U.S. Border Patrol agent Celso Ramos (R) looks at surveillance camera video from cameras looking at the U.S. - Mexico border May 2, 2006. (Rick Wilking/Courtesy Reuters).
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a detailed report last week that criticizes attempts to patrol the Arizona-Mexico border using high-cost technologies.
The report comes ten months after the cancellation of SBInet, Boeing’s “virtual” fence project that started in November 2005 and eventually cost the United States over one billion dollars. While the project in theory required less manpower and provided 24/7 patrols of the border using surveillance towers and software platforms, in practice the results were dismal. Criticism of SBInet ranged from outright technological failures, to poor oversight, to few measurable success metrics.
Although the Department of Homeland Security ended SBInet’s expansion, the GAO report makes clear that the broader emphasis on such technologies has hardly waned. The flawed SBInet system will actually continue to operate along 53 miles of Arizona’s 387-mile border with Mexico, and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) estimates spending $36 million dollars to continue that project through 2012. The successor to SBInet, the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan, will be a mixture of different surveillance technologies and platforms, with funding requests totaling $427 million over the next two years. The GAO report indicates that the new systems also lack quantifiable metrics or thorough cost-benefit analyses; some of the same problems that plagued SBInet.
To many, “virtual” fence technologies seem like an answer to immigration issues along the U.S.-Mexico border. But, like other attempts to wall-off Mexico from U.S. border states, they simply haven’t worked.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently released a report penned by Carl Meacham titled “Latin American Governments Need to ‘Friend’ Social Media and Technology,” calling on U.S. policymakers to recognize and harness the growing power of social media in Latin America. Some of its most interesting findings include:
– Latin Americans are second only to North Americans in terms of social networking — for those that access the Internet, 8 in 10 use social media.
– While broadband access is limited but increasing (expected to surpass 30% by 2014) some 36% of Latin Americans Internet access of some form. And, 90 percent of Latin Americans have cell phones – so the potential to expand is large.
– Facebook claims 100 million Latin American users, led by Brazil, and then Mexico, Colombia, Argentina and Venezuela.
– Some governments – most notably Colombia – are investing millions to expand Internet use, seeing it as an important driver of economic growth.
Overall it is an interesting and fairly positive technological look at the region. While Latin America falls behind Asia in terms of access to the Internet, the region’s citizens are more socially connected – at least as measured by Facebook, Twitter, and the like. These connections have had and can have broader political and economic impacts than just catching up with family and friends. Social networking has already played big roles in Colombia, with a Facebook-led series of marches against the FARC in 2008 that spread throughout the country (and as far as New York and Chicago), and in Mexico, where twitter updates on drug violence give people vital information the local press and governments are no longer able or willing to provide. Some even see the arrival of social media to Latin America as a great democratizer – helping open up governments (like in the Arab Spring) and media monopolies.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Peru's new President Ollanta Humala is sworn in to office in Congress in Lima (Mariana Bazo/Courtesy Reuters).
As President Ollanta Humala assumes office today, it looks as if he has chosen to emulate Lula rather than Chávez. His cabinet is full of moderates, and some even see it as leaning center-right. While growth is expected to continue at about 6 percent, the new administration will face many challenges, in particular security and the increasing presence of transnational crime, as well as high levels of inequality.
This week the Obama administration released a new directive on combating transnational organized crime (TOC). Among its 56 “priority actions” are new and deepened efforts to stop the money laundering and flows supporting these crime networks. New tools include barring TOC members entry into the U.S., freezing assets and other financial sanctions. The document also expands the role of the Justice Department and FBI in investigating transnational crime more generally. Still, many of the nearly five dozen items seem little more than aspirations– such as the commitment to “stop the illicit flow from the United States of weapons.” But generally, this revamped strategy and more focused game plan is welcome.
Finally William Rempel’s new book, At the Devil’s Table, showcases the role one individual can play in the fight against drug cartels. This gripping read chronicles the life of Jorge Salcedo, a Colombian engineer that rose to be head of security for Miguel Rodriguez Orejuela, a godfather of the Cali cartel during its heyday. The tale tells the true story of Salcedo’s introduction to crime, his rise within one of the most powerful drug cartels in the world, and the actions he ultimately took to help bring it down. It shows the power of one courageous individual, but also the challenges of going it alone in the belly of the criminal underworld. While the Cali cartel is now gone, others have willingly taken its place, and Colombian coca and cocaine continue unimpeded.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Mexico's President Calderon and Secretary of Public Security Luna attend an award presentation to federal police in Mexico City (Daniel Aguilar/Courtesy Reuters).
