Juanson World

At 10AM this morning, the Board of Governors of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) will elect the successor to the Uruguayan-Spaniard Enrique Iglesias, who is stepping down after an illustrious 17 years at the helm of the hemisphere's largest development institution. In order to be elected, the candidate must be supported by over 50 percent of the Bank's shareholders as well as a majority of the member countries from the Americas: 15 out of the 28 hemispheric nations. As in all hemispheric bodies, the US carries the most influence - 30 percent of the vote - which reflects the level of American capital invested in the bank.

There are five official candidates for the position, and I will briefly profile each below:


Mario Alonso - Nicaragua
President of the Central Bank of Nicaragua

Unfortunately, representing the region's second-poorest nation does not bode well for the candidacy of Alonso, a respected economist. While he has managed to remain above the fray in terms of Nicaragua's recent corruption and political instability, Alonso's chances are slim to none.

Pedro Pablo Kuczynski - Peru
Minister of Finance, Peru

Kuczynski, educated at Princeton and Oxford, is a Peruvian version of Robert Rubin/Jon Corzine: a career spent leveraging between the highest levels of government and Wall Street. In addition to ten years as Vice President at First Boston, Kuczynski was Minister of Mines in the 1980s as well as his current post at the Ministry of Finance. I talked to a former Bolivian Minister of Finance a couple of months ago who described Kuczynski as the "classic gregarious Peruvian." Kuczynski appears to be the third place candidate who would come into play should there be a deadlock between Colombia and Brazil.

Luis Alberto Moreno - Colombia
Colombian Ambassador to the United States

A skilled and savvy diplomat, "Baby Face" Moreno is the overwhelming favorite to win the election, having secured commitments from over 50 percent of the shareholders (including the US, Europe, and Japan) and 9 regional countries. Prior to having been named ambassador in 1998, the US-educated Moreno was a TV executive, president of Colombia's institute for Industrial Development, and Minister of Development. However, Moreno - who stands at a Napoleonic 5'5 - is best known for his ability to move effortlessly among Washington power players. Indeed, there is no question that the US support of Moreno is influenced by the chummy relationships that he has developed over the past seven years: first with Bill Clinton and then with George Bush, both of which have been strong proponents of Plan Colombia, the US package of mostly military assistance which has poured over $3 billion into the resolution of the country's forty year armed conflict. Moreno seems poised to ease his way into the IDB's top position.

Jose Alejandro Rojas - Venezuela
Former Minister of Finance, Venezuela

Rojas was a last-minute entry to the candidate pool, having been added just before last week's deadline. While the Miami Herald argued that the addition of Rojas would add more uncertainty to the election, I disagree. The Herald implied that the Caribbean countries' votes were at the whim of Venezuela, but I wouldn't read into it more than the usual hot air and bombast coming from Chavez. It's a shame the US media too often enjoys giving him a megaphone. Don't count on Rojas making much of a splash in the election.


Joao Sayad - Brazil
Vice President of Finance and Management, IDB

Sayad has been in his current position since 2004 and previously served as Secretary of Finance in Sao Paulo as well as Brazilian Secretary of Planning in the 1980s. With a PhD in economics from Yale and a distinguished career as a technocrat and an academic, Sayad has probably the best qualified in terms of technical experience. His candidacy is also significant in terms of representing the region's largest economy in a position well suited to influencing hemispheric affairs. While Sayad appears to have secured the support of the Mercosur nations, he seems to lack the political flair of an Enrique Iglesias, an intangible quality in playing the role of the politician/diplomat/dignitary.

If all goes as expected, Moreno will take the helm in October. I take issue with critics such as the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) which asks the question, "Does Moreno have what it takes to be the next president of the IDB?" COHA, which strongly opposes Plan Colombia, leads off with the hyperbolic claim that Iglesias "was one in a million," setting the tone for a sloppy piece that intermittently spells Colombia incorrectly. The crux of COHA's argument is as follows:

...[Moreno] patently lacks the vision and depth of character to succeed a man of Iglesias' stature. Under Moreno, the bank could very well slide back to the bad old days when nepotism, corruption and sexism thrived in the IDB's corridors of power. Furthermore, Moreno's political ideology is in line with the Bush administration's, a factor that could threaten to politicize the IDB and further polarize the relationship between North and South America. Additionally, if Moreno were to assume the IDB's top post, with Paul Wolfowitz as the president of the World Bank, it would mean that two of the most relevant lending agencies would be controlled by individuals with a military rather than development vision.

