrorist actions, is the same recipe that makes Al Qaeda successful in Latin America and comes back to bite the US or it's interests in the ass.

In any case, one more nail in the coffin for the region. There is a lesson to be learned for political leadership. Thankfully, there are signs that there is some enlightenment going on. The US has started to deny visas to "dirty" people . . . some of who were previously supported by the US and defended their interests and has played a significant roll in freezing and repatriating their assets and providing info to lock them up (ie. ex-President Arnoldo Aleman of Nicaragua). The US attitude of "He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he's OUR son-of-a-bitch" is fading. IMHO, a necessary step for the superpower that see's itself as a mentor of justice and democracy to the world to win credibility.

[crack up]

PJ,
Dark hand, dirty dealings? In most cases, the U.S. is trying to right wrongs brought on by decades of European colonial rule. You should know that living in C.A.

The U.S. might make mistakes but at least the U.S. does something. Should the U.S. say "who cares" when their are Husseins and Ortegas raping and slaughtering any one including their own because of a different point of view?

Central America is a better and safer place now. It is due to U.S. policies and U.S. NGO programs and incentives. The graft and corruption is not unique to C.A. it is rampent in most developing nations, it is not the fault of the U.S.

Believe me PJ, you wouldn't have a life and for sure wouldn't be allowed to voice your opinion in Nicaragua if it wasn't for the dark hand of the U.S.

[XXTSGR]

crack up, your post is the furthest removed from reality that I've seen in a long time.

Central and Southern America has had the dead, self-serving hand of the USA bearing down on it for far too long. We have seen time and time again that they have no compunction in the least in acting to remove any head of state in the region they dislike, however they came to office. Remember the removal of Allende - a democratically-elected leader - and the installation of their chosen puppet Pinochet, who then brutalised and murdered his way to a personal fortune? El Salvador, Nicaragua, Mexico and most other countries have had to bow and scrape, hoping upon hope that if they happen to elect a left-leaning government they won't find the local CIA head of station making odd phone calls in the middle of the night.

The USA does not act in the region from humanitarian principles - only from pure self-interest. Yes, they want stability. But is comes at a terrible price for the locals. It comes at the price of a paid puppet.

[latinaviation]

I am not going to turn this into a political rally.

One thing that is alarming, though, are the maras - or street ganges. In Guatemala this year alone (thru July), there have been 2,000 murders - in seven months! In El Salvador, one of our own (Federico Bloch) was murdered by a mara.

The fact is, post 9/11, with the US more stringent on deporting people, you get these young guys who learned gang warfare in LA, New Orleans, New York, etc., and then are brought back to their homeland, where the infect, by a large scale, the youth in the shantytowns and out-laying areas.

Honduras has been one of the more staunch erradicaters of the problem, at the cost of the human rights groups pitching a fit every time they can. But, from the Honduran gov't perspective - and notably all of Central America, if they cannot reduce crime or contain the maras, it could affect FDI (foreign direct investment); which, in turn, creates jobs and (hopefully) reduces poverty - either directly or through a "trickle down" policy.

The social ills of the Americas would ignite a lot of emotion on this board. But what (I think) almost everyone can agree on are the root causes for much of this: poverty and lack of a formal employment sector.

[latinaviation]

Here's a pretty good article, imho, of US - Latin American relations and their consequences. AEI is a known conservative think tank, but I think Mark does a good job articulating US policy and its consequences in Latin America.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.20968/pub_detail.asp
U.S.-Latin American Relations

This series began more than a dozen years ago with an essay titled “U.S.-Latin American Relations: Where Are We Now?” Since this is the last issue of Latin American Outlook, it seems worthwhile to pose the question again.

