Brazil's Great Awakening

I love it when Latin America news gets mainstream attention in the U.S. media. And unlike the whole debacle of Edward Snowden requesting asylum in Ecuador, this story has nothing to do with the U.S. For once, people across the country and the world are taking a few seconds out of their busy lives to be concerned about a Latin American country -- indeed, a major world power -- outside the context of soccer, tropical vacations, or American foreign policy. Heck, Stephen Colbert even devoted an entire segment to this story on his show.

Of course, I'm talking about the protests that have been raging across Brazil for the past several weeks and show no signs of slowing. By now, it's clear that the demonstrations are about far more than the ten-cent public transportation fare hike that acted as the catalyst. Among their motivations, protesters cite rampant political corruption, poor public services, and lavish spending on the World Cup and Olympics when the same money could be spent on health, education, and security initiatives instead. In short, although Brazil is reportedly now the world's seventh-largest economy, this success has not reached average Brazilians.

A few days ago, I reached out to a Brazilian friend of mine who has been participating in the protests to inquire about her reasons for taking to the streets. In many ways, she is representative of the kind of people that make up this movement: young, college-educated, middle-class, and at least in her case, very socially-aware. I had seen her posts about the protests on Facebook, and my Portuguese being what it is (read: almost nonexistent), I decided to send her a few questions in English in an attempt to gauge what was going on.

She responded with a long, impassioned account that echoed much of what I had read. Describing the state of her city, Belo Horizonte, as that of a "war site," she detailed the police's "abuses of power" during the demonstrations, including the use of tear gas, rubber bullets, and physical assaults on protesters as well as reporters. "Today I really feared for my life out there," she said, having been struck in the head by a can of tear gas. Like other protesters, public transportation seems to be a huge concern for her; although the average Brazilian pays nearly 26% of their monthly income to ride the bus, the system is both overcrowded and unsafe. Among her other grievances are corruption, lack of investment in health and education, a recently-passed bill that treats homosexuality as a disease, and FIFA's effective autonomy over parts of the cities. Many of the problems are things that Brazilians have endured quietly for years.

As for President Rousseff's administration, my friend seemed both apathetic and forgiving ("I don't like her government, but there's only so much she can do"), and stressed that much of the blame for the country's problems falls on congressmen and leaders of local and state governments. But she also noted that some politicians are manipulating the protests to score political points at Rousseff's expense. At the same time, the media has been overplaying the violence to turn the public against the demonstrators, she explained, while trying to tell them how to act "just so the protest won't bother the rich people and the foreigners that are here."

Despite the bleakness of the situation, she remains positive that the voices of millions will be heard, and called the protests "a great opportunity for Brazilians, who [don't] really like to discuss politics, to talk about it, understand how it works and become more conscious of their power." And it appears they have already had an effect: the Senate has begun to enact reforms, including a law that classifies corruption as a "heinous crime" with new, tougher sentences for offenders.

It seems the giant has indeed awoken, and will be silenced by nothing less than real change.

A Tale of Two Americas

There was an interesting article over at The Atlantic yesterday.

The author, a journalist from the U.S. living in Buenos Aires, recounts the shock and offense of her Argentine friends upon hearing the U.S. referred to as "America." Some dismiss the wording as merely inaccurate, while others argue that the term carries overtones of U.S. imperialism:

"That's incorrect," he said, sounding shocked that an esteemed publication would make such a junior mistake. "America is a region, not a country." 

Though I didn't share his reaction, as a U.S. citizen living in Argentina I had quickly learned that it was in best taste to avoid referring to myself as an "American" or the U.S. as "America." Such terminology almost always provoked my Argentinian acquaintances. "We're all Americans," some would say gently, with a smile. In extreme cases I would receive a tirade denouncing U.S. arrogance.

Many Americans (of the U.S., that is) don't realize that Latin Americans also consider themselves Americans. They insist that America is a continent, not a country; thus, the moniker americano can be accurately used to describe anyone in any of the many countries of the Western Hemisphere, but is most often reserved by those we call "Latin Americans" for themselves. Furthermore, "As one Argentine friend explained, 'Someone from the U.S. calling him or herself "American" is equivalent to people from the U.S. traveling anywhere in the world and expecting everyone to speak English.' In other words, many link the practice to that negative U.S. tourist stereotype: rude, culturally unaware and self-centered."

So where does that leave us? Spanish-speakers are lucky in that they have a convenient word, estadounidense, to describe people from the U.S. When I was in Argentina, my host mom called me Marissa la norteamericana to distinguish me from her friend who shared my name -- this is also incredibly vague, but at least it can't be misinterpreted. Unfortunately, English has no such equivalent, although some culturally-aware people have experimented with "USian" on the Internet. A former coworker once told me that she regularly used that awkward term for "of the United States" in all her college papers, and that her professors accepted it as valid.

