FINALLY! Foreign trade seen as something good

A recent Gallup Poll shows that more Americans have a positive view of foreign trade than a negative one. (Americans Shift to More Positive View of Foreign Trade)

Fifty-seven percent view trade as “an opportunity for economic growth through increased U.S. exports,” while 35% see it as “a threat to the economy from foreign imports.” During the prior two years, Americans were evenly divided in their opinions about trade.

Why is this important?

In a globally connected world, international trade is the lifeblood of growth and development. And yet, so few people know anything how much international trade affects their individual lives.

There are the obvious connections, but few think about it:

• Imported goods from China at the local Wal-Mart
• All the Toyotas,Hondas, Hyundis, etc. on the road.

But there is also:

• Iconic American beer is owned by the Brazilian company AmBev
• The majority owner of Burger King is the Brazilian investment firm, 3G.
• Columbia Records and Columbia Pictures are owned by Sony, a Japanese company
• TomTom, the popular GPS firm is a Dutch company.
• And, FYI: Holland is the 3rd largest foreign investor in the U.S. at $217.1 billion

The list goes on and on.

And none of that, the treaties that allow for protection of American companies making sales overseas or allowing foreign companies to invest in the US, can happen without a fully functioning and staffed foreign service. To be clear, my wife is a career diplomat, but the foreign service also includes people from the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Justice, Labor, etc.

A country does not remain prosperous unless it finds new markets for its goods and services. As more countries develop — Brazil — they become competitors. It is in the  economic well-being of the United States and its companies to help impoverished countries develop strong democratic institutions and strong economies. Helping farmers in Honduras come out of poverty and ensure their children are educated means fewer illegal immigrants to the United States but more importantly future clients for American products.

That means foreign aid is an important factor in the economic well-being and security of the United States.

Unfortunately, foreign aid and the foreign affairs budget in general always seems to be the target of budget cutters.

Phil Plait — The Bad Astronomer — wrote about the budgeting cutting mania aimed at NASA. His complaint could be just as true for the foreign affairs budget.

[I]f you have a hard drive full of 4 Gb movie files, you don’t make room by deleting 100kB text files! You go after the big targets, which is far more efficient.

In the case of NASA, the space agency budget is just a little less than 1% of the federal budget.

In a survey in 2010, the Program for Public Consultation asked people to estimate how much of the federal budget goes to foreign aid. The average estimate was 21%. The average response for how much would be “appropriate” was 10 percent.

And the real number for foreign aid: About 0.5%

The real number for ALL non-military foreign affairs activities: About 1.5%.

Yep! That small amount accounts for all the salaries of all the U.S. diplomats and local employees in embassies around the world, the rent, maintenance and repairs for all embassies and consulates, all the costs for the State Department headquarters and related buildings in Washington, all the processing of passports, all the trade negotiations, all the Commerce Department assistance to American businesses looking to sell goods and services overseas, all the marketing of US agriculture goods to other countries and all the foreign aid that helps bring millions of people out of poverty.

Another way to look at it:

• The U.S. military spends more on its marching bands than the State Department pays for its diplomats.
• There are more soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen in marching bands than there are U.S. diplomats. 

So why is the foreign affairs budget always under attack? Basically it is because there is no constituency for foreign affairs. The State Department does not build factories in just about every congressional delegation (as does the Pentagon). So the only people who care about the budget are either so-called “budget hawks” or people involved in international affairs. And because the issues of foreign affairs do not fit on a bumper sticker, few people care until something bad happens.

And this all gets back to the Gallup survey on the value of foreign aid.

If more reporters opened their eyes, they could see how their local economies are dependent on international connections. Or how international events have a direct impact on local events.

It would help if the State Department would also encourage its people to step out and start explaining to the general public about why having a foreign service is important to the economic well-being of the United States. Yes, some do, but too many do not.

It would be nice to see more discussions taking place in high schools and local news outlets about the local-global connections.

And — most importantly — how the economic well-being of the United States depends on international affairs and international trade.

Face it, this ain’t the 1950′s any more. It ain’t the 1960′s or 1970′s. This is the 21st century and that means reaching across borders for goods, services and accommodations.

Social Councils/Media Democratization: Diversion or Danger?

Seems bad ideas keep coming back under new names.

A while back at the height of his popularity and at the tail end of his administration, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, organized a meeting called the Conference on Communications. The official purpose, according to Lula, was to get all forms of media to be less negative about Brazil. He wanted to create a “social council” to monitor and audit news reports.