The answer is bound to be less optimistic than when it was first asked. For one thing, in the intervening years many Latin Americans have become disillusioned with economic reform, privatization, and “neo-liberalism”--as they call it—and are looking once again to the state to solve all their problems. For another, corruption and jobbery have discredited much of the political class at all levels. The most recent, lurid example has been a spate of lynchings of small-town officials in Guatemala, Peru, and Bolivia. For yet another, the “Washington consensus”--the commitment to more open, freer economies—is now regarded as an unfortunate episode forced upon the region by a selfish, grasping, and unfeeling United States. The project for a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) sponsored by the first Bush and Clinton administrations is often depicted as a conspiracy to exploit and subjugate Latin economies. In its place many now look to the creation of regional trade blocs as a better alternative. At the same time, there is a deep resentment against the Bush administration for allegedly ignoring the region and its problems.

To be sure, not all of notions above are accurate, or even coherent. What is true is that Latin America is not the most important region for U.S. policymakers and is not likely to be at any time in the foreseeable future. It would be quite amazing if it were. Partly due to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, partly as the result of the emergence of a rogue nuclear state in North Korea, U.S. security concerns have decisively shifted to the Middle East and North Asia. Even our relations with Western Europe have lost some of their salience.

Even so, this does not mean that Latin America will disappear entirely from the U.S. national agenda, or even that it has done so during the course of the present administration. It is worth recalling that last year a free trade agreement with Chile was concluded after nearly a decade of postponements by the previous administration, and there is significant movement toward a similar agreement with the Central American republics. Immigration issues will remain important, particularly in the U.S. relationship with Mexico. Given the weak economic performance in most of the region--as well as a fractious political environment in Venezuela and Cuba’s problematic future--we can expect the U.S.-based diasporas of all the republics to grow in size.

Views from Abroad

The whole notion of “Latin America” is something of a geographical abstraction. What we have south of the United States are a series of societies, many of them--in spite of superficial similarities--surprisingly different from one another. Likewise, attitudes toward the United States vary, according to historical experience and cultural predisposition. The classic case of a “love-hate” relationship is Mexico, which admires, envies, and attempts to replicate the United States. But it also resents it--deeply. Mexicans have never forgotten the loss of nearly half of their territory to the United States in 1848 or the intervention of U.S. military forces during the Revolution of 1910. At the same time, the very proximity of the United States--a far more successful society--acts as a permanent wound to Mexican self-esteem.

Quite apart from their history and because their consumer culture has been so heavily influenced by the United States, particularly since the NAFTA agreements, Mexicans feel the periodic need to reassert their independence. This explains, for example, Mexico’s reluctance to support efforts to invoke the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (the so-called Rio Treaty) after the attack on the World Trade Center, as well as its refusal last year to support the United States at the UN Security Council on Iraq.[1] Mexican ambivalence toward the United States is buttressed by the inconvenient fact that some 8 million or more of its nationals live and work here, and their remittances to their families back home constitute a safety net crucial to the nation’s stability. Indeed, President Vicente Fox has publicly stated more than once that the prosperity of Mexico is dependent upon continued U.S. economic expansion.

Even Mexican attitudes toward the United States as a society are complicated. The U.S. media made much of a soccer game last year at which Mexican crowds cheered for Osama bin Laden, but a recent survey reveals ordinary citizens of that country divided right down the middle in their attitudes toward their northern neighbor--as many with positive as negative views. This is all the more remarkable because the major Mexican media does all it can to depict this country in the darkest tones, particularly with regard to the treatment of racial and national minorities. Apparently its representations are not wholly persuasive, to judge by the number of Mexicans who wish to come to this country and are turned away at the border every day.

At the other end of the continent are Argentina and Uruguay, both strongly influenced by Western Europe. Most of their citizens are descendants of Spaniards and Italians who emigrated in the last decades of the nineteenth century and the first years of the twentieth (with an additional burst after the Second World War). Elite culture in these countries has been strongly influenced by France, so that their educated and political classes have tended to view the United States somewhat condescendingly. Also, for many decades the social democratic model of European statecraft held considerably more appeal than the putatively rough-and-ready style of American freewheeling capitalism. The years of Argentine president Carlos Menem (1989-1999) were a radical exception to this rule--a decade marked by extensive privatization of state corporations and diplomatic alignment with the United States in world affairs--and their termination in economic collapse has only underscored the decision of President Néstor Kirchner to distance himself from Washington. Indeed, it would be no exaggeration to say that anti-Americanism these days has become an important element of Argentine self-definition. The country’s rapidly declining geopolitical weight has somewhat neutralized the effect as far as the United States is concerned.

