Living in DC looking for a bed in Monticello

In a letter to his dear Maria Cosway, Jefferson complained that 'All is politics in this capital.' 220 year later, that characterization remains more valid than ever.

The political fronts were clearly aligned yesterday at the first symposium of the Global Harvest Initiative. Even though not many people knew about this event, (except those inside ag circles in DC) the online debate is heating up.

The Global Harvest Initiative (GHI) "is dedicated to spurring the development and sharing of agricultural innovations with those that need it most. It is underwritten by funding from the Archer Daniels Midland Company, DuPont, John Deere and Monsanto."

Have you seen Matt Damon latest movie The Informant? you should. In the movie, Damon plays the role of a ag technician promoted to senior management that releases secretive information to the FBI about the sketchy business deals of ADM or Archer Daniels Midland, yeah, one of the sponsors of GHI.

There are tons of documentaries and movies about the 'evil' work of Monsanto and DuPont. The point is that all these brand names, working for those that 'need ag innovation the most' should, at the very least, spark some ekeptisim about the real motives behind this iniciative.

So I wasn't surprise when i read the news release from the ad-hoc US Working Group on the Food Crisis, describing how GHI:

"continues to advocate a failed approach to feeding the world and addressing global hunger. The September 22 Global Harvest Initiative Symposium on “Agriculture at a Crossroads”—featuring Senator Richard Lugar—claimed to have some of the “best thinkers” in agriculture, food security and hunger. However, it relied heavily on panelists who have consistently pushed chemical-intensive production; unproven biotechnologies that have been linked to farmers’ loss of land, suicides and environmental contamination; and “free trade” in agriculture as the solutions to feeding the world."

This criticism has merit, after all, these organizations carry a heavy baggage of past corruption and abuses. However, in an already polarized city, critics fail to recognize that fertilizers and biotechnology must play an central role in feeding our current population and the many more to come. Investing in agroecological sciences and biodiverse farming is essential but it won't guarantee the massive production of staples needed to satisfy the demand of a world moving to cities. So rather than focusing on vilification we could promote constructive dialogue by recognizing the validity of some aspects of GHI and work towards an agenda that promotes ag development, safeguards the environment and protects crop diversity....

I know, I know, i'm starting to sound like a politician, well i happen to live in DC, but i wouldn't think twice about moving to Monticello.

Obama and International Development

Hi There folks,
The Obama team just released an statement describing, on broad terms, their vision of US's foreign assistance programs. Remember how during the vice-president debate Senator Biden was ask what are some of the promises he may not be able to deliver? His answer: foreign aid. So the question remains: how is president-elect Barack Obama and his team going to strengthen the capacity and effectiveness of USAID and other international development platforms given the current financial crisis and budgetary constrains, not to mention unprecedented expectations in the developing world? well, time will tell.



President-elect Barack Obama

Campaign Commitments on Development


MDGs

President-elect Obama committed to making the Millennium Development Goals American policy. By the end of my first term, he expects to see progress to meeting the MDGs, including reducing by half the number of people living on less than a dollar a day and suffering from hunger, and reversing the number of new HIV infections and malaria cases.

Funding

He committed to doubling U.S. foreign assistance, to $50 billion by 2012. In the wake of the economic crisis, Senator Obama and Senator Biden said on several occasions that they would “slow down” achieving this goal, though they have not at any point said that it is no longer a goal.

Health

Obama pledged to expand the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) by adding at least $1 billion a year in new money and was a cosponsor of the reauthorization bill. He supported increasing funding for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria and a willingness to remove the 33% cap on U.S. contributions.

He would establish “Health Infrastructure 2020” to work with developing countries to invest in the full range of infrastructure needed to improve and protect both American and global health. He pledged to increase funding for child and maternal health and ensure that increases in other important areas - including HIV/AIDS - do not come at the expense of child health and survival programs. He would expand access to vaccinations, increase research into new vaccines, and expand access to reproductive health programs.

He supports the goal of ending deaths from malaria by 2015 by building on the $1billion per year commitment to malaria in the recent PEPFAR reauthorization and dramatically expanding access to mosquito nets and access to ACTs.

Water

He would expand access to clean water and sanitation through increased funding of up to $1.3b annually and support for innovative programs like 'play pumps'.

Education

Obama plans to capitalize a “Global Education Fund” with at least $2 billion in funding towards the goal of universal access and would leverage this funding through the World Bank’s Fast Track Initiative. He supports passage of the Education For All Act.

