Obama's Not-So-Excellent Latin American Adventure

By now you've probably heard about the Secret Service prostitution scandal that has totally overshadowed President Obama's trip to participate in the Summit of the Americas, a gathering of the nations of Latin America – plus the United States and Canada, this past weekend in Cartagena, Colombia.  After reading this report from Reuters, maybe the Secret Service distraction isn't a bad thing.

While the White House is touting the signing of a free-trade agreement between the United States and Colombia as an accomplishment from the Summit, most of the focus seems to be falling on the United States increasingly diminishing role in Latin American affairs, quite a step back for the US, which since the time of the Monroe Doctrine has considered Latin America to be our backyard.  But that attitude may be part of the reason for the split.  Latin American governments are finding the United States to be increasingly more arrogant and demanding in its bilateral dealings with them, and indications are that they are growing tired of the long-standing status quo.

The most visible sign of this split is the public rebuke suffered by the US and Canada over Cuba.  The two nations pushed a motion to bar inviting Cuba to future Summits unless Cuba engaged in massive political reforms. None of the Summit's other 32 participants signed on to the resolution.  The nations of Latin America meanwhile are charting a course that isn't dependent on the United States.  China is pouring money into investments in a host of Latin American nations, while Venezuela's Hugo Chavez has been promoting the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), as a US-free alternative to existing regional bodies like the Organization of American States.

Critics will likely be quick to blame the failure of the United States at the Summit on Pres. Obama, but as one State Dept. official noted to Reuters, many of the wedge issues between the US and Latin America have been brewing for decades.  And a number of Latin American leaders said that they truly appreciated President Obama's attendance at the Summit and his apparent interest in the discussions and decision-making process, even if they disagree with the official positions of the United States.  And a major driver of the US-Latin American split is the growing economic clout of a number of nations in the region, particularly Brazil, which is a member of the BRICS group of the world's top-performing emerging economies.  Brazil's statue will be boosted by their deepwater oil reserves, which could net the country vast amounts of money from crude oil exports, and Brazil's hosting of the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Summer Olympics.

Cynicism and the Falklands

Hillary Clinton added a last-minute stop to Argentina on her tour of Latin America, and waded into that country's ongoing dispute with Great Britain over the Falkland Islands, urging both nations to sit down and negotiate a settlement. If you're wondering why a new row has erupted over the tiny, wind-swept islands nearly three decades after the two countries fought a brief and bloody war for them, than check out my latest post, "Political Cynicism on Display in the Falklands" over at The Mantle, which goes into the competing claims of sovereignty put forward by each nation, along with an explanation of why a desire to distract from some domestic problems is likely at the heart of the matter today.

Will The Resource Curse Strike The Falklands?

Great Britain and Argentina are fighting an escalating war of worlds over the Falkland Islands – that windswept collection of rocky isles that the two countries briefly warred over in 1982, and at least part of the motivation is the British decision to prospect for oil in the seabed surrounding the territory that Argentina still believes is rightfully theirs.

The theory is that there could be up to 60 billion barrels of oil under the sea around the Falklands. With license fees and royalties, extracting that much oil could give the 3,100 Falklanders one of the highest per capita incomes anywhere in the world. But some of the Falklanders are wondering if suddenly becoming one of the richest places on Earth would in fact be a good thing. The Times of London in this report on the ongoing tension over the Falklands included some of the discussions taking place via the Falkland’s only newspaper, the Penguin Times. In the pages of the Penguin Times some islanders are talking about what in international development theory is called the Resource Curse – in brief it is the paradox that while having a valuable natural resource should lead to prosperity, in practice around the world it has instead often resulted in lower economic growth, oppressive governments and a host of other societal ills. One islander remarked: “by dabbling in oil we may have tapped into the nervous system of one of the world’s most dangerous industries. One wonders if it has brought happiness and grassroots benefits anywhere.”