Brazil is perhaps the only country in Latin America that can be compared to the United States. It is a large continent-island, turned inward culturally but radiating enormous influence in its region and to some extent beyond it. Like the United States, it has a global foreign policy. It sees Washington as its rival for influence in South America, and its willingness to put regional issues first has given it important leverage over its neighbors. Its own project of regional integration, MERCOSUR (or MERCOSUL in Portuguese), is obviously intended to act as a counterweight to Washington’s FTAA and, for all one can know, may succeed in doing so. Other countries, notably Mexico and Venezuela, recently announced their readiness to join MERCOSUR, though how this would affect the former’s membership in NAFTA remains unclear.

Brazilians do not particularly like the United States but--unlike Mexicans--they are far from obsessed with it. They have too much going on in their own society, which they see as an emerging world power. Theirs is the only Latin American country with important cultural exports--software, technology, and entertainment. Paradoxically, although its president, Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, has a long history of antiglobalization and anticapitalist militance, his relationship with President George W. Bush--in many ways his ideological polar opposite--is surprisingly good.[2] There have already been two Brazilian-U.S. summits (one including all the members of their respective cabinets), and Brazilian diplomacy has skillfully promoted the country to cochairmanship of the hemispheric integration process (a process for which, for reasons of its own, Brazil has not evinced much enthusiasm).

Chile is a somewhat unusual case. Formerly one of the more statist-populist political cultures of the region, since the mid-1970s it has been the most successful proponent of the Washington consensus. It has experienced virtually uninterrupted economic growth under a succession of governments, starting with the military dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet (1973-1989) and continuing with elected Christian-Democratic and Socialist coalitions. Chile’s very success has somewhat isolated it diplomatically in the region; a combination of envy and irredentism on the part of two of its neighbors has added to the subregional tension. Meanwhile, its conclusion of a free trade agreement with the United States has caused some of its adversaries to refer to it, rather unflatteringly, as “the Israel of South America.”

As if to counteract unfavorable regional winds, Chile has been careful not to tack too closely to the more controversial international proposals of the United States, such as war with Iraq. On the other hand, it has been a reasonably faithful ally in other matters relating to inter-American relations, most notably in providing troops for the UN peace force in Haiti. Although both far left and far right in Chile have reasons to resent the United States (the former for its opposition to Socialist president Salvador Allende, the latter for its refusal to support continued military rule), most Chileans like and admire this country, and relations between the two governments have been generally excellent.

The most troubled region politically is the Andes--Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Colombia. Recent issues of this Outlook have discussed four of the five of these countries in some detail. Colombia has an unusually close relationship with the United States, thanks to a plan inaugurated by the Clinton administration to provide it with economic and military aid to confront the combined menace of a guerrilla insurgency and a movement of narco-gangsters both left and right. So far the U.S. role in that country has enjoyed considerable popular support, despite continual complaints from various human rights organizations. And under President Alvaro Uribe, Colombia has become one of the sturdier allies of the United States within inter-American councils, partly because both countries share an adversary in Venezuela’s president Hugo Chávez.

Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador are societies slowly being strangled in the roots of their own history--the exploitation and neglect of indigenous populations is coming home to roost. Identity politics, driven by urbanization of rural folk and often funded by European NGOs, bids fair to replace the traditional class-based electoral left. The U.S. drug eradication program is unwelcome to the Indian peasantry, particularly in Bolivia, all the more so because ordinary folk have not benefited significantly from the larger export industries--minerals, oil, and natural gas. In the case of Bolivia, the political class has cleverly turned popular resentment against the foreign companies who make possible extractive activities, as opposed to the politicians who squander (and steal) the royalties they generate. The fact that many are based in the United States adds a soupçon of “anti-imperialist” flavoring to the ideological stew.