Aid Reform

Obama will look at creating a cabinet-level position for development aid. He committed to coordinate and consolidate PEPFAR, the federal Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), and other foreign assistance programs into a streamlined U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

Debt Cancellation

He committed to fully funding debt cancellation for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC), pressing for reforms at the World Bank to ensure that poor countries receive grants rather than loans, and leading a multilateral effort to address the issue of “odious debt.”

SMEs

Obama pledged to provide initial capital for a Small and Medium Enterprises Fund (SMEs) that would be administered through the federal Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC).

Agriculture

Obama committed to launch the “Add Value to Agriculture Initiative” to spur research and innovation in this area.

Add Value to Agriculture Initiative (AVTA). Agriculture provides a livelihood for the majority of the world’s poor, and it is the sector that will be hardest hit by climate change. In order to increase the incomes of subsistence producers, decrease the pressure on shrinking arable lands, and minimize the vulnerability of commodity exports to global price shocks, an Obama administration will launch the AVTA Initiative. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are committed to spurring research and innovation aimed at bringing about a Green Revolution for Africa, by partnering with land grant institutions, private philanthropies and business to support agricultural processing through increased investment in research and development for improved seeds, irrigation methods, and affordable and safe fertilizers. They will also make critical investments in providing the package of tools needed to allow poor farmers to succeed in the agricultural market, including by providing training in regulation and quality control standards and by increasing finance and financing instruments for rural enterprises as well as access to markets

FTA with Colombia

As a Colombian, living in the United States for several years, to watch the democratic candidates debate the Free Trade Agreement with Colombia, makes me wonder if I should register republican after my citizenship test. Millions of Colombians around the world had to leave the country after powerful illegal groups threatened their lives. Throughout the 80's and 90’s, paramilitaries and guerrillas, both using ideologies as a facade for their drug trafficking business, became so powerful and prevalent that they penetrated our life in every aspect: Politics, military, civil society, everything was tainted with blood in their pursuit for money at any cost. With huge incentives and profits coming from kidnapping and arms trade, and an addicted neighbor to the north willing to pay anything for cocaine, democracy in Colombia was in a near checkmate.

Most of these problems gradually started to change with President Uribe's democratic security. Nearly all violence measurements have gone down as prosperity and progress generated a momentum not seen in decades. Murders, massacres, kidnappings, etc all were reduced drastically. In addition, an imperfect but unprecedented demobilization of the paramilitaries took place, taking thousand of dangerous men off the conflict. Even though there are clear signs that some of these groups are reemerging, a substantial part of their financial and political support has been wiped out. Equally important, the mystified FARC was wounded like never seem before. The utopia of a Colombia in which we can have justice with ballets and not bullets has never been this close.

Therefore, to see the candidates that will lead this country utilize Colombia as an insignificant tool to upset President Bush and to please a tiny constituency of highly politicized unionist makes me wonder if the republicans are the only ones with double standards. Any piece of evidence; 75% public approval rate, almost 8% economic growth, and many other statistics are put into questions by people saying that such numbers are controlled by the government. They forget that unlike our neighbors, Colombia has strong independent institutions, an active civil society and a pluralistic media not to mention UN agencies and other international organization that have too recognized these accomplishments.

The approval of Free Trade Agreement presents a great opportunity to give continuity to these set of accomplishments. Although the benefits of trade must not be overstated, it is clear that its implementation will be translated into economic prosperity for a country where there is still way too many incentives for informality and illegal activities. Moreover, it is essential to move away from military assistance to economic partnership, as the latter one will reflect the current ground realities, creating markets in the rural sector for a hungry world. The US-Colombia strategic alliance deserves partial credit for the current state of the country and Colombians are very grateful for it. Consequently, it is imperative for the democrats to give continuity to the bipartisan set of policies started by President Clinton in regards to Colombia, the social and political cost is too high to do otherwise.

PS. That is not to say that bilateral trade agreements are the best way to go about trade. Read THIS report by the Brookings institution about the subject.

Why Daniel Ortega is back in power and why to Remain Suspicious

Ok, so the news that Daniel Ortega, the former Sandinista guerrilla combatant, won last Sunday presidential bid were digested easily as a learn that the democrats got back control of both houses of congress. That said, we need to explore why that Danielistas won and what are the prospects of his presidency.

There are several factors that influenced last Sunday election outcome. First and most important was the overwhelming support the Sandinistas obtained from the youth. In order to vote in Nicaragua you have to be 16 or older, so there is a big chunk of the population that did not experience the hardships of the 80’s and was eligible to vote. Youth “had it easy” -as and older guy told me- “they didn’t have to be part of the obligatory two year army service in the middle of a war and they didn’t have to harvest coffee and cotton for three months a year, eight hours a day”. They were in fact, easily persuaded by the overused, coldwared antiyanqui speech of the Sandinistas. With magnificent but undoable offers of employment, education, and other benefits, the youth selected to what their eyes was a new path, the Sandinista path. A path with not clear destination and a familiar blocks on the way to many of the older generations.

Another very important factor that influenced this election was the mess created by the liberal party in control for the past 16 years, the PLC (Partido Liberal Constitucionalista). Although two of their presidents, Violeta Chamorro and Enrique Bolaños were in fact conservative minded, the PLC must take blame for the corruption scandals and the clientelims characterized of their governments. Graft, bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, and patronage were common place after the end of the Sandinista era. Predictably, at the height of all this came the Political Pact (El Pacto) signed by the Arnoldo Aleman of the PLC and Daniel Ortega of the FSNL. This power sharing agreement had among others decrees that one could be president with 35% of the popular vote as long as they maintain a 5% lead. Before the pact, the percentage needed was 40 and since Ortega only got 38% of the vote, there would have been runoff election in which he would unquestionably loss.

The U.S, as in the last two centuries of Nicaragua history, played an important and influential role in the election outcome. This time by interfering directly with the electoral process of Nicaragua’s election. This blatant and often absurd interference lead to a boomerang effect, reinforcing Ortega’s claims of American interventionsionism and rallying the youth as already mention. In the words of Tim Padget of TIME “the yanqui politicking — which included a threat to cut off U.S. aid to impoverished Nicaragua if Ortega won — backfired miserably, actually helping boost the Sandinista leader to his first-round victory. That such U.S. pressure tends to work in favor of its opponents is a lesson Washington seems woefully unable to learn in a post-Cold War Latin America whose electorates have unexpectedly turned leftward in recent years” (Read article HERE). And Mr. Padget is not alone, Marcela Sanchez, a Colombian reporter of the Washington Post, writes “Scare tactics were the wrong choice for Washington. But this was again a case of pragmatism blinded by ideology. That was evident when Rep. Dan Burton, chairman of the House International Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, wrote that an Ortega victory raised the possibility that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his ailing mentor Fidel Castro could be expanding their influence, meaning that "our enemies will be that much closer to our borders"” Read article HERE. En ESPAÑOL AQUI. However, I believe the percentage of the population that got turn off by Washington’s bad neighbour talk was miniscule as Nicaraguans have gotten used to the American ascent. This is not to say, though, that D.C’s foreign policy is antiquated, in need of a reality check, something hopefully democrats will do now they the control the congress.

Now that I’ve discussed what I see as the most important reasons for Ortega’s victory, lets look at the prospects of his presidency. First and foremost Nicaragua needs investment: after decades of war, natural disaster, and corruption is natural that the country ranks as the most food insecure and poor in continental America. So foreign currency is essential to lift the country out of poverty. Before going any forward, imagine I give you half million dollars for a tourism investment in Central America. You can choose any country as long as you maximize profits. So obviously you google all the countries trying to learn more about history, economic potential, governance, transparency, in other words business climate. It should take you less that an hour to realise that Nicaragua is a no–no. With a very recent history of expropriation (See my older post), corruption, and most important economic risk, investment in Nicaragua is a casino-like experience, is you like Vegas bring your money to Managua. Worst now that the man that was in charge of all economic chaos of the 80’s is back in power.

But where is the money coming from if is not from international investors? It won’t come from the black riches Ortega’s friend to the south sits on, or the vast agricultural and mineral exports of the others in the lefty South American wagon. Unfortunately, Nicaragua is energy dependent, lacks adequate infrastructure, and most of its land is unsuitable for productive agriculture. This raises the basic question of how to finance the large agenda of social investment without resource to access to.
For now we can only wait and see. Although Ortega may not turn out as bad as many predicted, it is almost undeniable that he will bring a climate of uncertainty: not a good weather forecast for a country with way too many political storms.
If you hate my grammar and my bias, data-lacking-right-leaning reporting, check out this article about Nicaragua’s recent news. First check out excellent World Opinion Roundup on Nicaragua’s election by Jeferson Morly of the Washington Post. Also, check out what my favourite magazine had to say The Economist-Fasten your Sit belts. The people from NicaNet had this to SAY. Finally, what the Brits had to say BBC.
From now on, I’ll finish every post with a quote: here is today’s.
There is a common tendency to ignore the poor or to develop some rationalization for the good fortune of the fortunate. John Kenneth Galbraith