In his opening address to the conference Lula said media “excesses,” “lies,” fabrications, political involvement and “slander and abuse” were a problem for the country and he intended to address that problem by making the press more responsible through “social councils.” He then said (I can only assume with tongue in cheek) that he had “a sacred commitment to freedom of the press.”

The conference was filled were representatives from social movements, government unions and businessmen. Few media organizations attended because they saw the conference as an attempt to create a framework for censorship.

“The proposal to create a ‘social council’ to audit press content implies modifications to the Constitution which guarantees free initiative and freedom of expression,” said National Magazine Editors (Aner) president Roberto Muylaert. He added “social control sends shivers anywhere in the world because it is incompatible with freedom of expression and a free press.”

Eventually the plan went nowhere as President Dilma Rousseff didn’t just put the planned government-run social council idea on the back burner, she took it off the stove.

The idea of creating social councils, or people’s councils is not a new one and it is not an idea that goes away.

The latest incarnation comes from Honduran president Porfirio Lobo.

Honduras is plagued with ineffective courts, prosecutors and police. (And rulings from the courts gutting efforts to clean up the police.) The resulting lack of ability to change the in law enforcement community more quickly means that violent crimes continue at an alarming rate — 92 murders per 100,000 people, highest murder rate in the world.

AS expected, the violence and murders make up the daily fare for the countries newspapers — as they would in any place where the government does not control the media. The problem for Lobo is that these reports show a country in deep trouble. The other day, Lobo became fed up with these constant reminders of the violence in his country and proposed a solution that is a non-starter as far as the media are concerned.

In lashing out at the problems he is facing, Lobo called for a plebiscite on media democratization.

At a meeting with the Council of Minister where 2013 was declared the “National Year of Violence Prevention,” President Lobo proposed a ballot initiative for the elections in November to hold a plebiscite on the democratization of radio and television frequencies, according to La Prensa.

Critics of Lobo’s call within the journalism and civil society communities spoke out quickly.

Rodolfo Dumas, a member of the Inter American Press Association (IAPA):

“I was not surprised at all these statements, because just look at the critical situation the country is living in security, investment, labor, health, education and especially in financial matters to understand that sooner or later the government would resort to what I have called an arsenal of mass distraction because these actions simply divert attention.”

Jimmy Dacarett, member of the Civic Democratic Union:

“The intention of the President is to distract the attention of the Honduran people and the vital issues that really are hurting the government disaster they have done to date. “

Chance are this plebiscite idea will go nowhere. But it is something to keep an eye on.

Already the Honduran media are under siege from non-government forces. The growing strength of narcos and other gangs in the country (because of the weak — and corrupted — legal system) means they — not the government — are threatening journalists.

Already some journalists admit privately that their news organizations self censor stories rather than face the wrath of a local gang. Others say they pay a “war tax” to local gangs to ensure “nothing happens” to them or their news organization.

What Honduran journalists need is what the rest of Honduran society needs: a competent, corruption-free legal system. (And that gets into the whole debate of foreign aid projects designed to do just that and civil society development.) And to be fair to Lobo, he also wants these same things but he is trying to undo decades of problems in just a few years. It takes more than just the president wanting to make changes.

Human Rights stories deserving follow ups

Freedom House published its Best and Worst of Human Rights in 2012.

Many of these items got little press coverage — all to the bad in terms of understanding the rest of the world.  And many need regular updates. Here are my suggestions of follow ups:

BEST

LGBTI Victories in the Western Hemisphere

Some of the highlights as noted by Freedom House:

• President Obama voiced public support for gay marriage for the first time
• Three states—Washington, Maryland, and Maine—passed laws allowing same-sex marriage.
• The first openly gay woman was elected to the U.S. Senate.
• In Argentina the Senate passed legislation that allows gender to be legally changed without medical or judicial approval, and includes sex-change surgery and hormone treatment in government health insurance plans.
• Chile passed an antidiscrimination law that penalizes all forms of discrimination. Although not specifically written to protect LGTBI rights, the measure was spurred by the brutal killing an openly gay man.
• Even Cuba has jumped on the bandwagon, electing its first transgender person to municipal office.
• Same-sex marriage is legal in Canada and some parts of Mexico.

And add that the LGBTI community in Honduras has been getting more vocal and demanding more protection from acts of violence. The community is getting support from a number of government with embassies in Honduras, but the leading force is the U.S. embassy.