It is an interesting question. While other Falklanders note that they don’t want to return to the days when the Falklands were a largely forgotten outpost of the British Empire populated by sheep farmers eeking out a living (sheep still outnumber people on the islands by about 200-to-1), they are also concerned about how life would change if the Falklands were suddenly flooded with oil revenues. The Times of London notes that it will be difficult to get the Falkland’s young people to accept the tough life of a sheep farmer when there would be much more money to be made working on one of the offshore oil platforms, something that would fundamentally change the culture of the islands.

Of course they first have to find oil and then find a way to extract it while still making a profit, something that could be difficult in the stormy waters of the South Atlantic. Still, it will be interesting to see how the Falklanders deal with an oil-fueled windfall.

Great Britain, Argentina Relaunch Old Fight

Great Britain and Argentina are having a new diplomatic row over an old issue – the Falklands Islands. Last month Argentina passed a law claiming that they own the Falklands (or Las Malvinas as they call them), Britain has sent a note to Argentina’s embassy in London saying their new law was utter nonsense (in so many words). The two nations have debated the issue for decades – Argentina cites the island’s proximity and an 1820 decree as the source of their claim, the British respond by saying they’ve possessed the Falklands for nearly two centuries and that the islands approximately 3,000 residents overwhelmingly want to remain part of the British Empire.

Back in 1982 Argentina tried to retake the islands by force. The British responded by sailing a naval flotilla halfway around the world, which then promptly routed the Argentines and restored the Falklands to British rule. While the two nations relaunched diplomatic relations in 1990, they still have never settled their dueling claims of ownership over the islands.

So why bring this issue up now? One possible explanation is that Argentina’s President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner could be using the dispute as a way of shifting her nation’s attention from a collection of bruising domestic issues. Kirchner is trying to restructure her nation’s debt through a swap of foreign currency for defaulted bonds and she’s having a very public fight with her own vice president. Another possibility though is that old international relations fallback – oil.

New exploration indicates that there could be vast reserves of oil under the seabed surrounding the Falklands, some projections say the region could hold as much as the North Sea. Drilling on the first test well is planned to start next month. If the reserves pan out, it would mean an economic boom for the Falklands – the residents would get a 9% royalty on all the oil extracted from the seabed around the islands. Of course the nation that owns the Falklands would also own the oil around them, which could explain Argentina’s newfound interest in the islands.

A Century Ago, Yet Strangely Familiar

Yesterday I stumbled across the New York Times "TimesTraveler" blog, the idea is that the blog looks back at what was in the Times 100 years ago to the day. The funny thing is how many of the big stories seem strangely familiar: the President warning against imposing trade tariffs; the United States worrying about the government of a Central American state - Nicaragua this time, not Honduras, though an official named "Zelaya" is common to both; and a warning about terrorists coming to our shores, only 100 years ago it was the Black Hand instead of al-Qaeda.

It's interesting how times change, and how they don't.

Presidential Deal Struck in Honduras

The four-month political crisis in Honduras seems to be over as the two sides - deposed President Manuel Zelaya and acting President Roberto Micheletti - struck a deal to allow Zelaya to apply to return to his former office and for the already scheduled presidential elections to go forward on November 29.

Honduras was plunged into political chaos when the military grabbed the sleeping Zelaya in the middle of the night and dropped him off in neighboring Costa Rica. The reason? Zelaya was apparently illegally trying to change the Honduran constitution through a referendum so that he could run for a second term as president, even after being ordered by both the Honduran Legislature and Supreme Court not to do so (more on this in a moment). The United States and the Organization of American States both pushed for Zelaya's return. And while this whole crisis could have resolved itself next month with the scheduled elections, the United States was threatening to not recognize the results of those elections unless Zelaya was first returned to office.

The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, never one to pass up a shot at the Obama Administration, is painting this as a victory for the pro-Micheletti side and a defeat for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But the WSJ does have something of a point, while this is being declared a victory for Zelaya, the agreement only says that he can apply to get his presidential job back. Since the Legislature ruled against him twice over his proposed referendum and supported his ouster, it's hard to think they'll restore him to the presidency. And besides, he only has three months left in his term anyway, the Legislature could easily drag his hearing out that long, meaning he'll likely never actually return to his job.