Mexico’s recent state level elections informally hail the beginning of the presidential election season. The PRI triumph positions Enrique Peña Nieto, the outgoing State of Mexico governor, as the PRI’s candidate, and the one which everyone must beat.
As the politicking begins, so too does the legacy shaping. And here for the current administration no issue is more important than security. Perhaps the hallmark of the Calderón administration has been the creation of the Federal Police. Genaro Garcia Luna, the Secretary of Public Security (SSP) and head of this new force has just released a new book, Para Entender: El Nuevo Modelo de Seguridad to explain Mexico’s “New Security Model.” It is worth a read in order to understand what the government is officially trying to do – then one can judge how far it has progressed down that path.
Mexico’s new model comprises three essential parts. The first is technology – led by the much heralded Plataforma México, a comprehensive national crime database. Its goal is to make information easily accessible, searchable, and actionable for law enforcement across the nation. The second is people, working to make “Mexico’s finest” live up to the moniker. This involves creating a truly professional force through new ways of recruiting, vetting, training, and career planning. It has also meant changing the Constitution to give the federal police more powers than they previously had, including the ability to investigate crimes. The third arm is the prison system, seen more often as both a revolving door for powerful criminals and a training ground for those just starting out. The model envisions expanding and upgrading the current overcrowded and run-down facilities and professionalizing the staff.
The book gives a strong vision of the reasons, goals, and processes behind the administration’s police reforms, which they hope will truly transform Mexico’s security situation. This work now needs to be complemented by analyses of how much progress has been made so far in making this aspiration a reality. Some of the preliminary figures out there are promising: the number of federal police officers has risen from nearly 6,500 when Calderón took office to the current 35,000. More than 7,000 – or roughly 20% —are college educated, practically unheard of under previous national level forces.
But other numbers are more worrisome. The crime reports submitted (called Informes Policiales Homologados, or IPHs) to Plataforma México are uneven and overall sobering. Sources show that many municipalities and states submit less than one report a month. Plataforma México – no matter how sophisticated the technology — is only as good as its inputs. Recruitment too has been a problem, particularly the search for more skilled and educated, to the point of leaving positions unfilled.
Also left relatively untouched in Luna’s book is his agency’s relationship with the Attorney General’s office, the PGR. During the creation of this new model, the fights between the PGR and SSP were legendary, and undoubtedly some hard feelings remain. But for Mexico to reduce violence and crime, the links and cooperation between these two branches is vital. How evidence is collected and handed off, how federal police do, should, and will work with prosecutors remains unclear – even in the book’s visionary schematic.
Calderón’s legacy will depend on the security situation not just when he steps down at the end of 2012, but over the next generation. If the new Federal Police strengthens and the vision expands to include state and local forces; if the judicial reforms are implemented, transforming Mexico’s system of justice; and if these two law enforcement branches learn to work together, then it will look very good indeed. But these are still big ifs. The legislative battles and international agreements are perhaps the easiest part of Mexico’s institutional transformation. The hardest slog will be in the bureaucratic trenches, trying to change the on-the-ground ways of doing things. It is this challenge that the next President – and Mexico more generally– still faces.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
A resident rides a tricycle past the head of a bullet train outside an exhibition for the Seventh World Congress on High Speed Rail in Beijing (Jason Lee/Courtesy Reuters).
China’s recurring 10 percent annual average growth rate has won it predominantly accolades (and not a little envy); making it the global economic powerhouse it is today. But as Brazil nears these numbers – growing 7.5 percent in 2010 — it is the naysayers and doubters that have come to the fore. Even the government has labored to reassure investors and the public that it is working hard to “slow down” growth: Finance Minister Guido Mantega assured last week that “[Brazil] will grow moderately” due to proactive measures to raise interests rates and cut public spending.
Why the stark contrast?
One reason is the source of economic growth. China’s has been primarily investment led. From 2000-2008 China invested an average of 41 percent of GDP, a ratio more than double that of Brazil (and other countries such as the United States). In 2009, in the depths of the worldwide global downturn, investment soared to almost 50 percent of GDP, much dedicated to infrastructure. Thousands of factories, millions of miles of road, new ports, high speed railway lines, and airports have sprung up over the past decade. The country is now populated by entirely new cities and manufacturing centers that then drive growth.
Brazil, by comparison, invests less than 19 percent of GDP a year. Infrastructure is notoriously bad – which some economists estimate will curtail future growth by nearly 1 percent a year. Instead, consumption fuels Brazil’s recent rise. In 2009 a whopping 84 percent of GDP was consumption – compared to 17 percent in the United States and just 13 percent in China. Brazil now ranks at the top of the list of the world’s best shoppers led by booming credit, the expansion of foreign and domestic retailers, and the now 100 million strong middle class. The current over reliance on consumption leads economists and policymakers alike to worry about overheating.
Furthermore, China’s transformative growth has been mostly self-funded. It leads the world in internal domestic savings, which has risen steadily since the turn of the 21st century and in 2007 topped 54 percent of GDP, dwarfing the 23 percent average rate of OECD countries. Brazil’s internal savings rate, meanwhile, is only 15 percent, making it more reliant on foreign investment (both long term FDI and more worryingly shorter term portfolio or “hot money” flows) to fund needed investment. Even with these inflows, the savings available don’t approximate those China wields, limiting the potential pace of growth.
But another real and important reason for the discrepancy is that Brazil is already a much more developed economy. Brazil’s per capita income is more than double China’s – $8,230 vs. $3,650 in 2009. Its mortality rates, education rates and urban development rates all top China’s. The basic health improvements, spread of education, and urbanization behind much of China’s growth occurred in Brazil from 1967-1979, when it too grew at rates of almost 9 percent a year.
This current growth differential between China and Brazil isn’t a permanent status quo. China’s per capita income has now already risen, and much of the “easy” productivity gains are behind it. Some China observers point to the growing speculative real estate bubble, the rapid aging of its population, and a less than open government as further obstacles to sustainable high growth. Brazil, in turn, has many advantages – a sizable and diversified economy, low government debt and healthy banks. But going forward, for Brazil to grow quickly (and sustainably) it must increase its productivity (and not rely on just high commodity prices and consumption). This will depend on more investment, better education, and other structural reforms. If these changes happen, then the skeptics should fade, and a true second “Brazilian miracle” will be possible.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations
A shaman performs a ritual in front of a photograph of President Barack Obama in Lima (Mariana Bazo/Courtesy Reuters).
Between March 19 and 23, President Obama will take his first foreign trip this year – and his first ever to South America. He will kick it off in Brasilia and Rio de Janeiro, then head to Santiago, and finish up in San Salvador. The trip’s goal, as announced in his State of the Union address, is to “forge new alliances across the Americas.” Alongside the obvious meetings between presidents, in the works are business roundtables, a visit to one of Rio’s favelas, an Egyptian style speech to “all Latin Americans” in Santiago, and educational activities for his daughters, who, along with the First Lady, will accompany him.
Why these three nations?
Brazil is the obvious choice. It has grown into an economic and diplomatic powerhouse, weighing in on world issues from financial reform to climate change. Under Lula, it flexed its muscle at times to the discomfort of the United States – on nuclear proliferation and Middle East politics, U.S. bases in the region, and the Honduran standoff. With newly installed President Dilma Rousseff’s openness to deepening U.S.-Brazil ties, there are high hopes on both sides that the trip will open a new chapter in the relations between the two largest economies of the Americas.
On the table will be trade and investment, particularly on clean energy and Brazil’s infrastructure needs in the lead up to the World Cup and the Olympics games. Also up for discussion will be China and its currency, as companies in both countries struggle to compete with Chinese imports and investments.
The other two nations are less obvious stops. Important as nations with which the United States maintains strong friendly ties, they are also examples of pragmatic and progressive governments from across the ideological spectrum. Chile’s Sebastián Piñera is leading one of the region’s most prosperous and stable nations from the center-right– the first elected conservative leader since the end of the Pinochet dictatorship. Obama’s visit will put the finishing touches on a nuclear pact, and the two leaders will work on clean energy and intellectual property issues (in particular the steps to get Chile off the U.S. priority watch list for failing to protect IP rights). Both leaders are keen to discuss innovation and entrepreneurship – part of their domestic political platforms.
