By Otto J. Reich and Ezequiel Vázquez-Ger

Seventy-one years ago this week, on December 7, 1941, the United States changed forever. What began as a tranquil day in a country that thought it could avoid the violence wracking the rest of the world ended with a bloody and unprovoked surprise attack. That "day that shall live in infamy" -- in President Franklin Roosevelt's famous words -- saw our country transformed from a growing but isolated nation into the military, technological and economic superpower that routed a vicious totalitarian Axis, then a brutal communist empire, and that has ensured peace and democracy in the world ever since.

On December 7, 2012, the people of Argentina will wake up to a different assault. The attack on its freedoms will not be a surprise and it will not come from a foreign empire. It will be a pre-announced offensive on freedom of expression, the most fundamental liberty of any democracy, and it will come from the increasingly despotic regime headed by Cristina Kirchner, a left-wing populist that, like most authoritarians, cannot abide an independent press.

It is often said that Argentines only protest when the economy hurts their pockets. If so, last November 8, was an exception to this rule. On that day about a million people across that country took to the streets with a clear message: Argentina wants more freedom, an independent judiciary, free press, and an end to widespread corruption. Unlike previous protests, this time the Argentines rallied not for better pay but for the basic principles that a democracy requires to function.

In the last year, after winning re-election with over 54 percent of the vote, Mrs. Kirchner apparently felt that an electoral majority allowed her to crudely grab all remaining power and move aggressively against every sector of society that she saw as a threat.

Motivated by Kirchner's removal of her democratic face mask, the protesters carried signs and placards denouncing many policies of the government, including violations of the constitutional separation of powers (e.g, threats, blackmail and extortion against judges); corruption scandals at the highest levels of government such as with the sitting vice-president; resumption of close diplomatic relations with Iran, with the concomitant somber foreign policy implications; and arbitrary restrictions on private enterprise, such as blocking access to foreign currency for commercial transactions and obstacles to importation of goods from abroad.

But the biggest immediate challenge facing the country, and the largest target of popular discontent, are the threats to press freedom coming from Kirchner. Many of the other indignations described above would not have been known but for the existence of an independent press that the government is trying to silence. And among the most professional and hard-hitting journalistic reporting is that by the largest media conglomerate, Grupo Clarin.

Two years ago, Mrs. Kirchner saw to it that the Congress pass a new media law that seeks to break up the Grupo Clarin, a move that in the opinion of many jurists is unconstitutional. After several judicial processes, in which the government tried to maliciously influence the judges' decisions, the President announced that on December 7 Grupo Clarin will shed many of its properties. If this occurs, it could spell the beginning of the end of press freedom in the Argentina, since Clarin is a trial balloon to be followed by Government attacks on smaller news organizations less able to defend themselves.

But not only is press freedom threatened. If the government is able to neutralize Grupo Clarin, representative democracy itself will be tested. Without the independent media's courage to expose the abuses and scandals of the government, President Kirchner will have eliminated the largest obstacle in her path toward the "constitutional reform" that would allow her to remain in power for an unprecedented third term, or perhaps indefinitely.

Argentina is once again at a crossroads. On November 8, its people arose and demanded the President respect basic principles. On December 7, Argentines will face their own "Pearl Harbor," seeing one of its most illustrious institutions shatter. If, on the other hand, they stand and defend their Constitution and freedoms, they will put a stop to Kirchner's plans for autocratic government and avoid the self-destructive path followed by the Cuban, Venezuelan, Bolivian, Ecuadorian, and other left-wing hemispheric governments.

The U.S. and other Western governments have a responsibility to defend the people of Argentina. Just as on December 7, 1941 the U.S. was bloodied but not broken, so will the people of Argentina recover their freedoms, sometime in the future, probably after a fierce but non-violent struggle, but one that must count with the support of the free world.

Otto J. Reich is president of the consulting firm Otto Reich & Associates LLC. He is a former U.S. assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere, and U.S. ambassador to Venezuela. Follow him on Twitter: @ottoreich

Ezequiel Vázquez Ger is an associate at Otto Reich Associates LLC and collaborates with the non-profit organization The Americas Forum. Follow him on Twitter: @ezequielvazquez

While we have no doubt that Bob Schieffer, the moderator of Monday night's foreign policy debate, will have plenty of material to choose from in formulating his questions for the candidates, we couldn't resist a chance to add our own suggestions. Following are some potential questions for the debate as submitted by the Shadow Government crew:

Peter Feaver:

1. Mr. President, is there any foreign policy challenge America faces that you would concede has gotten worse on your watch because of actions you have taken or not taken? In other words, is there any foreign policy problem that you would say can be blamed at least partly on you and not entirely on Republicans or President Bush?

2. Mr. President, what is the fairest criticism of your foreign policy record that you have heard from Governor Romney over the course of this campaign?

3. Mr. President, what is the most unfair criticism of Romney's foreign policy platform that you have heard your supporters levy over the course of this campaign?

4. Mr. President, why do you say that Romney is proposing defense expenditures that the military have not asked for when Romney is just proposing restoring funding to the levels you claimed were needed in your own budget a few years ago. That budget, which you asked for, reflected what the military asked for didn't it? And didn't you order the military to accept deeper cuts -- thus they can't now speak up and ask for those levels to be restored without being insubordinate, so isn't it misleading to claim that they are not asking for them when you ordered them not to?