Follow up is needed to ensure that newly enacted or proposed laws banning discrimination based on sexual identity or preference are followed. (The law is a fungible commodity in too many countries in the Western Hemisphere.)

The reason the protection of the LGBTI community is of importance to American readers is because how a country treats any minority group — such as this one — tells a lot about the morals and standards of that country and its people.  It also tells a lot about how well received tourists from different groups will be received in that country.

Passage of the Magnitsky Act

The U.S. Congress passed the Magnitsky Act, named after Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who died in jail after exposing a multimillion-dollar fraud by Russian officials. The law places visa bans and asset freezes on Russian officials involved in human rights abuses. President Obama signed the legislation on December 14 despite harsh objections from the Kremlin. This law could set a precedent for how the United States and other free societies address gross human rights violations around the world. The European Parliament has endorsed the adoption of similar legislation.

Reporting on how well this act — and others like it — are enforced is vital to keeping the issue of human rights (including press freedom) in the forefront. How well the law is enforced will also tell a lot about how the U.S. government bureaucracy deals with the thorny issue of human rights.

Survival of the Tunisian Revolution

The country has not yet suffered the fate of many of its neighbors in the aftermath of the 2011 Arab Spring. Varying degrees of instability and repression persist in Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, and particularly Syria, but Tunisia has made slow if uneven gains in its democratic transition. The constitutional drafting process is creeping forward without the bitter conflicts seen in Egypt. As the country approaches the two-year anniversary of the revolution, however, economic struggles have led to anti-government protests, one of which left nearly 200 people wounded, and support for the ruling coalition has definitively waned. The constitution is two months overdue, and there have been some concerning violations of press freedom. Despite these challenges, Tunisia continues to provide a positive example to the wider region.

The best way to send a message to the anti-democracy people in Tunisia is to make sure reporting continues. Journalists need to show where progress is being made and where it is being hindered — and by whom.

And this is important to the United States — beyond humanitarian and human rights reasons — because of Tunisia’s  location and the natural resources that are vital to us and our European partners.

WORST

Civil War in Syria

Anyone exposed to even the slightest bit of news knows that the civil war in Syria is the worst human rights and humanitarian catastrophe in the world today. The estimated death toll is at 42,000, with no end in sight. The  Committee to Protect Journalists report an alarming 32 reporters have been killed while covering the conflict.

Continued coverage is necessary to keep pressure on the rest of the world to do something to end the tragedy.

For U.S. readers, the issue is not just human rights but also the instability this war causes in an area vital to U.S. and global geo-political interests.

Devastation in Congo

The Democratic Republic of the Congo is one of the most resource-rich countries on the African continent. And yet it has been gutted by a combination of colonialism, corrupt and ineffective government, ethnic conflict, and a succession of armed militias and rebel groups that have raped and pillaged their way through the countryside, often using conscripted child soldiers. As many as five million people have died since the late 1990s. The international community has largely turned a blind eye to the country’s seemingly endless crisis, perhaps because there does not appear to be an easy solution.

Coup and Extremism in Mali

As in Congo, the horrific human rights situation in Mali was not caused by any single event. Rather it was a cascade of disasters that included a military coup, a reinvigorated Tuareg separatist movement, an influx of hard-line Islamist militants, and the combined effects of long-term drought, poverty, and corruption. There are widespread reports of rape and forced marriage, as well as the recruitment of child soldiers.

Paying attention to Congo and Mali may seem outside the usual assignment areas for U.S. media. Yet, the fastest growing economies in the world are in Africa. These are potential trading partners for America, if we can help the individual countries stabilize and develop viable middle classes.

The natural resources from Africa are badly needed by industrialized countries and industrializing countries. That means to keep out industries growing, the United States needs these items. It also means that other  countries less friendly to us — i.e. China — also need these raw materials.

In the end it comes down to a competition of ideals and principles. China is willing to dump billions of dollars into a country with no strings attached other than being given access to its raw materials. The United States, on the other hand demands transparency and civil rights from aid recipients. It is no wonder that the war lords and thugs prefer doing business with China. It is also no wonder that the people of these war-torn countries prefer U.S. aid

It is vital for U.S. citizens to know how and why the U.S. government spends money on development programs. It is also important to put that expenditure in perspective: Less than one-half of 1% of the federal budget is spent on ALL development programs – that includes the salaries of ALL USAID employees in the United States and around the world. Not the 25% most Americans think.