El Salvador’s Mauricio Funes rules from the other side of the spectrum. A reformed revolutionary, he is the United States’ strongest partner today in Central America. The presidents will focus on security– Funes presented a $900 million plan to Hillary Clinton last fall, which would quadruple U.S. commitments under the Merida Initiative to Central America – as well as issues of economic cooperation and poverty reduction. The future of the 2.5 million Salvadorans (roughly one of every four) living in the United States will also be on the table, as Funes hopes to replace the Temporary Protected Status under which most live with a path to permanent residency.
What is also interesting is who is not on the list. The President, First Lady, and family will not be stopping in Buenos Aires, Argentina; a decision said to upset President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Behind the scenes, many feel that the old aphorism once attributed to Brazil is perhaps now more applicable to Argentina, that it is “not a serious country.” Also not on the itinerary is Colombia, in part because Obama has no good news to bring his counterpart on the long-delayed free trade agreement.
Though timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the Alliance for Progress, nothing so grandiose will be in the works. Nevertheless, as the heads of state meet and talk about an array of issues, Obama has the opportunity to make a significant change. In addition to the usual bilateral and regional topics, it is important that Obama bring Latin America into his thinking about global challenges. This shift, though subtle, would be the start of a real transformation in U.S.-Latin America relations.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
I co-authored a CFR report on low-carbon technology innovation and diffusion in Brazil, China and India with my colleagues Michael Levi, Elizabeth Economy and Adam Segal.
The report can be accessed here.
The reports examines how innovation in low-carbon technologies occurs and how the resulting developments are diffused and adopted. It zeros in on a critical tension: the United States’ interests in encouraging the spread of technology to reduce emissions can clash with efforts to strengthen its own economy. This tension has traditionally been the province of debates over “technology transfer” and intellectual property rights; this study goes beyond those debates to look at the complete innovation system.
We begin by exploring each major emerging economy in four different dimensions. First, we examine how efforts to create and manufacture low-carbon technologies do and do not stimulate efforts to deploy those technologies at home. Second, we assess how government policies affect countries’ abilities to absorb technologies, looking at policies that create markets, invest in innovation, protect intellectual property rights (IPR), and affect trade and investment barriers. Third, we examine how the economic structure of each major emerging economy affects the country’s ability to respond to climate change through innovation and foreign technology absorption. Fourth, we examine each country’s ambitions for technology and product exports, which affect the degree to which U.S. commercial interests are helped or hindered by the spread of technology.
The report then assesses a range of policies and offers recommendations. These are aimed at boosting domestic investment in innovation, strengthening active government promotion of technology transfer and diffusion, and promoting an open international system conducive to the commercial spread of technology. Recommendations address IPR, trade and investment rules, government support for research, development and demonstration, standard setting, technology cooperation centers, and multilateral institutions, among other areas.
The study also includes detailed case studies of wind technology in all three countries, clean coal in China and India, electric vehicles in China, solar energy in India, and biofuels and deforestation in Brazil.
I co-authored an article on innovation in clean-energy technology in Foreign Affairs with my CFR colleagues Michael Levi, Elizabeth Economy and Adam Segal.
Even with extremely ambitious programs, no one country will produce the majority of the clean-energy innovation that the world needs. We examine innovation in Brazil, India and China, and argue that an open innovation system is essential to speeding up the development and diffusion of clean-energy technologies.
But even in an open system, energy technology tends to spread slowly, making openness alone insufficient. Different countries’ efforts need to be tightly connected so that they can build on one another. We believe that the U.S. government needs to lend a hand, actively helping spread advanced energy technology, something that developing countries have demanded for years. Specifically, we argue that the U.S. government must do more to promote cross-border innovation and protect intellectual property rights.
The article can be accessed here.
For those of you who may prefer to read in Spanish, my Foreign Affairs article on Mexico has been translated and appears in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs Latinoamerica, which you can find here.
On Sunday night I appeared on the Digital Age with James Zirin and discussed blogs, public policy toward Latin America, and U.S.-Latin America relations. You can see it here.