VIEWS: Targeting Nicaraguans’ Stomachs

Hello,
Trying to remain partial in the discussion of politics in Nicaragua is a difficult task, specially now that we are four day away from the elections. So here is an article by Ben Beachy of Witness for Peace who talks about U.S interventionism in Nicaraguan elections, a subject I have to some extend ignore. As mentioned before, this blog is about Agriculture and Rural Development and the outcome of this election will have a certain effect on both.
Enjoy.

October 30, 2006
By Ben Beachy

Imagine the following: you and your family decide to remodel your kitchen. Your neighbor, also the principal at your children’s elementary school, hears of the plan and immediately states his opposition. He argues that the remodeling project is not the sort of investment your family needs and hints that carrying it out would jeopardize his friendship. Deciding to move ahead with the remodeling anyway, you and your family begin removing the kitchen cabinets one day, but are interrupted by a knock at the door. Your neighbor enters and grimly announces to the entire family that if the remodeling is carried out as planned, he will see to it that your children do not pass another grade in his elementary school.

Your neighbor’s behavior, however far-fetched it may seem, is no more ridiculous or offensive than the treatment U.S. political figures have been giving their neighboring Nicaraguans in the last several days. Nicaragua is currently gearing up for its national elections on Sunday, November 5.

For the last year, Nicaragua’s complicated electoral panorama has been further convoluted by a string of U.S. representatives endeavoring to ward off an electoral victory by Sandinista (FSLN) leader and former president Daniel Ortega. U.S. officials have publicly censured Ortega, attempted to unify his opposition, and threatened that an Ortega win would endanger U.S. financial support. The continuous intervention, however, has failed to unite Nicaragua’s divided right or significantly detract from Ortega’s base. Now U.S. meddlers are flustered and desperate in the face of recent polls revealing that Ortega is within a few percentage points of clinching the presidential office.

In a last-ditch effort to undermine Ortega, U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, chairman of the House’s International Relations Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, sent a letter on Friday, October 27, to Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security. Rohrabacher enjoined Chertoff “to prepare in accordance with U.S. law, contingency plans to block any further money remittances from being sent to Nicaragua in the event that the FSLN enters government.” The nearly half million Nicaraguans currently living in the U.S. send around $500 million each year to their family members in Nicaragua, according to Nicaraguan economist Nestor Avendaño.

Nicaraguans have reason to believe Rohrabacher may not be bluffing. In the buildup to Nicaragua’s 1990 elections, the United States promised Nicaraguan voters that it would continue fueling the decade-old contra war and maintain its economic embargo on Nicaragua, both of which were wreaking havoc on Nicaragua’s economy, if Daniel Ortega were reelected as President. Beleaguered by a crippling war, food rationing, and empty supermarket shelves, Nicaraguans opted for U.S.-backed Violeta Chamorro over Ortega. Satisfied, the U.S. then released its stranglehold on the Nicaraguan economy.

Seeing that the FSLN now has a chance to return to power, Rohrabacher seems eager to once again target Nicaraguans’ stomachs with callous pressure. Thousands of Nicaraguan families depend on remittances to augment the meager wages paid for picking coffee, sewing jeans in assembly factories, or selling water at intersections. In an economy sacked with underemployment, stagnant salaries, and rising costs, remittances keep Nicaragua afloat by generating an income equivalent to 70% of the country’s total annual exports, according to the most recent estimates. Avendaño projects that a U.S. embargo on remittances would prove as disastrous for Nicaraguans as the U.S.-imposed trade embargo of the 1980’s. Once again, the hardest hit would be the impoverished majority.

Nicaraguan voters are not unaware of this reality. Nor is Rohrabacher, no doubt. Nicaraguans’ direct dependence on remittances is what makes his open threat particularly potent. In the face of a potential Ortega victory, Rohrabacher is striving to make longstanding U.S. interference more personal by pushing Nicaraguans to see a vote for Ortega as a vote against their own pocketbooks.

Rohrabacher’s letter is but one voice in a recent cacophony of U.S. meddling. Headlines of the last week have been laden with unsolicited U.S. opinions on Daniel Ortega and the sort of President Nicaraguans should want. The day after Rohrabacher sent his letter, Florida governor Jeb Bush authored a letter published in a La Prensa paid ad. Bush’s letter declares that Nicaraguans must choose between a “tragic step towards the past,” which he identifies as the “totalitarianism” of the Sandinistas, and “a vision towards the future.” Jeb Bush’s own vision for Nicaragua’s future is revealed at the bottom of the ad, where the Alianza Liberal Nicaraguense party, which is running the U.S.- preferred presidential candidate Eduardo Montealegre, is named as the ad’s sponsor.

Just a few pages away from Bush’s ad appears an article in which Adolfo Franco, USAID’s Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean, warns that a FSLN victory next week could limit USAID support for Nicaragua, citing worries that Daniel Ortega might significantly alter Nicaragua’s current economic model. USAID’s admonition piggybacks on US Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez’s more explicit pressure in an interview publicized one week earlier. Gutierrez threatened that an Ortega win could preclude a $230 million combined investment from three foreign companies that would generate 123,000 jobs, a $220 million aid package promised through the Millenium Challenge Account, and implementation of CAFTA in Nicaragua.

On October 29, the day after printing Jeb Bush’s letter, La Prensa published an editorial by Otto Reich, former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, in which he accuses the FSLN of maintaining ties with terrorist groups, a claim that Reich does not attempt to substantiate. Though Reich does not currently hold a position in the U.S. government, he writes as if he does, stating, “If the Sandinistas control the government of Nicaragua, there will be strong pressure in Washington to review all aspects of the bilateral relationship, including remittances.” Reich equates a Sandinista victory with “a return to a past of poverty and international isolation.” Such a dismal outcome indeed seems likely if the U.S., as the party responsible for the isolation of the past, would implement Reich’s thinly cloaked threat of aid and remittance cutoffs.

Ironically, Reich precedes all the above statements with the disclaimer, “No one can tell [Nicaraguans] who to vote for.” Jeb Bush, Adolfo Franco, and other outspoken U.S. figures have similarly acknowledged Nicaraguans’ sovereign right to pick their own leaders. Unfortunately, such statements come across as meaningless niceties when subsequently contradicted with threats and admonishments against choosing a president not to the U.S.’s liking. As Nicaraguans make their way to the polls on Sunday, they must not only consider “What will this candidate do for my country if elected?” but also “What will the U.S. do to my country if this candidate is elected?” The product of relentless outside interference, this sad reality is profoundly undemocratic.

With numerous internal challenges posed by this election, Nicaraguans do not need to be further encumbered by fears of U.S. reprisal. If U.S. representatives truly wish to see free, unfettered elections in Nicaragua on November 5, they would do well to keep their mouths shut.

Ben Beachy is an educator with Witness for Peace in Nicaragua. Witness for Peace is a politically independent, grassroots organization that educates U.S. citizens on the impacts of U.S. policies and corporate practices in Latin America and the Caribbean. www.witness forpeace.org

Un poco de Quejas

Saludos
Voy a escrivir en espanol pues la verdad es que me tengo que quejar un poco, y esto lo hago mejor en espanol. Las eleciones en Nicaragua estan a la vuelta de la esquina y todo parece indicar que Daniel Ortega podria ganar inclusive en la primera vuelta, con un poco mas del 30% de los votos. Esto, gracias a una estupida ley concorda entre mienbros del PLC (Partido Liberal Consituyente) y el FSNL (Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional). Las perspectivas de que los Danielistas retomen el poder nublan y cubren de incertidumbres un futuro nicaraguense que empiesa a salir de la sosobra. Solo para dar un ejemplo del nivel de atrazo que llevo la revolucion al pais, en este ano se alcanzaron los niveles de exportacion del 1976.
Pueda que el nivel de exportaciones no sea el mejor indicador para medir la properidad de un pais, sobretodo en el caso de Nicaragua pues este sector ha sido controlado ferozmente por un pequeno grupo de agroempresarios. De todas formas, no hay quien pueda negar que el fortalecimiento del sector agricola tiene efectos directos e indirectos en la reducion de probeza y la prosperidad social. Entonces el que los Sandinistas con sus politicas subsidiadoras e irracionales que llevaron al sector agricola a niveles de los anos 40 tengan la posibilidad de retomar es una razon logica para quejarme.
La otra razon para quejarme es que se me dano mi computador. Aparentemente, la Dell portatiles tiene problemas con los Disipadores de Calor (heat sink). El computador se calento tanto que afecto la targeta procesadora. Es tan grande el problema, que parece que toda mi informacion recopilada en ese computador por mas de 3 anos esta seriamente amenazada.
Seguire a la espera de un milagrito, no sin antes disculparme por la falta de egnes y los errores autograficos.

Elections in Nicaragua: Two Contrasting Paths to Choose

Hola Gente,
We're less than a month away from the presidential elections of Nicaragua, yet it seem that the voting is taking place tomorrow: the whole country is flooded with unregulated expensive political advertising (see the picture), the parties' caravans are seem everywhere making traffic worse, and politics is in everybody's conversations regardless of where you are. Since my arrival to Nicaragua, people tell me that these are the most decisive elections in recent history. And they are definitely right.

So without forgetting our topic agriculture, let’s talk about politics for a bit as they have a direct effect on the welfare of the rural sector and the fate of agriculture (check out this post). Since the end of the Sandinista Revolution in 1989, Nicaragua has seen bipolar election campaigns: you voted for the Sandinistas or against the Sandinistas. The Sandinistas, always represented by Daniel Ortega in the FSLN party lost to; Violeta Chamorro (1990), to Arnoldo Aleman (1997) and to Enrique Bolanos (2002). Until then, the run for president was solved easily because the Sandinistas haven't been able (since 1990's) to get more than 35% of the popular vote.

This changed drastically when Aleman signed "el Pacto" (a political pact) with the Sandinistas in which some key political figures of the FSLN got permanent government positions and other political favors. This pact improved the condition of the FSLN and in return Aleman received lax treatment when his corruption charges surfaced the public. The spillover effect, however, was a strong division in the two parties which saw the pact as ideologically incongruous and driven by personal ambitions of Aleman and Ortega. The results were the following: liberals against the pact (ALN) and for the pact (PLC), and Sandinitas against the pact (MRS) and for the pact (FSLN).

Now according to polls, the Daniel Ortega (FSLN) leads with 30% of the vote, followed by Eduardo Montealegre (ALN) with 25%, Mundo Jarquin (MRS) with 15%, and Jose Rizo (PLC) 10%. Because this distribution has never taken place in the recent history of Nicaraguan, there is an overwhelming sense of uncertainty that maintains the country on a frustrating status quo. Besides the unique campaign distribution, there has also never been a runoff election in Nicaragua before, and the amount of people expected to vote appears to be unprecedented, raising questions about logistics and transparency.

What is best for the country? You may ask. This is, of course, up to the Nicaraguans to decide. That is not to say, however, that the outcome of this election will have a direct effect in Central America and possibly in the whole continent. In my opinion, Nicaraguans have to choose between a prosperity path that guarantees economic, political, and social freedom, and an already traveled path of isolation, injustices, and poverty. Although these may sound like plain broad words, I believe the voting decision of the Nicaraguans boils-down to these two paths.

The former path is represented by both Montealgre and Jarquin. Montealegre, who I had the opportunity to speak with, will ensure economic prosperity with a broad growth agenda. Jarquin, also an economist, promises sustain growth and social equity. In my opinion, Nicaraguans must be practical a vote for Montealegre as he is the one with the highest chances of winning. This election is too important to take the risk of voting for a candidate with a slight chance of winning, and only Montealegre ensures a strong vote.

Looking at my notes on Montealgre's presentation at George Washington University in Washington DC (06/15/2006), I find a candidate prepare to run the country in the right direction. Putting emphasis on transparency, economic growth, government institutions, education, and health, he has the silent support of most governments in the region (U.S support for him is controversially quite noisy). When asked about agriculture, he talked about the importance of both creating new markets for export commodities, and assisting small farmers with technical, commercial, and financial help. With an almost nonexistent local market for agricultural output in Nicaragua and with the new set of trade agreements, focusing in exports is a wise policy.

From the time when Violeta Chamorro defeated the face of the revolution in the 1990’s presidential election, Nicaragua has traveled a bumpy road similar to the thousands that lead to the rural areas. Yet, the momentum gain until now is priceless as it has built the foundations for strong growth and stability. I hope this stability is not shaken by the usual earthquakes, not geological but political, that affect the country so often. Daniel Ortega remains an enormous threat to the future and prosperity of the country and must be defeated once for all.