First of all, by all accounts, Moreno is a man of vision and character who contradicts the negative image of Colombia that is painted throughout the world. Furthermore, COHA's implication that an IDB with Moreno at the helm would slide into corruption, nepotism, and sexism is downright preposterous. Finally, while I don't believe that he was the best pick for the job, Wolfowitz appears to be taking his position at the World Bank quite seriously, as I have heard from most Bank employees, who have until now withheld judgment on the neocon. I have no doubt that Moreno will approach his position with nothing but the utmost seriousness.

What this election does indicate, however, is that the US will continue to exert the lion's share of influence in hemispheric affairs. In this case, I believe that Moreno will do an excellent job in succeeding an extremely successful president, even though his political credentials won out over other candidates with more relevant qualifications. I hope that the transition will be smooth as the Bank looks to continue addressing the myriad challenges of development throughout the region.

UPDATE (9:50am):

Larry Rohter weighs in under the somewhat misleading headline: "As Did O.A.S., Bank Resists a Candidate Backed by the U.S." I am not sure that the Bank is "resisting" the appointment considering pre-election commitments from an estimated 13 nations. Rohter draws a parallel to the OAS election, when the US-backed candidates were rejected by Latin America. However, while Sayad will gain several country votes, US's "virtual veto power" will make it impossible to win the shareholder election. But I do agree that Moreno represents another Bush pick for a political appointments; albeit an acceptable one.

UPDATE 2 (1:20pm):

Moreno has won the IDB presidency.

The passing of Colombia's Justice and Peace Law in late June prompted a firestorm of criticism for its handling of paramilitary demobilizations. The law, which follows the desertion of around 6,000 paramilitaries since talks began with the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) two years ago, is aimed at the 200 or so AUC members who are accused of crimes against humanity:

Under the law, they must give a voluntary account of their crimes and forfeit illegally acquired goods, such as lands bought with drug money. A special unit of 20 attorneys has 60 days to investigate; within a further ten days, a court brings charges. If found guilty, the court imposes a normal sentence (up to 40 years for murder) which is then commuted to an "alternative penalty." This involves up to eight years' confinement in a special facility - perhaps a prison farm, says Mr. Pretelt.

If the accused is later found to have failed to declare a crime, the alternative penalty can be raised by 20% "provided the omission is not intentional." If it is, the full normal sentence is imposed. The law also gives the victims the right to particpate in the judicial process; forfeited assets are to be used to compensate them.

Most human rights groups (Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, et al) have lambasted the law, characterizing it as a slap on the wrist that effectively gives paramilitaries a "get out of jail free" card. Washington lawmakers on both sides of the aisle also expressed their reservations as the law would prevent known drug traffickers to be extradited for trial in the US. Nevertheless, the Bush administration now officially supports the law after a lobbying visit last week from Colombia's vice president and foreign minister.

Is it a law of impunity or will it advance peace and justice? I defer to my friend Eduardo Pizarro, who sanely declares that "the only way to respond to these critics is through the results." Pizarro also astutely points out that this is the first time in recent memory that justice has been attempted during a transition to peace: there was absolute impunity in Chile, Uruguay, El Salvador, and Guatemala and quasi-impunity in Argentina and South Africa. Indeed, the Truth Commissions provided moral justice as atrocities became part of official history, but only recently have the governments of Chile and Argentina begun to bring human rights violators to trial.

In Colombia, any sort of justice is a positive step following the almost uniform impunity of the last 40 years of armed conflict. I don't see a rational reason why a paramilitary leader would be motivated to disarm under the type of law that would please human rights activists. The US will be footing the bill for these demobilizations, and I hope that pressure from abroad will lead to a successful process in what could become a precedent for resolution of internal conflicts.