5. For both: Both campaigns have featured senior retired military endorsements as a way of demonstrating your fitness to be commander-in-chief. Don't you worry that such endorsements drag the military into partisan politics, thus undermining public confidence in a non-partisan military institution?

Paul Bonicelli:

1. Mr. President, history tells us that prestige matters; that is, nation-states who are regarded for their power, whether military, economic or moral, are less often challenged by those who wish to upset the peace or change the international order that favors the interests of the great powers. Has your administration seen an increase in the prestige of the United States or a decrease, and why?

2. For both: Isn't a reform of our foreign aid system and institutions long overdue, and shouldn't reform have as its primary goal the promotion of direct and tangible US interests, such as more trade with more countries that govern themselves democratically? If this is truly the appropriate goal for international development funds, then why aren't all aid recipients required to practice sustained and real democracy?

Phil Levy:

1. For both: Do you believe that the economically endangered nations of Europe should adopt policies of austerity, as countries like Germany have argued, or that they should turn instead to more fiscal stimulus? If you prefer stimulus, is there any level of debt/GDP at which you get concerned about their ability to pay those debts? If you believe these countries should borrow more, from whom should they borrow? Should the United States be offering funds?

2. For both: There has been almost no progress on global trade talks since the summer of 2008. How would you assess the health of the World Trade Organization and the world trading system? Is this important for the United States? What would you do to strengthen the WTO, if anything?

3. For both: In 2009, in response to the stimulus bill, a top Chinese economic official said, ""We hate you guys. Once you start issuing $1 trillion-$2 trillion... we know the dollar is going to depreciate, so we hate you guys but there is nothing much we can do...." Brazil's finance minister, Guido Mantega, has accused the United States Federal Reserve of igniting a global currency war with its policies of quantitative easing. To what extent does the United States need to consider the international ramifications of its economic policies? Do you believe a strong dollar is in the U.S. interest? If so, what does that mean?

Kori Schake:

1. For both: What do you consider the top two national security threats to our country?

2. For both: How do you see increasing energy independence for the United States affecting our foreign policy?

3. President Obama, you have threatened to veto any changes to the 2010 Budget Control Act, yet both your Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff believe sequestration going into effect would be disastrous. How will you enact the Budget Control Act without damaging our national defense?

4. Governor Romney, you have committed to increase defense spending; where does the money come from to do that in year 1 of a Romney administration?

5. President Obama, Vice President Biden has said that your administration will withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanstan in 2014, whether or not the Afghan security forces are then capable of taking over the fight. Do you agree?

Paul Miller:

1. For both: Under what circumstances would you authorize military action against Iran's nuclear facilities? Will you intervene to stop the civil war in Syria? If so, what lessons have you learned from our recent experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya that will shape how you undertake an intervention? How do you plan to accomplish a responsible transition to Afghan leadership for security there? What should be the mission of U.S. troops in Afghanistan after transition, and how many troops will be required to accomplish it? Or do you envision a complete withdrawal of all forces?

2. For both: Should the United States support the spread of democracy abroad? What is the role of democracy assistance in U.S. grand strategy, and how does it relate to our overall national interests? How will you respond to future peaceful uprisings like the Green Revolution or the Arab Spring?

3. For both: Some Americans are concerned that the government has accumulated too much power over the last decade in its effort to develop a robust counterterrorism capability. Others believe we need to keep those powers because the terrorist threat has not abated. Do you plan to sustain the government's new, post-9/11 war-time powers, reportedly including targeted killings and indefinite detentions, indefinitely? If not, will you publicly and explicitly commit to defining a clear end-state to the war against al Qaeda, the achievement of which will terminate the new powers?

Read on

That's the question Jake Tapper asked earlier this week over at ABCNews.com after coca-growing Bolivian President Evo Morales called the U.S. "a haven for delinquents" for denying his extradition request for former President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada.

Apparently, Tapper had caught sight of some blowback on the matter from the usual suspects, including this tendentious screed from The Guardian:

"a classic and common case of the U.S. exploiting pretenses of law and justice to protect its own leaders and those of its key allies from the rule of law, even when faced with allegations of the most egregious wrongdoing. If the Obama DOJ so aggressively shielded accused Bush war criminals from all forms of accountability, it is hardly surprising that it does the same for loyal U.S. puppets. That a government that defies U.S. dictates is thwarted and angered in the process is just an added bonus. That, too, is par for the course."

What drivel. Actually, the answer to Tapper's question is quite simple. The administration apparently had no interest in railroading an innocent man to satisfy some radical leader's political vendetta.

It seems the Morales government had asked for Sánchez de Lozada's extradition on charges of "genocide" related to an incident in 2003 when mobs led by Morales tried to block roads supplying food and fuel to the capital city of La Paz, which is situated high in the Andes and is approachable by only a few highways. When Sánchez de Lozada called a state of emergency and ordered security forces to escort fuel trucks to the capital, armed protesters attacked them, leading to casualties on both sides. According to the Morales government, 67 civilians died in the clashes.

Unable to appease Morales and his willingness to appeal to rule by the mob, Sánchez de Lozada fled Bolivia in October 2003 and has lived in the United States since. He has said since then that he just wanted to end the violence. Morales was elected president soon thereafter. (For good measure, Morales has also tried to concoct legal proceedings against all former living presidents in Bolivia.)