I finish the post providing a link to an interesting article published by the Washintopost.com. The author Roger F. Noriega from the American Enterprise Institute (conservative think tank) talks about the possible scenarios for Nicaragua in this election. Click HERE the read the article.

Nicaraguan Agriculture: Private Property and the Revolution's Legacy

Private property in Nicaragua is a dubious concept in the process of being rediscovered. The country is been recovering from the revolutionaries years in which most of the productive land was confiscated by the Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional (FSNL) and reorganized into cooperatives and Unidades de Produccion Estatal (UPE. State Production Units). The policies enacted during the revolutionary period created repercussions still seen today: farms with several titles, families disunited, violence over land ownership, and most important, a huge lost in agricultural productivity and national welfare.

The initial plans of the revolution of 1979 were to take possession of all the property own by Somozas’ family or by someone else who had gained it through positions within the dictatorship. There was little opposition to these actions as the Somoza regime had control and ownership of whole range of companies in several sectors: mining, construction, agriculture, banking etc. Before the revolution, even the well-off private sector was getting uncomfortable with the dynasty because they saw it as unfair state competition. For the general NIcaraguan public, this was just one of the many reasons to hate the regime and hope for change.

The initial plans for change, however, would resemble little to what most Nicaraguans had hopped the so-called “land reform” would bring. In fact, after Somoza and its followers were striped away of all property, the Sandinistas created another law in which anyone absent from Nicaragua for more than 6 months would have their property taken away.



These laws created an atmosphere in which private property was constantly been violated and confiscation became a normal routine. The allocation of lands and properties was completely based in clientelism bias towards sandinitas and, of course, those within the party would get the largest chunks. Holding a position in a public office was a tool to return favors to those you like, a patronage system still very common today and very similar to the years of the dictatorship. Talk to Nicaraguans and you’ll hear hundreds of stories of poor families that had their couple acres taken away by the Sandinistas, not because they were relatives of Somoza or because they went outside Nicaragua, but just because their land was nice to the eyes of somebody with party connections.

It didn’t matter anymore if you had been a staunchly opponent of the Somoza regime and had even supported the revolutionary effort, if you own a farm with cattle, cotton, tobacco, coffee, sugar cane or other goods, chances were that it would be confiscated under the most irrational excuses.

Not surprisingly, the productive sector of Nicaragua went into exile, jointed or financed the counter revolutionary force, or simply gave up. These actions affected the country’s economy enormously: in Esteli, the town where I live, after the Sandinistas took power, the owners of the tabacaleras (tobacco processing plants) ran away fearing retributions from the FSNL. Without owners and technicians, the plants were abandoned and thousands of women went unemployed.

Same story with sugar cane mills, coffee farms, and cotton plantations. Of course the U.S trade embargo played an important role in the economic crisis as the U.S was one of the main clients of Nicaraguan goods. However, the effect of the embargo was shorttermed and miniscule against the disincentives created by the Sandinistas in the agricultural sector as a whole.

Disincentives and lack of rationale was common place in the agricultural sector during those days. For instance, the Sandinistas tried to promote the utilization of Central Pivot Irrigation systems, a result of the latest in technology in the developed world. Of course, for a former farm worker who could barely read and write this new piece of technology resulted simply unsuitable. The irrigation pipes probably end up melted, same fate suffered by the Robotic Milking Systems, imported from Eastern Europe.


But this nonsense top-down, technology transfer approach to agriculture was not the only reason for failure: the social structure of the rural sector was also disrupted. Farmers where not allowed to commerce their goods, even in miniscule amounts. All output needed to be collected, transported, store, and sold by the government. Ignoring the common traditions of the rural people and imposing an alien Marxist system on them was deemed to fail.

Another ridiculous policy took place when it came to harvesting the crops: thousands of students from the cities were sent to the rural regions to do these tasks. Without any experience, away from their families, and under very harsh conditions, it resulted impossible to expect a high school kid to collect cotton or to cut sugar cane under the inferno heat of Chinandega. Some farmers would even reject the students knowing that they could easily ruin the plants and the harvest. Thankfully, the policy was dropped after three years.