... continued at the link...

[Panama Jack]

Interesting article, latinaviation.

Here is also a very recent one from my favorite magazine, The Economist

Democracy's low-level equilibrium

Aug 12th 2004
From The Economist print edition


Latin Americans believe their democracies benefit a privileged few, not the many—but they don't want a return to dictatorship

CONTRARY to much punditry suggesting that the region risks a return to authoritarianism, roughly half of Latin Americans continue to support democracy, though few think it is working well. A much larger majority backs the market economy. Politicians are slightly less unpopular than of late. But worries about unemployment, poverty, corruption and crime test faith in democracy. Many Latin Americans would sacrifice some freedoms for order and greater prosperity. And their view of the United States is much less favourable than in the mid-1990s. These are some of the conclusions of the latest Latinobarómetro poll of political and social attitudes in 18 Latin American countries published exclusively by The Economist.

Latinobarómetro, a Chilean organisation, has carried out similar surveys each year since the mid-1990s, so the poll captures shifts in opinion in the region. This year's survey shows broad stability in attitudes, despite an improving economy (the region should see economic growth of 4.5% or so this year, the highest since 1997). That may be because of the lag before growth is reflected in higher incomes or more jobs. Or it may be because of deeper-rooted failures in democratic performance.

Support for democracy has edged up since last year (see charts 1 and 2, right and below). But in most countries it remains lower than in 1996, and in a dozen greatly so. The past year has seen sharp falls in support for democracy in Peru and three Central American countries (Costa Rica, Honduras and Nicaragua). Only in Paraguay does support for authoritarianism rival that for democracy; it is relatively high, too, in Ecuador. Not coincidentally, respondents in those countries are, along with Peruvians, the least satisfied with the way their democracies work (chart 5).

On the brighter side, there has been a significant rise in backing for democracy since last year in Brazil, Chile and Venezuela, as well as in two Central American countries with newly elected presidents (El Salvador and Panama). Venezuelans are committed democrats despite—or perhaps because of—the political conflict their country suffers. The poll suggests that Venezuela is evenly divided between supporters and opponents of President Hugo Chávez.

A reviving economy and a less powerful army may be easing Chile towards consolidated democracy. The advent of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a former trade-union leader of humble origins, seems to have increased support for democracy in Brazil. The poll suggests that the unpopularity of Alejandro Toledo has discredited Peru's restored democracy and may have generated nostalgia for the strongman rule of Alberto Fujimori. As for the region's two firmly consolidated democracies, Uruguay remains so but Costa Ricans are having doubts.

Underlying attitudes towards democracy in the region are complex and not without contradiction (see chart 4, right). Some 55% (up from 50% in 2002) of respondents say they “wouldn't mind a non-democratic government if it could solve the economic problems.” The 2002 figure was seized on—and magnified by dropping “don't knows”—by the United Nations Development Programme in a gloomy recent report lamenting the failure to develop a so-called “democracy of citizens” in Latin America. The fact that 71% of respondents think that their country “is governed for the benefit of a few powerful interests” rather than “the good of everyone” gives some support to that view—and may reflect popular perceptions of the region's abiding inequalities. But on the other hand, in this year's survey 63% say they would never support a military government and 72% believe that only democracy can bring development.

All this suggests that elected strongmen, such as Mr Chávez or Mr Fujimori, still have a constituency in some countries. Some 48% of respondents say they prefer order to liberty. That may be a sign of an authoritarian political culture—or simply a response to crime and disorder.

For democrats, there are glimmers of hope. The poll suggests that crime may be starting to fall, and that trust in the region's discredited political institutions has edged up again (chart 7, right). Contrary to claims of a big shift to the left, a clear majority favour the market economy (chart 6, right). But Central America and some Andean countries apart, the region remains alienated from the United States (chart 8, right). The anti-Americanism that surged over the war in Iraq has not yet subsided.