Rather than "genocide," the pro-American and pro-market Sánchez de Lozada's only "crime" was that he tried to lead his country into the 21^st century, encouraging foreign investment to develop Bolivia's prodigious natural gas reserves for export. But that was beyond the pale for Morales and his followers, whose vision is of taking the country backwards in time, to a pre-Columbian era, based on indigenous customs, lore, and, indeed, "communal" justice.

In Morales's constricted world view, larded with a healthy dollop of angry leftist ideology, all foreign investment in Bolivia is inherently predatory and the country's natural resources must remain in the hands of "the people" -- of course, it is populists like Morales who alone possess the ability to channel what are the wishes of "the people."

So, in this instance, the Obama administration got it right in not playing along with Morales's political ploy to sustain the narrative that brought him to power: that he is the avenger for four centuries of his people's mistreatment.

In the end, however, no one denies that Bolivia's indigenous majority have legitimate grievances over the way they have been treated for centuries, but such political theatrics do little to help the Bolivian people beyond sating the blood lust of more radical elements. It's a shame Morales doesn't spend more time trying to build a better and more prosperous future for the people he claims to represent.

Last month, I wrote how Ecuador's radical populist President Rafael Correa has tasked his ambassador in Washington with launching a charming offensive to secure congressional renewal of trade preferences under the Andean Trade Preferences and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA), which expire next year. Ostensibly, the campaign is designed to make policymakers forget about some of President Correa's more egregious anti-American actions, such as embracing Iran and unceremoniously expelling the U.S. ambassador from Ecuador last year.

One would think then that a looming congressional vote on ATPDEA extension would cause President Correa to rein in his provocative behavior. Far from it. In fact, in the past couple of weeks, he has continued apace his efforts to sever normal ties between the two countries.

First, he announced Ecuador's withdrawal from the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), where Ecuadorean military officers traditionally received U.S. military training. The facility, formerly the School of the Americas, has been a target of leftist agitation for decades.

At the same time, Correa has begun a campaign threatening to now expel the U.S. Agency for International Development mission from Ecuador, which he has accused of "funding the opposition."

Yet, through it all, his ambassador in Washington has been maintaining a brave face. In a recent interview with the Ecuadorean press, she claimed that a recent U.S. Trade Representative report on ATPDEA extension concluded that Ecuador "met all the criteria for eligibility." In fact, it did no such thing.

In one key passage, the report notes, "developments in the past few years give rise to concerns about the government's long-term commitment to international arbitration for the settlement of investor disputes." According to The Hill, "The report could make it harder for lawmakers to renew the program."

The embassy also apparently snookered the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative into hosting next week a senior Ecuadorean official to expound on Correa's efforts to "transform" Ecuador's judiciary, no doubt to assuage U.S. companies concerned about their treatment there. The Ecuadorean judiciary has indeed been transformed by Correa -- into another arm of the executive.

Today, he has the majority of the Supreme Court in his pocket and the politicization of the judiciary was laid bare in Correa's recent $40 million lawsuit against a newspaper for a critical op-ed column. It turns out, for example, that the sentencing documents were not written by the presiding judge, but by Correa's own lawyers.

The incongruence between Correa's behavior and the apparent goal of securing the extension of U.S. trade preferences is striking. As I have written previously, no matter on what front Ecuador is evaluated, the Correa government does not merit a renewal of ATPDEA benefits. At the end of the day, such programs are meant to elicit cooperative, positive behavior from the beneficiaries. Why else would they exist? The Obama administration and Congress ought to make clear to the Correa government that they are no longer interested in subsidizing his bad behavior.

Tonight a small but enterprising Miami-based TV network, SoiTV, will air a revealing interview with former Venezuelan Supreme Court Justice Eladio Aponte Aponte, who has been under the protection of the U.S. DEA for several days. The authors of this article had access to the interview results.

Judge Aponte Aponte is, so far, the highest official who has defected since Hugo Chávez came to power. His testimony presents a unique view into the criminal structure promoted by the current Venezuelan government. Aponte also names individuals who have committed serious violations of Venezuelan human rights and attacks on foreign interests.

Mr. Aponte confessed that he received direct orders from President Hugo Chávez to use his legal power against individuals that opposed the regime. As president of the criminal tribunal of the Supreme Court, Aponte had supervision of all criminal courts in the country and practically on all judges, with a capacity to influence almost any judicial decision.

Moreover, in his testimony Mr. Aponte says he also received calls from Gen. Henry Rangel Silva, Venezuela's Defense Minister and Hugo Carvajal, who until recently was the head of military intelligence, among others, ordering him to "manipulate judicial proceedings." Both Rangel Silva and Carvajal have been designated by the U.S. Treasury as "drug kingpins" for their ties to the narco-terrorist FARC guerrilla army in Colombia. Moreover, Aponte alleges that he has "evidence" of the high officials' ties to narcotics traffickers. An example he cites is that of a drug shipment that was safeguarded overnight in a Venezuelan military base. Aponte says he was ordered to provide legal cover for the drug shipment as it made its way from the border to "the center of the country" (on the coast, where Venezuela's ports are located).

Aponte also admits to having been linked to other important figures designated by the U.S. Department of Treasury as international drug traffickers, such as Walid Makled who, according to a federal indictment in New York, sent hundreds of tons of cocaine into the U.S. with the help of top-ranking Venezuelan officials. Makled's "trial" began a few days ago in Venezuela.

It was, in fact, Aponte's link to Makled that led to Aponte's removal from the Supreme Court by the General Assembly of Venezuela and his subsequent defection to Costa Rica, where the DEA picked Aponte up. Makled had been arrested in Colombia nearly two years ago and extradited to Venezuela in 2011. While in a Colombian prison, Makled was interviewed by various U.S. law enforcement agencies, and his testimony implicated Aponte in drug trafficking. Since Chávez has had Makled in his jails for nearly a year, Chávez knew what Makled was going to say at his trial about Aponte, and therefore Aponte had to be "sacrificed" to save Chávez and what the Venezuelan people call his "narco-generals."

Numerous reports from the U.S. State Department and international human rights monitors indicate that the Venezuelan judicial system is used by the President Chávez as a tool to punish and persecute opposition leaders, as well as to obtain the release of drug traffickers.

Aponte's testimony is probably the most important evidence so far to show the lack of independent institutions in Venezuela, the existence of political prisoners, and the links between high-ranking members of the Venezuelan government to drug trafficking and criminal organizations such as Colombia's FARC.

Otto J. Reich is president of the consulting firm Otto Reich & Associates LLC. He is a former U.S. assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere, and U.S. ambassador to Venezuela. Follow him on Twitter: @ottoreich

Ezequiel Vázquez Ger is an associate at Otto Reich Associates LLC and collaborates with the non-profit organization The Americas Forum. Follow him on Twitter: @ezequielvazquez

Otto Reich and Ezequiel Vázquez Ger's reckless and illogical column ("How Ecuador's immigration policy helps al Qaeda") says more about the authors' desire to baselessly attack the government of Ecuador than their ability to offer readers any substantial insight into foreign policy.

Reich and Vázquez Ger routinely stumble over irrational arguments in attempts to undermine our country's burgeoning democracy, but this piece marks a new low, even for them. They attack Ecuador for opening "the floodgates" to nationals from Pakistan and other countries, and accuse our immigration policy of facilitating "transnational criminal organizations and terrorist groups" that want to harm the United States. In their insistence on profiling against Pakistanis, Reich and Vázquez Ger seem to have forgotten that the United States itself is home to hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis and that the Pakistani-American population doubled from 2000 to 2010.

Ecuador is a peaceful country and by no means supports or facilitates any terrorist activity. Recently, support from the Ecuadorian Justice Department led to the capture of three men suspected by the United States of support for terrorism, including Irfan Ul Haq, referenced as a threat in the authors' column. The men were deported from Ecuador to the United States and sentenced to multiple years in prison this week.

Ecuador's immigration policy reflects our values as a nation. We are inclusive and welcoming of foreigners from across the world. That's part of the reason why thousands of American seniors have chosen Ecuador as a retirement destination. Reich and Vázquez Ger would serve Foreign Policy's readers better by sticking to the facts rather than inventing conspiracy theories.

Nathalie Cely is Ecuador's ambassador to the United States. 

I am in Panama for the second time in seven years, and it certainly is a very different place today. Skyscrapers are sprouting up all over the city and there has been explosive growth here. Constant sunshine, no earthquakes, fabulous location, peaceful Costa Rica to the north and a natural buffer of the Darien region to the south make Panama a stable and peaceful democracy. Americans are not perceived as an alien presence but a welcome partner. To be an American in Panama, especially an American who speaks Spanish, is to feel very, very welcome.

The Embassy estimates as many as 45,000 American citizens down here while the Panamanian government estimates as many as 250,000. One of the reasons for the discrepancy in estimates is that many Panamanians, for legacy reasons, possess U.S. passports and dual citizenship. In short, the U.S. legacy in Panama is obvious. At one point the U.S. had 35 military bases here to protect the canal from Japanese attacks in World War II, but today there are no U.S. bases in Panama. Many of the former U.S. bases have become urban renewal projects similar to the Presidio in San Francisco, and the new U.S. Embassy is built in one of these old sites.

Though this past year Panama's growth rate was 8.5 percent, services account for over three-quarters of the economy and English is a big need here. There is a shortage of skilled workers, and English is not as strong as it might be, or as strong as many locals think (although many call centers have been built here). The weakness of English in Panama is the legacy of dictator Omar Torrijos, who deemphasized English, going so far as to ban the teaching of English in public schools and stopping an entire generation from learning the language. Anecdotes tell of English teachers at public schools who have a hard time conducting visa interviews with the U.S. embassy in English.

For years, the Panamanians have been stalling building the last piece of the Pan-American Highway through the Darién region, and the U.S. has supported them for a number of reasons -- preventing the northward spread of foot and mouth disease, environmental worries, and perhaps other security concerns relating to narcotrafficking.

When I was last here, there were discussions about building an extension of the Panama Canal. The expansion is well underway, and ideally the expanded canal will be up and running in 2014 though more likely this will happen in 2015. You may have heard of the "Panamax" class of boats, but the expansion was needed for the "New Panamax" class of ships. At its narrowest portion, the canal can only run one way at a time right now for the largest ships, but after 2015 it will be able to run both ways at all points. The U.S. administered the canal as a public utility until 1999 and therefore hardly made any money. Today, the Panamanians run the canal like a business and it generates around $1 billion annually in profits for the Panamanian Treasury. This figure will increase considerably after the expansion.

In October, Congress finally approved the Panama Trade Promotion Agreement. It took way too many years under the current administration to sign this agreement. Though it is more a signaling effect, the upshot of this is the elimination of tariffs that were making it difficult for American goods to compete in Panama.