Finally, another disincentive created by the Sandinistas was the so called “Piñata” in which farmers were given almost everything for free. Free land, free seeds, free technical assistance, and even free labor, all resulting in a rural sector that still wants everything for free. Visit the farmers today and see their faces when you tell them of their financial contribution to the project, not happy certainly. This dependacy in foreign assistance (central government, or aid agencies), I think is, a rooted problem that will take generations to solve.

Nicaraguan agricultural sector during the Sandinista years served as a sort of playground for the politicians in the central government who tried to implement what translated Marxist literature said. This improvised lab resulted on a series of failures still seem today. With almost 30% of the population undernourished, is depressing to realize that this was a direct result of a bunch of revolutionaries trying to “help” the people.

El Círculo Latino Americano

Un círculo es la mejor figura geométrica para describir los que ha estado pasando en Latino América en los últimos cinco anos: comunidades étnicas, clases obreras, y minorías marginadas por siglos de recursos y derechos por las clases tradicionales, están tomando poco a poco las riendas del poder. De la misma manera, el rol de la mujer en un continente netamente machista, esta viviendo cambios sin precedentes. Los vientos de la democracia están llegando a lo más alto de la montaña, al pueblo más lejos de la capital, a los barrios donde el estado no se ve. Pese a la contagiante esperanza existe cierta incertidumbre en la magnitud de estos cambios y la fuerza de voluntad de los que lo llevan a cabo.

Cada país en donde estos cambios han estado ocurriendo tiene su peculiaridad reflejada en las condiciones locales o regionales de estos. Sin embargo, todos se caracterizan por tener como prioridad el reducir la pobreza y disminuir los altos niveles de inequidad, triste característica de Latinoamérica. De la misma manera, estos gobiernos ven el crecimiento económico y la integración regional como objetivos claves para llevar a cabo sus prioridades. Bajo estas plataformas, gobernantes en Brasil, Chile, Uruguay, Bolivia, Venezuela, y Argentina llegaron al poder logrando alcanzar altos niveles de aceptación sobre todo entre las clases medias y bajas. La popularidad de estos gobiernos ha llevado a que los proyectos, aunque innovadores, tengan el necesario respaldo de la opinión pública.

Bien sea abriéndole las puertas a inversión extranjera como el caso de Brasil o exigiendo mayores dividendos a multinacionales petroleras como en el caso de Venezuela, países latinoamericanos están explorando nuevas alternativas al consenso de Washington. La estrategia de crecer primero y después redistribuir esta siendo remplazada con frescas alternativas que muestran que ambas cosas se pueden hacer al mismo tiempo. Distribución económica, inversión en salud pública, infraestructura, y educación, y mayor participación de la sociedad publica en el gobierno, son frutos que buscan acabar con siglos de injusticia social, racismo, e inequidad arraigados en el legado Latinoamericano.

Chile, un país culturalmente conservador donde el divorcio era prohibido hasta hace un par de años, eligió como presidente en marzo once de este ano a Michelle Bachelet, la primera mujer en la historia del país en asumir esta posición. Este acto, refleja una vuelta completa dejando atrás un pasado oscuro marcado por una dictadura de la que la misma Bachelet fue victima.

En Bolivia, el país mas pobre se Sur América donde aproximadamente el 65% de población es aborigen, eligió como su presidente a Evo Morales, el primer aborigen en ocupar este cargo en la historia del país. Bolivia, un país donde las mayorías étnicas fueron reconocidas como ciudadanos hace un par de décadas, Evo ha de ser un motivo de orgullo y ejemplo para otros países de la región. La marginalización y el olvido producto de mitas, encomiendas y plantaciones serán sepultados en lo profundo de los suelos andinos y cubiertos con cultivos de café, papa, yuca y coca.

El caso de Chile y Bolivia son solo dos ejemplos de un fenómeno continental de el que se están contagiando otros países en Latino América. Este año, candidatos con fuertes compromisos en reducir la pobreza y la inequidad tienen una alta probabilidad de ganar las elecciones presidenciales en México y Perú. Aunque no hay duda que estos vientos positivos de cambio se están expandiendo, es muy temprano para distinguir estos, de brotes caudillistas y populistas que se aprovechan del pueblo para llevar a cabo sus miopes intereses y avanzar una agenda que mantiene el status quo. El tiempo juzgará si fuimos una generación participe en la creación de una nueva Latinoamérica o simplemente una pequeña curva en un círculo incompleto.

Rafael I Merchan holds a B.S on Agricultural and Resource Economics from University of Maryland, College Park. rafamerchan@gmail.com