Latinobarómetro is a non-profit organisation based in Santiago, Chile, which has carried out regular surveys of opinions, attitudes and values in Latin America since 1995. The poll was taken by local opinion-research companies in 18 Latin American countries, and involved 19,605 interviews in May and June 2004. The margin of error was 2.8-4.1%. Central America in the charts refers to Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama. Further details from www.latinobarometro.org


Link to Article with Graphs (http://www.economist.com/world/la/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3084404)

[latinaviation]

Mine, too, Jack. Even though we would both be chastized because <i>The Economist</i> refers to themselves as an international newspaper. Of all the magazines I receive, it's by far the best quality.

[flufdriver]

crack-up:

Of course the US should not say "who cares " when monsters like the Noriega's & Saddam's of this world run amok!

After all, they created them!

Its not that I don't recognise the realities of Geo-politics, but if you train a dog to bite by developing his greed, don't be surprised if he turns on you.

the practice continues, Aristide in Haiti etc. and lets not even look in Africa.

[luisde8cd]

About The Economist article,

I find it very contradicting regarding people prefering a democracy over a military dictatorship in Venezuela's case. I've taken some social studies classes here in my university in Caracas and we've praised how we Venezuelans have gotten used to democracy since the last dictatorship ended in 1958. We read study guides with surveys asking the same questions as this article, and results are very different.

In this article it says only 71% rejects a miltary gov. under no circunstance when it's really over 90%. The article only comes close regarding "think only democracy can bring development" as it says 86%. I think there should be some mistake there....

[Panama Jack]

These type of studies tend to be full of contradictions, I believe, because individuals have their idealistic values (one of democracy, one man, one vote, responsible, benevolent government, etc.) versus real world experience-- dictatorship and an acceptable standard of living vs. so-called "democratic" rule (vote every 5 years, but otherwise unresponsive), crime, corruption and economic hardship. A few months ago there was a similar article in Nicaragua's La Prensa, and the impression that I got from that article, as well as talking to many friends and family members, is that most people could care less about being able to vote every 5 years and would give it all up for a leader, regardless of his stripes (pardon the pun) so long as he (or she) could deliver peace, an opportunity to make ends meet for the majority, low-crime, and no forced military service.

It is interesting that today, Martin Torrijos, the illegitimate son of the late-Panamanian dictator General Omar Torrijos will be inaugurated as the new Panamanian president. He has never been shy of hiding his connection with Gen. Omar Torrijos, who many Panamanians regard fondly as a populist leader, despite the fact that his government was a military one and human rights abuses and "disappearances" occured under his watch. Martin Torrijos got 47.44% of the vote while his closest opponent, former President Guillermo Endara, who was "democratically" elected to replace Manuel Noriega and reinstated after the US Invasion of Panama got only 30.86% of the vote in this election.

In summary, people care scant little about democracy if they are unable to put food on the table or live in fear of getting knifed on the bus on their way to a menial job.

[crack up]

PJ,
Was your family better off in 1985 than it is now?
I was in Nicaragua in the 80's, it wasn't a good place to be. They still can't sort out what was taken from the people on Nicaragua by Ortega.

Fluffdriver.
There is no dought that the U.S. aligned it's self wrongly more than once, but the mistakes are admitted and corrected.

Dispite what all you anti-American arm chair diplomats think or say, the U.S has freed more people in this world than all the rest put togather.

Right now, we need to pray that the lunitics that are holding the children are stopped before they can do their normal act of indiscriminate slaughter.

[Panama Jack]

I can appreciate your point of view crack up. To understand where we are today, it is not enough to look back in history only for the last 25 or 30 years. Here is what I understand about history (going back almost 200 years):

The “Monroe Doctrine” of 1823 warned European powers to stay out of Latin America, including Central America, which had a particular importance to the United States because of its proximity.