As far as security for U.S. interests in the region, there is little concern here over Hugo Chavez's influence except perhaps rumors of mischief with labor unions, and there are likewise no murmured concerns about Chinese influence. Nor do there seem to be any agricultural, mineral, or fuel resources that attract the attentions of China. In fact, Panama has kept official relations with Taiwan over China. I also asked about the ownership of Pacific and Atlantic ports through Hong Kong's Hutchison Port Holdings. It was met with a series of shrugs from U.S. officials and old Panama hands.

The FARC has used Panama's Darién region as a base of "rest and relaxation" but the current center-right government has taken a notably harder line than in the past. The FARC is almost exclusively interested in drug trafficking here, unlike in Colombia, where the group poses a threat to the state. According to U.S. officials, Panama yearly seizes about 40 tons of drugs in partnership with the U.S. There are also gang problems here but nowhere near the level of trouble that other Central American countries have been having over the last decade or so. Perhaps the biggest challenge to Panama's future is the weakness of its institutions and the persistent whispers of endemic corruption in the society. If Panama can confront this challenge, it will be on its ways to being as wealthy as the United States.

Two hours by plane to Mexico City, 40 minutes to San José (Costa Rica), less than an hour to Bogotá, and 4.5 hours to Washington. Panama, with a population of 3.4 million, is truly the hub of the region and a great American ally.

You have to hand it to Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa. He has a plan and he is working it relentlessly. Unfortunately, for those concerned about democracy in the hemisphere, his plan calls for the gutting of democratic institutions in Ecuador and concentrating all power in his person.

It may be that the Ecuadorean populist doesn't generate the international headlines like his amigo in Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, but that doesn't make him any less of a threat to democracy in the region.

Recently, Correa has generated some attention in the U.S. for the campaign of intimidation he is waging against one of the country's most respected newspapers, El Universo. Editorials in the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times have harshly criticized his efforts to drag the newspaper owners and a columnist into court and winning a $40 million judgment in a trumped-up defamation proceeding.

According to the Post, what is occurring in Ecuador is, "the most comprehensive and ruthless assault on free media underway in the Western Hemisphere."

The problem is that abuse of the media is only one troublesome aspect of Correa's populist project. Undermining rule of law is another. This week, for example, a new Ecuadorean Supreme Court will be seated, the product of referendum Correa rammed through last year, giving his latest power grab a patina of legitimacy.

Evidently not satisfied with the provisions on selecting judges in his own rewritten constitution of 2008, Correa changed the rules again. The standing Supreme Court was abolished and through a new, convoluted selection process -- controlled by the Executive -- Correa got what he wanted: 13 of the new 21 judges are now in his pocket.

But with control of the judiciary and his party's present control of the National Assembly, Correa is still not satisfied. He has set as his next priority ensuring that his party remains in control of the legislature by rewriting electoral laws to unduly favor incumbents (including himself) in the run-up to 2013 elections.

For example, a law he is currently pushing would prohibit the news media from "either directly or indirectly promoting any given candidate, proposal, options, electoral preferences or political thesis, through articles, specials or any other form of message." As to how anyone could run a campaign under such a law is mind-boggling -- which is obviously the way Correa wants it.

Correa's defenders point to his current popularity in Ecuador to somehow justify his policies, but that is hardly a measure of the health of any democracy. Demagogues have never had much problem recording high popularity numbers by playing to mass resentments and envy. The true measure of the health of any democracy is the respect and protection afforded the rights of the minority. And, in Ecuador, those protections are increasingly non-existent.

Drinking from the populist cup will someday soon cause a massive hangover for Correa's mass of supporters. But there is plenty the U.S. and other defenders of democracy in the region can do and say to stand up to Correa's steady suffocation of democratic processes and hollowing out of democratic institutions.

Unfortunately, the administration response to date has been only to silently and feebly nominate a new U.S. ambassador to Ecuador following Correa's intemperate expulsion of respected career diplomat Heather Hodges in April 2011. (The nomination of the new ambassador has been held up, however, by Senator Marco Rubio [R-FL] out of frustration with the administration's languorous policies towards the steady erosion of democracy in the region.)

The least the administration could do is speak out against Correa's trampling of the Inter-American Democratic Charter and provide public support to those Ecuadoreans standing up for their rights. If the administration aims to pursue a new ambassador to Quito, then it needs to select someone more experienced in difficult environments who is not afraid to publicly stand up for the principles and values enshrined in the Charter.

As the New York Times noted, "Latin America has a bitter history of authoritarian rule. It has struggled hard to get beyond those days. All of the hemisphere's democratic leaders, including President Obama, need to push back against Mr. Correa." Indeed, Ecuadorean democrats cannot do it alone.

Even before Hugo Chavez revealed he is battling cancer, his political star was on the wane in Latin America. More and more, voters in the region have simply realized that class warfare, polarization, and centralization of power are not prescriptions for economic growth and political stability. (As a case in point, Peruvian President Ollanta Humala, a one-time Chavez acolyte, couldn't run away fast enough from the Venezuelan leader during his recent successful campaign - even if he had no qualms about taking Chavez's cash.)

Still, the fading appeal of the Chavista model is of cold comfort to those still suffering under radical populist rule elsewhere in the region. Specifically, in Ecuador, Rafael Correa continues to trample democratic institutions, although regrettably nowhere to be found is any expression of concern by the Obama administration.