I was listening to a radio show on NPR and laughed at some of the representatives of interest groups that were commenting on Roberts. There was the director of a feminist organization who was shouting about John Roberts taking away her 14 year old's daughter's rights, as if he was an assasin lurking in the corner. Then there was a solid rebuttal by another woman who quite righteously declared that the country had elected Bush in a majority and controlled both houses of Congress so she could just shove it.

There are two points I find interesting from the appointment:

1) Bush's re-election means so much now, as we await Renquist's retirement. Roberts is good for another 30 years on the Court, and
2) Roberts is a genius pick because he seems so decent and lovable (which by all accounts is very true) so that it will be that much harder for Democrats and interest groups to try to block Bush's pick for Renquist's spot on the Court.

What are progressives to do? Already the interest groups on the left are knee-jerking their way through talking points. I got a nice email today from John Kerry, telling me that "this White House remains bent on opening old wounds and dividing America." Well, liberals have to make a choice - are they going to pick this fight, which they won't win, and spend precious political and financial capital? It's time for the left to cut their losses and gear up for 2006 midterms in a big way.

I'm really bored with all the hype surrounding the Karl Rove scandal. I hate how politics in this country is defined by these polarizing stories which dominate the news cycles and completely take away from what is really important.

Let's get a couple of facts straight:

1) Karl Rove did something stupid, for stupid reasons
2) Bush will not fire Karl Rove
3) A reporter is in jail (and she didn't write anything - why isn't Novak in jail?)

You can twist this situation any way you wish, but it is simply another example of why I am sick of Washington partisan bickering. This occurs on both sides of the aisle. Whether you are dirtier as a Republican or a Democrat means nothing to me; I just hate how the blogosphere and the media gets dominated by an issue that at most affects a handful of people. (This sort of situation also makes me really not want to become a lawyer.)

While this issue grips America and demonstrates how "different" Republicans and Democrats are, millions of citizens are without health care, without decent public schools, and dying from obesity.

As far as natural disasters go, it would seem that Haiti, the poorest country in the hemisphere, always receives the brunt of the damage. Earthquakes and hurricanes have devastated the nation in recent years which has compounded its turbulous political unrest.

Hurricane Dennis has not spared Hispañola, and neighboring Cuba has suffered as well. The storm has caused almost $1.5 billion dollars in damage and is responsible for at least 16 deaths. The fact that Fidel Castro has denied aid offers from the US and Europe raises some interesting questions:

But Castro says he turned down a U.S. offer of $50,000, and would spurn even $1 billion -- if it came from Uncle Sam. ''Cuba will not accept humanitarian aid from the United States, which imposes a criminal blockade, or from any of the European governments that took aid away under the pretext of human rights violations,'' the Communist Party daily Granma reported in a story paraphrasing Castro's comments.

The political war of words continues, with both sides advancing ill-advised and hypocritical stances. The US should relax travel restrictions, as this case illustrates the need for Cuban exiles to be able to travel to the island to provide aid to their relatives. And Castro's rhetoric will only continue to alienate those still on the island, who must suffer through this natural disaster with their leader taking a hard-line stance against possible relief from abroad.

My old roommate in Costa Rica lives a block away from the Calderon Guardia hospital in Barrio Aranjuez, where there was a devastating fire this morning. There were at least 17 casualties in the fire which began on the fifth floor. Costa Rica is such a small country that this incident will have national repercussions.

I for one am perpetually indebted to the Costa Rican health care system, which treated me quite well when I had an emergency surgical procedure my last night in the country back in July of 2004. I pray for the victims in this tragedy.

Last week, in the wake of cult member Tom Cruise's disturbing comments about psychiatry, I came across a fascinating article in the Washington Post about a World Health Organization study on schizophrenia. The study, which was initially conducted in the 1970s and then repeated over a thirty year span, found that schizophrenia patients in poor Third World nations such as India did much better than in the US because of the family support and social networks that exist in the poorer countries:

In all, the study tracked about 3,300 patients, Sartorius said, and 30-year follow-ups confirmed the initial trends. The study spanned a dozen countries -- capitalist and communist, eastern and western, northern and southern, large and small, rich and poor.

The results were consistent -- and surprising. Patients in poorer countries spent fewer days in hospitals, were more likely to be employed and were more socially connected. Between half and two-thirds became symptom-free, whereas only about a third of patients from rich countries recovered to the same degree, Sartorius said.

Nigerian, Colombian and Indian patients also seemed less likely to suffer relapses and had longer periods of health between relapses. Doctors in poorer countries stopped drugs when patients became better -- whereas doctors in rich countries often required patients to take medication all their lives.

The reason for these surprising results? Cultural differences that led to different approaches to treatment:

Most people with schizophrenia in India live with their families or other social networks -- in sharp contrast to the United States, where most patients are homeless, in group homes or on their own, in psychiatric facilities or in jail. Many Indian patients are given low-stress jobs by a culture that values social connectedness over productivity; patients in the United States are usually excluded from regular workplaces.

Indian families sit in on doctor-patient discussions because families are considered central to the problem and the solution. In America, doctor-patient conversations are confidential -- and psychiatrists primarily focus on brain chemistry.

Thus, schizophrenics in India, Nigeria and Colombia are more likely to end up living productive lives within mainstream society, instead of being ostracized and sent to mental institutions.

Findings such as these, which demonstrate that social factors have just as much to do with recovery as psychosomatic drugs, could be interpreted as a threat to large pharmaceutical companies in the developed world. However, I see successful treatment of illnesses such as schizophrenia as a healthy combination of medication and therapy, which by extension includes family and societal support. What can we learn from the developing world?

First of all, mental illness in the US has not reached the point where it can be discussed freely and openly. Most of us know someone who has dealt with depression, but these cases are usually kept private and there is a lack of education and awareness. I can cite two well-known examples from football: Barret Robbins of the Oakland Raiders and Wyatt Sexton of FSU. Both players suffered from manic episodes stemming from bipolar disorder, and in both cases, media attention focused on their bizarre behavior rather than the fact that both suffered from bipolar disorder, which affects an estimated 2 million Americans (with many more cases undiagnosed). In these cases and others, the person with the illness is portrayed as being at fault for not "taking their medication," as if that is the cure-all. Tom Cruise's repulsive comments only serve to further alienate patients.

While I don't think that American culture will fully evolve such that family ties are as strong as in Latin America, for example, education is needed so that public perceptions on mental illness can be changed. Only then will family and community members be able to accept and support the millions of Americans suffering from treatable mental illnesses.

While the Nationals continue to stay on fire, injuries and a suspect pitching staff are beginning to take their toll on the Orioles, who got spanked by the Yankees today, 12-3. The O's were up 9 games on the Yanks in early May and now find themselves 3.5 games behind the emerging Red Sox. Sammy Sosa in particular has been playing horribly, as he is now batting .225 with only 9 home runs. Similar to his formerly enormous rival from the now ignominious home run summer of 98 - Mark McGwire - Sosa looks like he has lost about 20 pounds. Baseball has entered a new era, and it will take several years to establish whose careers will need permanent asterisks next to their numbers.

As expected, CAFTA passed the Senate yesterday. Unfortunately, "free trade" was not completely acheived:

To placate sugar producers, White House officials agreed to limit imports for another two years by paying Central American producers not to export to the United States. The United States would pay with surplus farm products accumulated through its other subsidy programs.

But White House officials also warned sugar producers that they could be punished for their opposition when protections under the current farm bill come up for renewal in 2007.

"Everything will get a fresh look in '07," said Vice President Dick Cheney, in a radio interview on Thursday. "Sugar will be treated the same as everybody else at that time."

Why wait until 2007? Why not eliminate the inefficient sugar subsidies now? Apparently, this administration is unwilling to risk losing seats in next year's midterm elections. Thus, it would apppear that politics stood in the way of Bush's supposed committment to free trade. This administration continues to be content to spend now and let others deal with the consequences.

There was another disturbing wrinkle to yesterday's proceedings. Apparently, the Department of Labor, which had commissioned the International Labor Rights Fund to issue a report on labor standards in Central America (almost a $1 million contract), sought to withhold the publication of said report because it was harshly critical of labor standards in the region. While I don't think that CAFTA should be perceived as a panacea for Central America, the fact that the USDOL would withhold a taxpayer funded study for political reasons is appalling.