Russia’s Precipitous Decline

Since Vladimir Putin’s tightly controlled reelection as president in March, the political situation in Russia has become increasingly dismal, with some experts comparing it to the Soviet era. The government has enacted numerous pieces of legislation that have a harmful impact on human rights and the functioning of civil society. Most disturbingly, one new law requires civil society organizations that receive foreign funds to register as “foreign agents” or face possible criminal charges. In a related development, USAID was forced by the Russian government to withdraw from the country. The government re-criminalized libel, curbed internet freedom, outlawed “homosexual propaganda,” and imposed additional restrictions on public gatherings. Independent voices, some within the government, who have tried to speak out against this wave of legislation have been expelled, arrested, or otherwise muzzled.

Russia is a major power and sits on some of the greatest reserves of precious metals and rare earth in the world. It is a player that needs to be explained to the American people. It is not the Soviet Union and it is not THE major geo-political threat to the United States. But it is a great power that is not using that power to the betterment of its people.

There were expectations after the fall of communism that a strong Russian middle class would grow and the democratic instincts of the people would be fulfilled. After years of failed leadership, Putin has returned as a strongman to take away democratic hopes and aspirations. In the process he is also taking away the incentive for a viable middle class to grow and prosper.

Bottom line: Any country that has thousands of missiles aimed at us is one that news organizations should be looking at more closely.

Repression in Bahrain, Other Gulf States

After an independent report commissioned by Bahrain’s King Hamad uncovered widespread human rights abuses committed during the violent suppression of a protest movement in February 2011, the government promised to implement the recommended reforms. Not only has the regime failed to enact anything other than minor cosmetic changes, seemingly designed to mollify the international community, it has also continued on a path of repression. Impunity for the security forces and censorship persist. Journalists and human rights groups, including Freedom House, have been repeatedly denied entry to the country to report on these abuses. (Most recently Nicholas Kristof was seized and deported from Bahrain.) Sadly, Bahrain is not the only Gulf state in decline. A ban on “unlicensed” peaceful demonstrations was passed in Kuwait. And Oman has jailed dozens of people for making critical comments about the regime.

But why worry about repressive actions that only affect the people of those countries? Violent police action against demonstrators leads to more violence by demonstrators which leads to more repressive actions which leads to more violence and societal disruption and so on. The problem is that too few reports from the region make the connection between the violence in a country or region with Main Street USA.

Anything that takes place in the volatile Arab/Persian Gulf should be of interest to the America people. Besides the meme that we need the oil from the region — actually we don’t get that much, but our trading partners do — there is also the fertilizer that comes out of the area. Without Qatari, Kuwaiti, Saudi or Omani urea and ammonia, most of the American crops would fail. And THAT is something worth worrying about.

I would think the fertilizer angle is just one that could be put to better use by people trying to tell the story of repressive regimes in the Gulf region.

The Menace of Blasphemy Laws

The online dissemination of an offensive film that mocked Islam and sparked violent anti-American riots and protests in more than two dozen countries served as a reminder of the pernicious nature of laws that prohibit blasphemy in many parts of the world. These laws have a chilling effect on free expression and are often used to justify violence, repress religious minorities, and settle personal grudges rather than combat intolerance. A Freedom House special report shows there is no evidence that restricting speech reduces religious intolerance. In fact, the evidence shows that prohibitions on blasphemy actually lead to a wide range of human rights abuses. This does not prevent some Islamic leaders from using global bodies like the United Nations to push for international norms that prohibit blasphemy.

This is not the sharia law so feared by the U.S. Tea Party. This is worse because any government dominated by one religion can use laws against bad mouthing the dominate religion to shut down freedom of speech, press and assembly.

Singapore has several examples of how laws to prevent ”callous and reckless remarks on racial or religious subjects” can be used to shut down any discussions the government wants shut down. The Vatican has gone to court to fight images that it considered “offensive.” One case involved a German satirical magazine that published a photo-shopped image of the pope’s vestments stained with urine.

So far the U.S. and its democratic allies have been able to hold off a full-court press by Islamic countries to have the United Nations endorse blasphemy laws. What is critical for the American people to know is that this is not just an Islamic/Third-World thing. There are too many religious fanatics around — including in the United States — that would be quite happy with blasphemy laws but only for the protection of their version of their religion.

Black Friday isn’t just for the USA anymore

The term “Black Friday” started with a complaint about all the people blocking the streets when they went out shopping on the Friday after Thanksgiving. It soon became known as the day the retailers “get into the black” — made a profit — on their account books as people storm the stores to begin Christmas shopping.

So it is clearly a U.S. thing.

And yet, this year “Black Friday” ads appeared in Brazil and Honduras. (Probably in many more places but I can document these two locations.)

In Brazil, the idea is the same for consumers, use the day to buy something on sale in time for Christmas. (Whether that item is a gift or a self-gift.) But given the high import duties (Brazil is a nasty place to buy imports, with some duties as high as 200 percent), transportation taxes between the states (think of the old Confederated States of America) and city, state and national taxes, things are still expensive.

Take the ipad 2, for example. It was being offered in a special Black Friday sale for R$1099 ($526) – a bargain by Brazilian standards but still over 40 per cent more expensive than the standard price on Apple’s US website.

As one Twitter user eloquently put it: “Black Friday in Brazil – everything for half of twice the price!”

And then there is Honduras.

They don’t just have “Black Friday” they have “Black Week” and some stores extend the sales through Sunday.

Once again, the idea is for the stores to offer sales to entice shoppers in. In Honduras, however, the prices are not as outrageous as Brazil largely because of the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

The adoption of “Black Friday” in Honduras has a few people upset. They argue that if the stores can offer discounts of up to 70 percent, that means the rest of the year the shops are earning an 80 percent profit.

If “department stores nationwide join the American tradition and offer discounts of up to 70%” (this part is in the text) means that these entrepreneurs…have a profit margin of over 80%. In that head you will be investing for not winning?

Others complain that Honduras is doing nothing on its own and only blindly following a fad from another country.

Ridiculous!!

NEVER HAVE HAD YOUR IDENTITY OR IDEAS, ALL YOU DO IN MEXICO…UNITED STATES… Hondurans and repeat it!!

ridiculous!

What does that mean for Americans scratching, crawling and pulling guns on each other on the US Black Friday?

Well, to be honest to many of these people, the international connection means little. But for reporters it could mean a series of stories that show how a U.S. tradition has been transplanted and how it affects jobs and income in the United States.

For example, it means that U.S. industries have more opportunities to sell more goods to Honduras rather than Brazil because Honduras is part of a free trade agreement and Brazil is not. (Of course, it also means that for Honduras to be better consumers of American products, that country has to have a stronger middle class and less poverty. And here is where explaining how the development programs work and why they are necessary comes in.)

It also means that there are potentially numerous stories linking the holiday shopping patterns between the United States and other countries. (Local reporters could start with talking to members of the local immigrant communities.)

All of these stories could be done without ever sending a reporter to Brazil or Honduras or any other country. Intelligent use of the International Trade Statistics page can nail down who are the major international buyers of a states’ goods and services. And using the  Census Bureau site can tell what country sent the most immigrants to a specific area in the States.

This is not rocket science folks. It is good journalism to be curious and to look for ways to inform readers, viewers, listeners about how they are connected to the world. It is all part of informing and putting things into context so that the American people are better informed about what is going on around them.

 

For some a game; For too many reality

International End the Impunity Day is November 23.

The International Freedom of Expression Exchange site has a digital game designed to draw attention to impunity and motivate more people to engage in the issue called Break The Silence.

IFEX launches online game for Day to End Impunity campaign

In one scenario in this game, you are a Twitter user in the Americas. Drug cartels and organised crime have infiltrated the political, judicial and law enforcement systems in your country.

In another, you are a musician in Africa. Your government is handing down orders to silence artistic expression. Those who challenge the status quo are being censored, and those who persevere are being threatened and intimidated.

In a third, you are a protester in the Middle East, in a country with an established authoritarian regime in power. Voices of dissent are violently suppressed by the police and military.

In each scenario, you must navigate through a labyrinth where others are doing everything they can to silence your voice.

In the TWITTER scenario, the opening screen is:

Drug cartels and organised crime have infiltrated the political, judicial and law enforcement systems in your country.

Those who speak out about the corruption are often faced with threats, attacks and even murder. These crimes are rarely punished.

What will you risk to be heard?

Followed by

You witness an exchange of cash between a known drug lord and the chief of police. You decide to tweet about it on your Twitter account.

So far, this all sounds familiar to anyone living in Honduras or Mexico.

From this point you make choices about whether to keep pushing ahead or back off. Depending on how you decide the danger to you and your family increases or decreases.

The game accurately describes what can (and does ) happen to people who stand up to narcos and dictators.

Before people start complaining about all the money “wasted” on programs overseas to break up the narcos and support democratic forces, they should play this game and see what it really costs to not stand up to these thugs.