In late July, in a "trial" that lasted less than a day, a cowed Ecuadorean judge sentenced prominent newspaper columnist Emilio Palacio and three of the directors of his newspaper, El Universo, to three years in prison and fined them $40 million for publishing a column critical of Correa last February.

The defendants said they will appeal -- but so did Correa. He says he wants the full $80 million in damages he requested when he filed his defamation suit.

"We're making history, my friends, we won't retreat," he said after the verdict. "There's no room for magnanimity in the face of such miserable humanity."

Even as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and every major international media defense organization denounced the verdict, nary a word of concern has been expressed by the Obama administration.

Intimidating the media and using the judicial system to quash freedom of freedom expression are hallmarks of Chavismo, ones that Correa has embraced with relish. He has sued, fined, and seized control of numerous outlets since his rise to power in 2007. Where the government once owned one media outlet, under Correa it now controls 19 television and radio stations and newspapers.

Read on

The Peruvian presidential election is over now that Keiko Fujimori has conceded defeat to Ollanta Humala, but it is clear that the country is very divided. The United States faces a period of "wait and see" regarding the winner and it is anyone's guess how he will perform: either as a force for good for Peru and for the region, or as a once and future advocate of leftist populism who erodes democracy now that he has won the presidency. This is not a small matter because U.S. interests (and those of Colombia, Brazil, and Chile) are best served by a Peru that continues to play the role that it did under Garcia as a strong advocate for free markets and free trade and one that continues to improve in terms of democracy and good governance.

Barely more than half the voters have chosen a former military official who was involved in a coup, is accused of committing human rights violations, and until his political fortunes demanded it, was a strong ally of Hugo Chavez who had planned to take Peru down the path that Chavez has forced Venezuela upon for the last ten years.

Humala had been defeated in 2006 by the pro-U.S. and pro-business Alan Garcia but Humala figured out that President Lula Da Silva of Brazil had the right approach: a leftist who promotes free market economics, trade and warmer relations with the United States, at least on international economic issues, has a better chance of being elected, not to mention helping his countrymen and not becoming a pariah like Venezuela.

Those voters who chose Humala were many of the poor and indigenous who have not seen much gain during the good times that the Garcia administration oversaw; they've also chafed at the lack of progress in combating corruption. Humala also had the support of some of those who are better off who, following the lead of intellectual and novelist Mario Vargas Llosa and former president Alejandro Toledo, voted against the daughter of a man who was corrupt and who committed human rights violations against civilians in his attempts to wipe out the Maoist Shining Path terrorist insurgents. To be sure, many poor and indigenous voted for Keiko Fujimori precisely because they remember fondly the efforts of her father to combat the Shining Path; and of course she got the majority of the votes of the middle and upper classes who don't want a new government to squelch growth and investment. Those would be the people who spent the last couple of days taking their money out of Peru before Humala takes it from them, as they suspect he will do.

Read on

Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos met today with President Obama at the White House to end an impasse blocking adoption of a trade agreement first concluded in November of 2006. The Colombian government has agreed to rewrite parts of their labor law to U.S. specifications.

The resolution came after mounting calls for movement from Capitol Hill. House Republicans had been particularly vocal about the need to advance the pending Colombia and Panama agreements alongside the South Korean accord after years of delay. Of late, though, the calls had grown bipartisan. On Monday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) published a joint op-ed in the Wall Street Journal describing the Colombia pact as an important spur to employment:

Each day we fail to act costs American jobs and sales-and sends them elsewhere.

So, 1,091 days after the Bush administration submitted the Colombia FTA to Congress, the Obama administration has found a path to move forward. The plaudits for this move have been rolling in since it was announced yesterday. Not only does the Colombia FTA offer its own array of benefits, but the move has the potential to unblock U.S. trade policy more broadly. To lever the administration into action on the pending FTAs, Republicans had linked the passage of the Korean FTA, renewal of trade adjustment assistance programs, trade preference programs, and even confirmation of a new commerce secretary. It is not clear that all of the timing issues have been worked out between House Republicans and the White House, but the agreement with Colombia significantly enhances prospects for movement on a trade agenda this summer.

Lest there be excessive rejoicing, though, it is worth keeping in mind that passage of the three agreements would partially complete the trade agenda of 2007, and there was a cost to the dithering. The pending FTAs offered benefits in two important dimensions: access to the markets for American exporters and stronger diplomatic ties. On the economic front, this access was originally set to grant American businesses and farmers preferential access to the Korean and Colombian markets, ahead of global competitors. Now, there is a scramble just to keep U.S. exporters on an even footing. While the agreements were stymied by domestic political fights in the United States, our partner countries reached other agreements to open their markets to the world. A prime motivation for the mid-summer deadline on passing the Korea-U.S. FTA is the looming passage into force of Korea's FTA with the European Union.

On the diplomatic front, the FTAs were meant to send a signal of friendship and allegiance. While the partner countries certainly welcome passage now, that signal has been somewhat diminished by years of slapping them around through public criticism.

There is a pending, post-2007 trade agenda out there. The eternal but deeply-troubled global trade talks (the Doha Round) are in desperate need of American leadership. The WTO's director-general, Pascal Lamy, sounded the alarm to members last week:

Now is the time for all of you, and in particular those among you who bear the largest responsibility in the system, to reflect on the consequences of failure ... to think about the consequences of the non-Round to the multilateral trading system which we have so patiently built over the last 70 years. It is the time to think hard about multilateralism, which your leaders, yourselves and myself preach at every occasion. In politics, as in life, there is always a moment when intentions and reality face the test of truth. We are nearly there today.

Then there are the Bush-launched, Obama-embraced talks to expand the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). A number of the participants in those talks are earnestly shooting for a conclusion this November, when the United States hosts the APEC meetings in Hawaii. This seems implausible, since the administration has not yet broached the question of trade negotiating authority for those talks with the Congress. And if labor and human rights issues with Colombia stirred controversy, wait until we start discussing Vietnam, a TPP participant.

The biggest question surrounding this week's breakthrough on the Colombia FTA is where it leaves relations between the White House and the American labor movement, which has been the most outspoken opponent of recent trade agreements. The administration made some inroads with labor through its reworking of the Korea-U.S. FTA at the end of last year. That won the support of the United Auto Workers, though that support did not extend beyond Korea. The AFL-CIO has remained opposed to all of the pending FTAs. Yesterday, it released a statement:

We are deeply disappointed that the Obama administration has signaled that it will move forward to submit the proposed U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement to Congress for a vote in the near future ... on the basis of the information provided to us at this time, we remain strongly opposed to the Colombia trade agreement.

It remains to be seen whether this opposition will be vigorous or muted. The Obama administration will also need to decide whether, on trade issues, it has now cast its lot with a coalition of pro-trade Republicans and internationalist Democrats, or whether it has pushed its labor allies as far as it dares.

Those are questions for another day, though. Today, Presidents Obama and Santos had cause to celebrate.

Last October, Ambassador Roger Noriega, former Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere during the George W. Bush Administration, exposed Hugo Chávez's efforts to aid and abet Iran's illegal nuclear weapons program, including its efforts to obtain strategic minerals such as uranium and to evade international sanctions.

Documentary evidence now suggests that Hugo Chavez's junior partner in Ecuador, Rafael Correa, is apparently forging his own dangerous alliance with the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regime, raising troubling questions about whether Iran continues to expand its global efforts to obtain uranium and other strategic minerals that are critical to Teheran's rogue nuclear program.

According to sensitive official documents provided to me by  knowledgeable sources in Ecuador and other countries and published here for the first time, Iran and Ecuador have concluded a $30 million deal to conduct joint mining projects in Ecuador that appears to lay the groundwork for future extractive activities. The deal, which was apparently finalized in December 2009, "expresses the interest of the President of the Republic [of Ecuador] and the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum to boost closer and mutually beneficial relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran on a variety of fronts, among them mining and geology."

The deal calls for the establishment of a jointly run Chemical-Geotechnical-Metallurgical Research Center in Ecuador [Laboratorio Químico-Geotécnico-Metalurgico] and "to jointly implement a comprehensive study and topographic and cartographic analysis of [Ecuadorean territory]."

What is most concerning about developing Ecuadorean-Iranian ties in the mining sector is that, like Venezuela, Ecuador is known to possess deposits of uranium. In August 2009, Russia and Ecuador signed a nuclear agreement that included joint geological research and development of uranium fields, as well as building nuclear power plants and research reactors. In March 2009, the International Atomic Energy Agency also unveiled plans to help Ecuador explore for uranium and study the possibility of developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Read on

Though plagued by heart trouble, former president Néstor Kirchner's death Wednesday (October 27) caught Argentines and foreign observers by surprise. As his wife Cristina Fernández de Kirchner was serving out the remainder of her four-year term as president, he was positioning himself to run again next October. Theoretically, she would bide her time to run once more after he left office in 2015, thus keeping the administration of South America's second largest country in family hands.

Now such a scheme -- if ever plausible -- is in disarray. Besides who might prevail in the 2011 elections, the question is whether Néstor Kirchner's departure marks a turning point. Will Argentines cling to the model of powerful paternalistic presidencies that Kirchner and populist role model Juan Perón represented, or opt for a more institutional, accountable type of government? For the moment, the latter does not seem to be a viable option.

For one thing, Kirchner gained popularity by bringing Argentina back from a crisis that impacted a lot of people. Taking over from interim President Eduardo Duhalde in 2003, his confrontational leadership style guided Argentina out of an economic collapse that had devastated the ranks of its middle class. Kirchner angered foreign creditors by paying pennies on the dollar for Argentina's debts. Yet he put the economy on a growth track, aided by the inspired retention of economy minister Roberto Lavagna, a devalued peso, and rising commodity prices.

He elevated concerns for human rights in pursuing unresolved cases from the era of Argentina's military dictatorship. And when his wife was elected to succeed him as president, he helped her make difficult policy decisions and maintain unity within his party's normally unruly coalition.

Despite factions and splits, Kirchner's peronist Justicialist party is alive and well. Its patronage system of national and provincial party chiefs, union bosses, and special interest groups is the dominant political archetype. Welfare payments to the unemployed, some of it reportedly distributed through groups linked to the militant piqueteros movement, helped assure political loyalty among the poor, even as it encouraged a culture of corruption and favor trafficking.

Not all that Kirchner did was popular, however. Following Argentina's financial recovery, he ditched his economy minister and implemented policies spurring inflation that currently outstrips Argentina's 9 percent growth rate. Both Kirchners frequently circumvented lawmakers and ruled by decree. In 2008, they aggravated farmers with plans to raise taxes on grain exports and had to back off after months of protests. Subsequently, agricultural producers began working with lawmakers to rollback existing tariffs -- which got easier when the Kirchners lost their majority in congress.

Currently in lame duck status, re-election prospects for Cristina Fernández de Kirchner depend on her ability to show she can govern on her own. If she departs very much from her husband's themes, she may lose the backing of her party's faithful. Also, voters will be looking to see if she can run her coalition or if the party and union bosses have the upper hand. Whether or not she succeeds in presenting a fresh vision of the future, the campaign may still be about her husband's legacy.

Potential rival candidates have a related problem. Playing off Néstor's more unpopular decisions, they might have claimed to be the "anti-Kirchner." That's almost irrelevant now. They too will need to propose a compelling vision. Only the conservative Buenos Aires Mayor Mauricio Macri is likely to offer much in the way toward a more accountable, commerce-friendly government. However, he has no national party to help him campaign.

No doubt, Nestor Kirchner's departure creates an opening for a new direction and tone in Argentine politics. It could also be an opportunity for the United States to develop closer ties with Argentina, strained as relations had been under the Kirchners, who were chummy with Venezuelan populist Hugo Chávez. (That said, below the presidential level, ties remained cordial and productive.) Still, it is unclear whether prospective candidates, party leaders, or the electorate are ready for a different discourse.

While Néstor Kirchner may have overplayed his "father knows best" routine, he wielded a deft hand in a crisis and left intact a potent political machine. Maybe Argentines may want less corruption, fewer burdensome taxes, and more say in their government's policies. But achieving that may depend more on an evolution in thinking than a revolution at the ballot box.

Fresh off his creepy public spectacle fondling the remains of South American liberator Simón Bolivar, Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez has concocted yet another circus to try and distract the attentions of increasingly suspect voters ahead of legislative elections in September. The current contretemps between Venezuela and Colombia stems from outgoing Colombian President Alvaro Uribe's parting salvo at the OAS directing his ambassador to present maps and video evidence of 87 Colombian terrorist camps across the border in Venezuela.

Chavez has reacted in typical fashion: railing about everything -- a Colombian invasion, a U.S. invasion, cutting off oil to the U.S., a 100-years war -- everything except the evidence presented by Colombia. Elsewhere on this website, Venezuelan Ambassador Bernardo Alavarez provided a "who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes" rebuttal to Colombia's charges.)

Uribe's move is his going away gift to regional governments who consistently head for the tall grass whenever Colombia requests solidarity and cooperation in combating the narcoterrorist armies that have wrought death and destruction in Colombia for decades. At the same time, by presenting yet again evidence of Chavez's complicity in aiding and abetting Colombian terrorist groups, it leaves his successor Juan Manuel Santos in a position of strength to carry on Colombia's lonely diplomatic offensive to secure regional help against these criminal gangs that rely on the benign neglect, if not outright support (i.e., Venezuela) of Colombia's neighbors to sustain their war against Colombian society.

Yet the notion that the crisis somehow helps Chavez by allowing him to whip up nationalistic sentiment ahead of elections is folly. Venezuelans are about as militaristic as your average Scandinavian, and they assuredly want no part of a war with Colombia -- a trading partner, not to mention a well-armed military -- when the stakes are over whether Chavez is in bed with narcoterrorists.

Besides, what are the Venezuelan people to make of Chavez's self-contradicting rhetoric? On the one hand, he praises the FARC as an "army" that doesn't deserve the terrorist label and is widely suspected of providing them weapons. On the other, he pretends to put his country on a war-footing when evidence is presented that FARC and ELN units are camping out in Venezuela undisturbed. Maybe in Chavez World you can have it both ways, but to everyone else, he reminds no one of Winston Churchill rallying his country to arms.

For its part, the Obama administration has unfortunately been content to remain on the sidelines, issuing a tepid statement of support for Colombia (even though the evidence no doubt resulted from our intelligence cooperation) and calling on "both sides" to ratchet down the rhetoric. Imagine, equating the victim of terrorist violence, and a strategic ally no less, with a facilitator of that violence by telling them BOTH to "tone it down" -- even as Chavez is doing all the shouting.

As much as Chavez's enablers would like it, the sideline is no place for the United States to be on this issue. Other countries in the region have proven either incapable or unwilling to hold Chavez to account, either as he undermines democracy at home or helps rogue regimes abroad like Iran evade international sanctions.

During the Bush administration, a conscious decision was made to avoid a microphone diplomacy war with Chavez and instead allow him to define himself before the international community, without any help from Washington -- which he complied in doing. But the Bush strategy has run its course, and the Obama administration campaign talking point of improving relations is in tatters.

What everyone needs to come to terms with is that, yes, Chavez is a clown, but he's also a dangerous one, just like his Iranian amigo Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Therefore, it's time to get serious about Chavez and his pretentions to be of regional and even global consequence and treat him as the danger to regional peace and security that he is.

Last May, 10 Republican senators sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking her to designate Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism. That is precisely the discussion we need to start having about Hugo Chavez.

Chavez has always believed his oil exports to the Untied States operate as a kind of magic talisman, warding off meaningful action against him by the United States. He needs to be disabused of that notion. Targeted sanctions that would begin to reduce U.S. imports of Venezuelan oil would have catastrophic results for his government, and the U.S. could easily find new markets to offset the drop. (The oil markets didn't even blip when Chavez made his latest threat to cut off exports.)

Hugo Chavez has always aspired to be considered a real nemesis by the United States. It's time to accommodate him.