By the early 20th century, U.S. companies dominated the economies of Central American republics, including Nicaragua, controlling most of the banana production, railroads, port facilities, mines, and banking institutions. The United States intervened in Nicaragua repeatedly to protect U.S. economic interests.

In 1912 U.S. marines landed once again to maintain a pro-American government; this occupation lasted until 1925. Augusto César Sandino, a nationalist and leader of Nicaraguan peasants and workers, refused to accept the U.S.-sponsored peace treaty that kept U.S. influence and economic power intact. He organized an army of peasants, workers, and Indians to resist thousands of U.S. marines and the U.S.-trained Nicaraguan National Guard. Sandino’s 1933 proclamation called upon all the nations of Central America to oppose U.S. imperialism.

From 1927 to 1933 Sandino waged a successful guerrilla war against the United States with support from Mexican and other Latin American anti-imperialists. U.S. Marines finally leave Nicaragua in 1933, but are replaced by a well-trained and well-armed National Guard under the control of Anastasio Somoza, who procedes to assasinate Sandino in 1934.

The Somoza family's practices leave to a insurrection and eventually to a Sandinista government, and again civil war. The Sandinista's are defeated in the late 80's, but Nicaragua has never truly recovered. Different people blame lay the blame on different sources for this current scourage. As you are no doubt aware, politics continue to be very polarized in Nicaragua, and a current survey that I've seen gave a 50/50% yes/no response to a survey that asked Nicaraguans whether "the Revolution in Nicaragua was worth it."

Unfortuantely, nobody has the "truth" in their hands. We don't have the luxury of being able to play out the various scenarios of what would have resulted had different decisions been made in history.

Don't jump to the conclusion that I am not a friend of the United States, or that I am a Sandinista . . . because you would in fact be wrong. History is a fascinating thing to study-- in fact, I had just viewed a DVD on the history of the British Empire a few weeks ago and it had in some ways changed my perception that the British experience had been largely successful (what seemed to be the right action when the British started leaving India brought us two nuclear armed countries that routinely rattle the sabre in the new millenium. Combine that region with the former British colony of Palestine, and we have two areas that are the sources of many of the world's contempory problems and threats). We also need to keep in mind that history, invariably, is written by the victors.

It is somewhat coincidential that whilst surfing the internet I came across the following:

Smedley Darlington Butler, Major General - United States Marine Corps [Retired], was born in West Chester, Pa., July 30, 1881, educated at Haverford School, married Ethel C. Peters, of Philadelphia, June 30, 1905. He was awarded two congressional medals of honor, for capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914, and for capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917. He was also awarded the Distinguished Service Medal in 1919.

He joined the Marine Corps when the Spanish American War broke out, earned the Brevette Medal during the Boxer Rebellion in China, saw action in Central America, and in France during World War I was promoted to Major General. Smedley Butler served his country for 34 years, yet he spoke against American armed intervention into the affairs of sovereign nations.

Throughout his life, Butler demonstrated that true patriotism does not mean blind allegiance to government policies with which one does not agree.

Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

If we are on the topic of indiscriminate slaughter and comparing people to Saddam Hussein, why have you not cited Salvadoran Major Roberto D'Aubisson and his legacy?

[crack up]

PJ,
Believe me, the U.S. is not proud of the fact that the monster D'Aubisson and a few others were trained at the SOA.
Unfortunately, history always has and always will have the brutal, horrible figure that somehow gets a position of power.

The question though is; was your Nicaraguan family better off in 85 than now?

[Panama Jack]

Crack-up,

I can appreciate your point of view and respect your opinion and the respectful debate we've shared here on this topic. To move back to my original comments that I made earlier on in this thread, I'm sure you can no doubt appreciate that there is a wide variety of opinion, as well as no shortage of resentment in the region and around the world for the actions of the United States Government in the past, and I maintain, that this creates fertile recruiting grounds for groups like Al Qaeda or any other extreme or hate groups. Human psychology is complex. To deny that this posibility exists, is simply close one's eyes to the solution for the problems. For the United States, winning "hearts and minds" will always be a challenge, and I can appreciate your trying to point out the more positive motives behind US foreign policy.

The United States has been making some progress in this, especially during the last few years. Many Nicaraguans were touched when in the aftermath of Huricane Mitch, President Bill Clinton came to Nicaragua and toured Posoltega, a small village about 15 miles from my house where it is estimated some 2000 people perished during a torrential mudslide. He gained credibility for the United States when, after his speech, he came down from his stage to imerse himself in the crowd, to shake hands with poor peasants, as Nicaraguan President Arnoldo Aleman and remained on the stage and looked on bewildered. Since then, the US has shown more good will, such as anouncing that they would respect election results even "if" Daniel Ortega were to be elected (a concept that even many Sandinistas are not enthused about), and spearheading investigations and seizures of funds related to fraud and corruption of former allies such as Arnoldo Aleman and denying and revoking US visas of "dirty folks," regardless of their political afiliations. In Nicaragua, most are delighted to see this happening.

You asked the issue about how my family is now compared to in 1985, and I chosen up until now to ignore the question, but I see now that you really want an answer. I'll apoligize in advance if I cannot give you the clear cut answer that you seek.

While the FSLN receives most of the credit for the overthrow of Anastacio Somoza, you need to keep in mind that the uprising against Somoza was a widely popular one with the backing of a wide variety of the Nicaraguan political spectrum. When you read that almost the entire population of cities like León fought against Somoza's National Guard, it was often because people had no real choice anymore. Our family suffered casualties, my wife's grandfather was interrogated and tortured by the National Guard-- the physical scars of being "branded" by a hot rifle muzzle to his stomach are permanent. All young men went underground out of fear of their lives. My wife was born during the fighting, a few days earlier, her father was threatened to be shot by the National Guard at a checkpoint. Somoza sent aircraft to bomb León, one of the pilots himself was from León, and had to flee to Chile into exile. He returned to León only a few years ago with his family, but is widely despised by many as "the pilot who bombed his own city." He never flew again. I am sure that most citizens of the United States would rise up against their government if a similar situation developed there.

As far as whether things are better for my family now than before, that is a tough one. In 1985, materials were scarce, primarily due to the US Embargo and the fact that many resources were going to the war effort. The mining of Nicaragua's harbors and sabotage of oil facilities did not help-- as we know, the world runs on oil.

To ask whether my personal family is better or worse of is a tough one, as well as in a ways, an insensitive one, to analyse. In 1985, I was 12 years old. Now I am a professional in aviation and am able to provide my family with a family a fairly good standard of living. Our family has always been one of professionals and educators, and even in the 1980's maintained an above average standard of living, despite lack of political afiliations. The current lack of jobs and crime is definately worrisome. A few months ago, my wife was mugged and robbed by someone with a knife-- crime has never been worse. Nor have job prospects ever been worse-- one of my wife's uncles, a family man with two Bachelor's degrees FINALLY found a job after a long period of unemployment. Many people will tell you that in the end of the 1980's, everyone had money, but there was nothing available to buy. Now you can buy almost anything, but there is no money!!!

It is, however, an insensitive one to analyse, since our family, as well as many others, lost someone during a time when sadly, brothers were fighting brothers-- proxy armies in one of the last battlefields between the Eagle and the Bear. It is one thing to say that combatants "sacrifice themselves so that we can live a better life," but that is about as logical as saying that you would live better by throwing your wife down the stairs so that you can collect on the life insurance and not have to spend all that money when she goes shopping.

All wars are like that, what you will hear throughout Nicaragua is that people are tired of armed conflict, no longer believe in their politicians, political parties or political agendas, and just want peace and to build a better country. Meanwhile, the country exists between a rock and a hard place.

I ask that you please accept that as my response regarding my family.