I think that, beyond the linguistic differences, the two meanings of "America" are rooted in the narratives and ideologies according to which the country and the region have defined themselves. In the U.S., the law of the land is exceptionalism; this is 'Murica, the greatest country in the world. At the same time, while national identities clearly exist in Latin America, the shared cultural, historical, and linguistic heritage of these countries seems to have fostered more of a sense of inclusion: we are all Americans, people of the New World. This may also explain why North and South America are one continent for Latin Americans. (And unfortunately this inclusion hasn't often been extended to indigenous peoples, but I digress)

I'm not sure what the solution is, or if there even is one other than asking people on both sides to be a little more open-minded. At the very least, people from the U.S. travelling abroad, especially to Latin America, should stop calling themselves "American." Spanish teachers should stop teaching americano as the correct translation of "American." And let's all please stop referring to the U.S. as "America," wherever we are.

But as for USian...I think it's a bit like trying to make "fetch" happen.

What does Latin America think of the UN Arms Trade Treaty?

On June 3, delegates from over 60 UN member nations lined up in New York to sign the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), the first major effort to create global standards to regulate the $85 billion international arms trade. The historic treaty, approved by the General Assembly in April, would prohibit the sale of arms to purchasers with poor human rights records, terrorist organizations, and those who would commit war crimes or acts of genocide with the weapons.

The final tally for approval was 154 countries in favor, 3 against, and 23 abstaining. The U.S. joined the majority to vote for the treaty, while North Korea, Syria, and Iran voted against. Notable abstentions included Russia, China, and India, as well as ALBA members Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Ecuador, who argued that the language in the treaty favors exporters and is “unbalanced.” Many abstainers worried that terms like “genocide” were poorly defined and could be manipulated to create political pressure in practice. Cuba has also criticized the treaty for its “legal loopholes,” “serious limitations,” and “ambiguities.”

Latin America has played a strong role in bringing the deal to fruition. In fact, it was former Costa Rica president and Nobel Peace Prize winner Oscar Arias who led the push to create the framework for such a treaty back in 1997. In a recent interview with BBC Mundo, Arias claimed that Latin America, which is “embarrassed” by a “large amount of homicides,” would benefit greatly from the newly approved treaty. He added that “as difficult as it would be to put it into practice, it’s better to have this instrument than not have it.”

In fact, according to Melanie Regimbal, director of the United Nations Office for Disarmament's Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean (UNLiREC), the region “has more arms in circulation than the majority of regions and has the highest levels of deaths by firearms.” According to a study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Latin American imports account for 11% of the international arms trade.

In 2006, Costa Rica and Argentina joined six other countries in sponsoring a General Assembly resolution proposing a treaty based on Arias’ framework. Costa Rica President Laura Chinchilla has urged her parliament to ratify the treaty, while Argentina has the distinction of being the first country to sign the treaty when it was opened to signatories.

Mexico and Brazil, the two largest arms exporters in the region, also strongly support the treaty. Mexican Subsecretary for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights Juan Manuel Gómez Robledo said that the treaty “redeems” the value of the UN.

Along with Costa Rica, Argentina, Mexico and Brazil, other Latin American countries that have signed on include El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Uruguay, Chile, Belize, and Panama. Colombia has not signed, despite having voted in favor and despite President Santos’ recognition of the need for greater international arms regulations.

A total of 72 countries have signed thus far. The treaty will go into effect 90 days after the 50th nation ratifies it, which could be “slightly over a year” from now, according to Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioga. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has said that the U.S. will sign the treaty once all official UN translations of the document are completed, although over 50 senators signaled their opposition in the past and the NRA has vowed to kill it when it reaches the Senate.

La Razón has an illuminating infographic of the global arms trade:

Inaugural Post

For some time now I've contemplated starting a blog on Latin American affairs. Now that I've finally got a bit of time on my hands, I'm gonna go ahead and launch it.

I've always been really interested in Latin America and all the whacked-out stuff that goes on there. My knowledge of the region primarily comes from several college courses, a semester spent studying in Buenos Aires, eight months spent interning at two Latin America-focused organizations in Washington, DC, and countless hours spent reading everything I can get my hands on. I'm still learning, and I'm hoping that this blog will help me in my quest to become a thoughtful, knowledgeable, well-rounded Latin Americanist.

I have yet to decide what direction this blog will take, but you can expect news and views from around the region, possibly with some humor thrown in. My goal is to dig up overlooked gems to add to the conversation, to get past the talking points and headlines.

For now, here, have a Calle 13 video, which pretty much sums up my answer to "Why Latin America?" better than any words could: