Obama Versus the Populists

Latin America, while feeling ignored for the better part of eight years was one of President Obama's first international meetings that held the weight of his future power in his discussion with Mexican President Felipe Calderon last week. Mexico has spent the better part of 2008 fighting an intense conflict against internal drug cartels and towards the end of the year Bush and Obama have set to dedicate $400 million to help counter the violence taking hold in Mexico. Called the Merida Initiative, it mirrors aid sent to Colombia that started nearly eight years ago to help quell drug cartels in that country. Success of these initiatives has brought on a great deal of criticism, but the attention from the US is often due in these circumstances. With over 4000 deaths due to Mexico's drug war in the last 12 months, Mexico may become closer to the US as violence spins out of control.

Threats to the US since 9/11 have come mostly from non-state actors. From Al Qaeda to drug cartels, the method to fight them often is unknown as popular movements motivates unknown people to seek fortune, political change, extreme ideals and in almost all cases are fuelled by poverty. With the exception of agreements made with North Korea, George Bush was seen by many as a reflection of overbearing power that the hegemony of the United States used to enter nations despite local and international protests, in order to serve its own interest and punish others indefinitely. This debate rages on, but in those countries that were not directly in conflict with the US, their leaders often invoked Bush as a scapegoat for problems in their own countries, whether it was America's fault or a way to adjust public perception away from local government errors and policies.

President Barak Obama may change the dynamic of the situation by simply presenting the optics that would reduce the ability of leaders in populist states to place blame on the US for local troubles and push for more populist support among their population. Mexico traditionally has felt strongly influenced by the US, whether the US had great influence or not. Recent cooperation on Mexican security and a reopening of trade ties had brought Obama closer to Mexico, pulling anti-American feelings away from those of Cardenas' nationalisations of the 1930s and enabling a new relationship between the US and Mexico to flourish in troubled times. While this may be temporary, Mexico and the US have learned that they gain nothing from being divisive, and Calderon and Obama will likely not change this in the next four years.

Populism of the past has not been better represented in recent years than with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Morales in Bolivia and Castro in Cuba. While Morales exists through popular support internally and from Venezuela, and Castro is coming to the end of his days, Chavez has been able to take popular support and high oil prices in the last few years and apply it to not only anti-poverty measures, but pushing his support beyond Venezuela's Constitution to push for indefinite power. Chavez has been known to quell journalistic opposition by increasingly extreme measures and by placing blame for his country's ills on Bush and Uribe. In very recent history however, three factors have cut Chavez down to the role of elected official where he will have to leave office at term due to lack of popular support. Initially the referendum to increase his term of office indefinitely was rejected by Venezuelans, albeit by a slight margin, and a second try at a referendum drags with it accusations that media and opposition has been attacked or shut down. Nothing makes this clearer as when representatives of Human Rights Watch were assaulted and ejected from Venezuela for their analysis of Chavez during his term of office. The second grand effect was the cutting of oil prices by half, in a country where all other industries have been culled for the sake of oil, which is controlled by the government and is used for political reasons. Talk is never cheap when is it bathed in oil revenues, but Chavez will likely lose a lot of support when he realizes that he lost 40% of his savings, like everyone else has in the last two months. The third possible strike against Chavez is the loss of Bush and America as scapegoats for problems faced by Venezuela's people. Obama, which not yet addressing Latin America beyond the meeting with Calderon is not seen as a divisive figure in Latin America, and comes off more as someone who could have easily grew up in the streets of Havana or Caracas as opposed to growing up through the military like Chavez or as inheriting his position as President through channels in the upper class in a region where wealth and poverty is the determining factor of power in society. While this might not eliminate the US or even Obama as being seen as abusing the power of a hegemony, it will simply show the US as a country where any citizen can come to power through their own efforts, a reality that does not exist in Venezuela or few other states.

The greatest challenge to Obama might be that of the Middle East, and he is very aware of this fact. With conflict in Gaza, the government of Lebanon being challenged daily by Hezbollah, Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan to boot, Obama will have to challenge issues and popular support in many of these regions, and as a result have to solve issues by coming to terms with populism and policy in Iran which could easily tilt the region to peace or chaos if support in Iran allows for it. While many Middle Eastern experts see anti-American sentiment as justified or simply as political posturing, the reflection of support and opposition in political movements in a country like Iran has never been simple rhetoric. Opposition in Iran goes well beyond simple human rights abuses and has gone to the point of the murder of local and foreign journalists and politicians, the legislation of laws allowing the execution of coverts and the arrest of Baha'I leaders for the second time in a generation, the first being murdered in prison and the most recent being taken without charge in a continual attack on minorities and political opposition in Iran. These incidents are few examples of a long list of abuses ignored by the international community. Populism in Iran could go in either direction, as the country has one of the highest number of people under 35 and also has been greatly affected by the change in oil prices, which could lead to a situation of grave unemployment and populist leaders to gain a great deal of power if a tone of anti-Obama or conflict through Hamas or Hezbollah can place Obama in the same light as Bush when attacks or retaliations are claimed by allies of populists in Iran or nations allied with the US in the region. While poverty, oil and political repression abounds in many countries in the region, Obama will likely lose any support in the region, and has already been attacked by regional media on his first day in office. The strength Obama has in this case is that the silent opposition and those who are at the receiving end of threats by Iran's populists could change their tone when oppression and Barak Hussein Obama challenges, builds and offers and alternative to threats by someone who is a non-traditional leader of the free world. This however will never succeed if an America based on a just tradition will not push for justice of those in the region who are sitting in prison waiting for the day of their possible execution. While Chavez will likely lose his seat in power, Iran's populists sit at the centre of a peace process in the region. Compromise and posturing is common in populists movements, but human rights should be at the forefront of any actions taken in the region for President Obama.