Speaking of the legality of his removal: Sen. John Kerry and Rep. Howard Berman are demanding that the Law Library of Congress retract an analysis that backed up the Honduran military's removal of Zelaya for violating their constitution as legal. In July, Octavio Sánchez, a former presidential advisor in Honduras also argued that the military acted properly to uphold the rule of law. The Library of Congress is quite upset at Kerry and Berman since they feel the lawmakers' demand could compromise the Library's image as a non-partisan organization.

The Library of Congress is a pretty serious body. Somehow I have more faith in their ability to correctly analyze the situation in Honduras than I do in a couple of Congressmen.

A Wrong Turn in Honduras

Honduras' deposed President Manuel Zelaya might have taken things a step too far in his quest to return to office. As we've talked about in other posts here, Zelaya was removed from power by the Honduran military at the end of June when he tried, apparently illegally, to change the country's constitution to allow him to run for a second term. The US government, along with many others in Latin America, were quick to brand his removal a 'coup', though there is a good case to be made that the military was actually acting to enforce the law under the Honduran constitution.

Last week, Zelaya surprised everyone by sneaking back into Honduras with the help of the Brazilian government, who are now hosting him at their embassy in the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa. But his return has sparked a crisis in Honduras, with the government briefly placing the country under martial law after Zelaya called for his supporters to spark "a final offensive" on Monday to return him to office.

And that might have been a step too far for his supporters in Washington. Our ambassador to the Organization of American States, Lewis Anselem, slammed Zeyala's actions as "irresponsible and foolish," for creating a crisis out of what had been peaceful and fairly calm negotiations to return Zelaya to power, while also taking a shot at the the Brazilians by saying: "President Zelaya and those who have facilitated his return, bear particular responsibility for the actions of his supporters."

So far the Hondurans have managed to keep things calm in Tegucigalpa, but whether that remains the case is anybody's guess and depends a lot on what Zelaya does next. For now though, it looks like he has hurt his case with some of his most vocal backers if Amb. Anselem's comments are any indication.

The whole situation in Honduras could resolve itself in a little over a month when the country holds the long-scheduled presidential elections to pick Zelaya's successor. Earlier Secretary of State Clinton suggested the United States might not view the winner of that election as the legitimate president of Honduras. It will be interesting to see though, in light of Zelaya's reckless course of action, if the United States backs away from that position.

The Un-Coup in Honduras

Since last June I've been following the "coup" in Honduras (and just in case you haven't, the military there removed President Manuel Zelaya from power and sent him into exile the night before a referendum he backed to rewrite the Honduran constitution to allow him to serve a second term was scheduled to be held). The Obama administration quickly branded the military's action a coup and has demanded that Zelaya be returned to power, even suspending foreign aid to Honduras in protest.

My take on events though, after reading a bit about Honduras' constitution was that the military was acting to uphold the law - the Honduran constitution specifically bars anyone from serving more than one term as president and goes on to state that anyone who tries to amend this part of the constitution (like Zelaya was trying to do) must be removed from office, immediately.

Now, according to today's Wall Street Journal, the Congressional Research Service backs up my take on Honduran law - stating that they see the military's action in removing Zelaya from power: "to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system." The WSJ goes on to say in their editorial that the United States is actually pressuring the Hondurans to violate their own laws with our demand that they bring Zelaya back to power and even claims that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has "an obsession" with Honduras, though unlike the Congressional Research Service, the Wall Street Journal never answers the question of why the US is backing Zelaya or their claim that Clinton is obsessed with any research or facts.

US Sanctions Honduras For Trying To Uphold Their Constitution

The State Department announced that they're cutting off $30 million in US foreign aid to Honduras and could cut off $200 million more because Honduras' interim government is refusing to allow disposed President Manuel Zelaya to return to power.

The State Dept. insists that the Honduran military's removal of Zelaya from office on June 28 was a coup d'etat, and therefore illegal. We're insisting that he be allowed to return to the country and the presidency. But there's a pretty strong case to be made that the Honduran government was actually upholding their constitution and that the one in the wrong here is Zelaya.

He was removed from office the day before the holding of a referendum that he ordered to amend the constitution to let him serve a second term in office. The problem is that the Honduran constitution pretty clearly spells out that the one-term limit on the presidency can't be amended and that anyone trying to do so must be removed from office immediately. Honduras' legislature told Zelaya not to hold the referendum, so did their supreme court, but Zelaya was going ahead with it anyway. So in the end, the military stepped in, removed Zelaya from office and deposited him in neighboring Costa Rica apparently to stop a major violation of Honduran constitutional law.

Maybe it's just because we're not use to militaries removing presidents to uphold their constitutions, but the US has been solidly behind Zelaya since June. This whole problem could resolve itself in November when Honduras holds its scheduled presidential election (since Zelaya legally couldn't run for reelection he'd be out of office anyway), but now, according to the LA Times, the State Dept. is making noise about not recognizing the winner of that election as Honduras' new president either. Zelaya has some pretty powerful friends in Washington.

BJ’s Wrong Take On Honduras

Yesterday in the Huffington Post, Mike Farrell (remember him as BJ Honeycutt on M*A*S*H?) asked: “where the hell is the USA?” He was asking this in relation to Honduras and though I liked him on M*A*S*H, he’s dead wrong about Honduras.

Mike’s argument basically is this: President Zelaya had a lot of good, pro-poor programs, Congress and the Military – supported by Honduras’ elites – didn’t like this common touch so they cooked up a coup to throw Zelaya out and put the former head of the Honduran Congress, Roberto Micheletti, in as president. Ok, that sounds good as a theory, but it ignores one small fact – that Zelaya was violating Honduras’ constitution by trying to hold a referendum to extend his own term in office. The Congress told him not to do it, the Supreme Court told him not to do it, but Zelaya insisted, finally prompting the Military to remove him (Honduras’ constitution, according to the explanation I’ve seen, says that anyone trying to change the term limits on the presidency must be removed from office immediately).

So by that reading the Military was actually upholding the constitution, not violating it. And I think that is the problem that a lot of people are having with what’s going on in Honduras, if you’ve studied International Affairs you know usually it’s the other way around – the military violates the constitution to remove the legal leader.

But just because that is the common way these things unfold, it doesn’t mean that’s the reality of the situation in Honduras. President Zelaya’s grandstanding visit to the border late last week doesn’t help his cause either, making him seem like someone more interested in self-promotion than in governing his country (even Hillary Clinton slammed his visit as being “unhelpful”).

So while I loved you as BJ, Mike, you’re wrong on this one.

Honduras Coverage, Another "CNN Fail"

Yesterday Honduras' deposed President Manuel Zelaya made a dramatic (perhaps overly dramatic, but we'll get to that in a minute) bid to re-enter his country. In case you missed it, last month the Honduran army scooped up President Zelaya and dropped him off in neighboring Costa Rica for allegedly violating the Honduras' constitution. (The US, UN and OAS have all accused the Honduran military of pulling off a coup, but I think there's a fair case to be made that they were acting to uphold the country's constitution and that Zelaya is in the wrong here).

Zelaya already tried once to fly back into Honduras, but the military closed the airport at Tegucigalpa blocking his return. This time Zelaya planned to walk across the border from Nicaragua amid a throng of supporters and against a squad of Honduran soldiers - CNN was the only cable network to cover it live. Rick Sanchez temporarily put his Twitter/Facebook/Myspace infatuation on hold to speak with a real live CNN correspondent at the Honduras/Nicaragua border and even translated some of the Spanish-language newsfeed for the benefit of the viewers.

It made for some pretty compelling television, the kind of international coverage CNN once had a great reputation for, that is until 4pm rolled around and with it the start of CNN's next show, Wolf Blitzer's "Situation Room". Wolf dumped out of the live video from Honduras to give we the viewers yet another hour of 'experts' blathering about the stalled health care bill and the Obama/Cambridge/Henry Louis Gates 'scandal'. Really? Honestly, if I was the news director over at CNN I'd think that an ongoing political standoff in a nation basically on America's doorstep would trump another hour of talking about two situations we've been talking about for days and will continue to talk about for days to come (without, remarkably, ever saying very much). But I'm not the news director at CNN.

It's another example of how CNN has fallen from its once lofty heights, when it was the go-to source for breaking international news. Of course if they did their job better, maybe I'd feel less need to run this site.

If you're interested, the standoff at the border ended without incident. Zelaya ducked his head under the rusty chain that marks the border between the two countries, and shook hands with a Honduran army officer, before returning to Nicaragua for a press conference. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton slammed Zelaya for grandstanding rather than trying to seek a peaceful solution to return himself to his country and bring an end to the current political crisis.

When is a Coup not a Coup?

Last Sunday the Honduran army bundled up President Manuel Zelaya and dropped him off in neighboring Costa Rica, telling him his services were no longer needed. The backstory is that Pres. Zelaya was planning, that very Sunday, to hold a controversial referendum about changing the Honduran constitution to allow him to run for a second term - this despite the fact that the Honduran constitution very clearly states that the part about the president's term in office can't be amended.

The military's move has drawn a lot of international criticism from the likes of Barack Obama, the Organization of American States and the United Nation, just to name a few, all of whom branded the event a "coup" and called for the immediate return of Mr. Zelaya to the presidency (RealClearWorld provided a nice roundup of commentary on what's going on in Honduras here).

But is it really a coup? Former Honduran Presidential adviser Octavio Sánchez makes a fairly compelling argument that rather than staging a coup, the Honduran military was in fact upholding the constitution. The core of his argument is Article 239 of the Honduran constitution, which limits the president to one term in office. It goes on to say: "whoever violates this law or proposes its reform...will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years." Sánchez says that Zelaya's trying to hold a referendum on amending the constitution to allow him to run for a second term was a direct violation of Article 239, and that under law the military had to step in and remove him from power.

Since I'm not fluent in Spanish, I'll have to take Sánchez's word on the text of Article 239, but assuming it is as described, he makes a good case that what happened in Honduras as less of a coup, and more - like Sánchez says - a proper exercise of the rule of law.

Update #1 - Cuban invitation

Yesterday, I wrote this post about how most members of the Organization of American States - except for the US - wanted to reverse the nearly four decades-long ban on Cuba. Well, the OAS went ahead today and did in fact vote to lift the ban.

The United States has, not surprisingly, slammed the decision, saying that Cuba's Communist system doesn't fit in with the mission of the OAS. Robert Menendez, a Democratic Senator from New Jersey and himself a Cuban-American, has gone so far as to suggest that Congress cut American funding to the OAS, which gets 60% of its budget from the US.

But all the bluster is likely for nothing since Cuba is saying that while they're happy the OAS lifted their suspension, so far they have no intention of rejoining the organization

US, LA at odds again over Cuba

Cuba is once again dominating relations between the United States and Latin America.

The forum this time is the annual meeting of the Organization of American States. Cuba was kicked out of the OAS back in 1962 after the revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power. Now most of the members of the OAS think it's time for the ban to end, the one member that doesn't is of course the United States. The United States is saying that Cuba first would need to make democratic and human rights reforms before the US would back a Cuban membership bid.

So far this argument has taken up a day of the OAS meeting. And according to the BBC report, it's pointless - Cuba has said they have no intention of rejoining the OAS now even if invited. So in other words, the United States is picking a fight over an issue that, in reality, doesn't exist; and it's causing more friction between the United States and Latin America at a time when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been arguing about the need for the US to rebuild ties with our neighbors to the South.

The OAS could vote to extend the invitation to Cuba without the United States' support.

Nicaraguans hit by currency surprise

According to Time.com last week Nicaraguans were taken by surprise by the Central Bank of Nicaragua's issuing new currency notes (for those keeping track at home the Nicaraguan currency is the Cordoba). Time interviewed a few people on the street who all were wary of the new Cordoba notes, including business-owners who were trying to pass along the new Cordobas to unsuspecting customers as quickly as possible.

It's odd though that Nicaraguans would be caught by surprise since with just a little searching on the Internet I found this post from the site Banknotenews.com ("Breaking news about international paper money" according to its masthead) that announced the new Cordobas back in January of 2008. I'll have to assume then that the Nicaraguan government just didn't do a great public outreach/PR campaign about the new money and that Banknotenews is really on top of the ball for all things currency-related.

Perhaps part of the problem too is the Nicaraguan government's odd decision to issue only about half of the Cordoba denominations in the new format - printed on an odd, plastic-feeling polymer, which seems to be getting uniformly negative reviews from the citizens, while still printing the other half on paper. Whatever the reason - again according to Time.com - the new bills are sparking a mini-economic boom in Nicaragua as people, unsure about the new currency and wary about past government economic policies, are trying to spend the new Cordobas as fast as they get them.

US needs to focus on Latin America, Clinton warns

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that the United States needs to pay more attention to Latin America to counter the growing influence of China, Russia and Iran in the region.

Her remarks come after Iran announced that their President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be visiting Brazil later this week, a visit Clinton described as "quite disturbing." Ahmadinejad is bringing quite a crowd with him, more than 100 representatives from dozens of Iranian companies, all in a bid to build economic ties between Iran and Brazil, the largest economy in Latin America.

Clinton said that the ties countries like Iran and China are establishing with the nations of Latin America are not in America's foreign policy interest. She blamed the Bush Administration for some of America's loss of influence in the region because of its unpopular policies towards Venezuela and Cuba - policies many Latin American leaders have been urging the Obama Administration to change.

"The prior administration tried to isolate them, tried to support opposition to them, tried to turn them into international pariahs. It didn't work,” Clinton said. Not only didn't it work, you could reasonably argue that the policies did more harm than good to the United States in Latin America. Keep in mind that last December when countries in the region held the inaugural "Latin American and Caribbean Summit on Integration and Development", they invited China and Russia to sit in as observers - and asked the US to stay home.

In the past few years China and Russia have been steadily building ties in Latin America: Russia has renewed their relationship with their old Soviet-era ally, Cuba and has invested in projects in Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua; while China is also courting Cuba, hoping to develop oil fields off the island's coast and has quietly become Chile's biggest export partner. Now Iran is hoping to build new ties in the region as well.

“I don't think in today's world...that it's in our interests to turn our backs on countries in our own hemisphere," Clinton said.

Cesar, Hugo and Fox News

I admit, I’m a news junkie; I watch all of the cable news channels, for a little while at least, every day. And I will admit that even the much-maligned Fox News has some decent correspondents on their roster. One thing I can’t stomach though is Fox’s painfully amateurish morning show “Fox & Friends”.

That’s why I missed this doozy from Fox morning host Steve Doocy. He was talking with Fox analyst Peter Johnson about the newly-elected leftist government in El Salvador, when Johnson said the new government has “strong ties to Cesar Chavez”, a claim that Doocy backed up after getting in a dig at CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. Of course you would assume that host Doocy and analyst Johnson were talking about Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez, not California immigrant labor leader Cesar Chavez…

It all reminded me of a scene from The Simpsons when the ghost of Cesar Chavez appeared to Homer. Homer asked him “then why do you look like Cesar Romero? [The actor who played The Joker in the 60’s-era Batman TV series]. The Ghost replied: “Because you don’t know what Cesar Chavez looks like.”

I don’t expect a morning chat show host to know the leaders of every country in the world, but if you’re going to try to insult someone, you ought to get the names right.

Mummies arrested on Red Square

Yeah, you read that headline right, riot police detained at least 30 mummies, well people dressed as mummies anyway, on Red Square in Moscow today.

So why were people dressed up like mummies you ask? Wednesday happens to be the 85th anniversary of the death of Vladimir Lenin, whose well-preserved corpse still lies on public display in a tomb on Red Square. During the days of Communism, Lenin's Tomb was quite the pilgrimage site, but since 1991 though it's become more a kitsch attraction than a place for reverence. A majority of Russians now think that Lenin should be buried once and for all, most likely in a St. Petersburg cemetery with other members of his family.

The mummies were from a group of self-described ‘Orthodox monarchists’ and planned to join a procession of Communist Party loyalists marching to the Tomb to lay wreaths and pay their respects as good Communists all across the Soviet Union once did. The mummies stated they were not planning to yell slogans or make political statements saying “the mummies will be quiet, just the way mummies should be.”

Police still detained them anyway.

Russian Navy wants bases around the world

Reuters is reporting that on Sunday Russia's military command approved a plan put forward by the Russian Navy to permanently station Russian warships in bases around the world.

In the past two years Russia has started sending its Navy on maneuvers far from the Russian coast for the first time since the end of the Soviet Union, the highest-profile trip came late last year when a task force of Russian ships visited Venezuela and Cuba. The Russian frigate Neustrashimy (“Fearless” in Russian) has also been busy escorting commercial vessels in the pirate-filled waters off of Somalia for the past few months - foiling several pirate attacks in the process.

The Reuters report didn't mention any specific bases besides one Russia is hoping to establish in the Georgian-region of Abkhazia (which Russia considers now to be an independent country), but Russia is also upgrading facilities at the Syrian port of Tartus for its navy to use and the Neustrashimy has docked at the port of Aden in Yemen (at the south end of the Arabian peninsula) to resupply while working off Somalia. Aden was another place where the Soviet Union once had a naval base. There has been informal talk at different times about Russia trying to base ships in Libya and Vietnam, and Russia has discussed with Somalia about building ties between their two nations, which could in theory include stationing ships there as well.

Colonel-General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the Russian military's deputy chief of staff, said that decisions on where to base ships would have to be "considered very carefully." One factor that might temper Russia's grand naval plans is money - not only would Russia likely need to build or renovate port facilities at sites around the world, they also need to acquire more ships - the Russian Navy is still trying to rebuild from the collapse of the Soviet Union almost 20 years ago now. With oil prices off $100 from their highs last year, the Navy's plans are likely to get scaled back. At the same time, joining the piracy task force, along with the cruise to the Caribbean, show that the Russian Navy plans on making its presence felt in the world’s seas.

Sorry Monroe, Russia and China are playing in our backyard

In the nearly 200 years since President James Monroe stated the foreign policy doctrine the bears his name (that would be the Monroe Doctrine of course), the United States has looked at Latin America as our backyard. Now the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean are holding a historic summit, the inaugural "Latin American and Caribbean Summit on Integration and Development" and the United States isn't invited.

But Russia and China are.

You can only take it as another sign of the United State's waning influence in a part of the world we once thought of as "ours". Even while it seemed like the world was eagerly following this past November's presidential election, a region-wide poll found that Latin America was largely indifferent to the outcome; the thought was that neither Obama nor McCain would really focus on the region.

It seemed like it would be very different when George W. took office in 2001. He touted the relationship he developed while governor of Texas with (then) Mexican President Vincente Fox as a sign of America's close relationship with Latin America, but the region quickly fell off Bush's radar. In the end, Chinese President Hu Jintao wound up spending more time in the Latin America than did Bush. China and Russia have also seen their investments in the region triple in recent years, while America's fell by nearly a quarter. China has become Chile's biggest export partner, while Russian companies are making big investments in the energy sectors in Venezuela and Bolivia. The high-profile visit to Venezuela last month by a flotilla of Russian warships is a distraction from the bigger story: Russia's increasing economic influence in the area.

So then it shouldn't be a surprise that the United States is becoming a less important player in Latin America - just because you think a place is your back yard, that doesn't mean you can ignore it and expect that circumstances will never to change. One last thing that will probably irk some folks in Washington - the conference will be the coming out party for Cuba's Raul Castro who is making his first trip abroad since taking over the leadership of Cuba from his brother Fidel.