AMERICAN.COM

After winning nearly 70 percent of the 13 million votes cast in Colombia’s Sunday presidential run-off, ex-defense minister Juan Manuel Santos promised to deliver “national unity” and to expand access to “prosperity, health, quality education, and decent housing.” He also vowed to fight “corruption and impunity” and to smooth over the very tense relations between the executive branch and the judiciary. Santos’s election challenges Washington to define a coherent policy by delivering a promised free-trade agreement and continued security aid, both of which face an uncertain future in the Congress.

Santos’s strength matches the approval ratings of his chief backer, outgoing President Alvaro Uribe, whose get-tough strategy has gone a long way toward defeating the narco-guerrilla threat, taming criminality in Colombia’s major cities, imposing the rule of law in untamed rural areas, and restoring economic growth. “Colombians voted overwhelmingly today to support a government program that continues and builds on the progress of the Uribe administration,” Santos acknowledged in his victory speech.

It is significant that the United States has had no closer friend in South America in the last decade than Colombia under Uribe. With Santos’s victory ensuring continued anti-drug cooperation, Colombians will continue to press Washington for approval of a free-trade agreement and crucial security assistance to consolidate the gains of the bipartisan “Plan Colombia” security package, which was authored by a Republican Congress in cooperation with the Clinton administration a decade ago.

Santos soundly whipped Green Party candidate and former Bogota mayor Antanas Mockus, who held a small but apparently illusory lead in many polls in April. Critics of the iron-willed Uribe were delighted to see his favored candidate challenged by the free-spirited Mockus, but Colombians were apparently spooked when the successful mayor failed to show a command of persistent security issues, notably the threat posed by their belligerent neighbor, Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.

Experts commenting in Colombian newspapers, including the daily El Tiempo, opined that Santos should pay particular attention to broad-based economic development to overcome inequality that is caused by a lack of education, training, and healthcare. Another noted the challenge of ending the long war, which has decimated but not eliminated the guerrillas’ ranks. Still others said Santos should make Colombia a leader in regional integration—seeking to overcome the tensions with neighbors Venezuela and Ecuador.

Image by Petty Officer 1st Class Molly A. Burgess, U.S. Navy.

What will the American people say if it is discovered that their government pulled diplomatic strings to put a friend of drug traffickers back in power in Honduras?

Manuel Zelaya, who was deposed on Sunday for his willful violations of the Honduran Constitution, was never much of a friend of the United States, and rumors of his garden-variety corruption are nothing new. Nevertheless, President Obama issued a zealous statement in the Oval Office on Monday saying that Mr. Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, and he has put his administration on the side of reinstating Zelaya.

But wait. President Obama might want to ask our intelligence and law enforcement agencies what they know about Zelaya’s drug corruption, in light of public allegations that just surfaced.

On Tuesday (June 30), the Associated Press published an accusation by a current Honduran official that Mr.  Zelaya’s government “allowed tons of cocaine to be flown into the Central American country on its way to the United States.” Honduran Foreign Minister Enrique Ortez is quoted as saying, “Every night, three or four Venezuelan-registered planes land without the permission of appropriate authorities and bring thousands of pounds . . . and packages of money that are the fruit of drug trafficking . . . We have proof of all of this. Neighboring governments have it. The DEA has it.”

Although the administration’s left-wing supporters have suggested a reappraisal of the “war on drugs” in Latin America, I am fairly confident that President Obama would draw the line at actually putting the drug smugglers’ friend back in power in Honduras. Drug thugs are streaming southward to Central America, evading Mexico’s stepped up law enforcement efforts. The tiny states of Guatemala and Honduras do not have the security resources to resist the blood-thirsty cartels. Drug-related crime, murders, money laundering, and kidnapping are spiraling upward, and most observers are convinced that officials are vulnerable to threats and bribes.

U.S. officials and private citizens in these countries have intimated to me on many occasions that their governments are complicit in these illegal activities. The public accusations that emerged on Tuesday have a ring of truth to them. And no U.S. diplomat—or commander-in-chief for that matter—will want to be accused in the weeks ahead of turning a blind eye to allegations of drug corruption by Zelaya while they were busy putting him back where he can do some real damage to our security.

The accusations demand immediate scrutiny. Zelaya has been busy this week playing political martyr. But we need to know now how much of saint he ain’t.

President Obama ascended to office knowing little about Latin America. He’ll learn a thing or two from the current debate over Cuba’s readmission to the Organization of American States (OAS), under way now at the group’s annual assembly in Honduras. We’re about to learn whether his goal of “restoring American leadership” means merely running with the crowd.

The OAS is papered over with solemn pledges of upholding “representative democracy” and respecting human rights. Its Inter-American Democratic Charter, signed on the fateful day of September 11, 2001, imposes a clear definition of democracy as a condition of membership in the Inter-American System, including respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; access to and the free exercise of power in accordance with the rule of law; the holding of periodic, free, and fair elections based on secret balloting and universal suffrage; a pluralistic system of political parties and organizations; freedom of expression and of the press; etc.

One would think that a Stalinist dictatorship in Cuba would not pass muster. Think again. More than two dozen of the 34 OAS member states have reportedly signed on to a draft to lift Cuba’s suspension unconditionally.

The U.S. delegation is pleading with other nations to adhere to the principles of the charter, but most of our Latin and Caribbean neighbors are just fine with handing President Obama a bitter defeat in the interest of solidarity with Fidel Castro. In a few short months, the euphoria over President Obama ushering in a new era of engagement with the region seems to have disappeared—demonstrating the limits of charisma.

Sad to say, President Obama invited this showdown by signaling his “get along, go along” approach at the April summit where he sat silently as leftist pygmies excoriated the United States for all of the region’s ills. When the State Department announced the resumption of anodyne migration talks with Cuba in the midst of the OAS debate, Latin diplomats surmised, “if they can talk, so can we.” Our democratic friends in Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, etc. must have concluded from President Obama’s summit performance, “If he isn’t willing to stand up to Chavez to defend democracy and U.S. leadership, why should we?”

Most genuine democrats in the region will see Cuba’s readmission to the OAS as the last act of self-immolation by a club of “states” that is less and less relevant to the people of the region. Our president should never shrink from taking a principled stand on the side of the people. Now, that’s leadership.

House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue held a news conference Tuesday to announce their agreement on a single issue: unilateral concessions to the Castro regime will be good for Cubans. I like it better when these two guys are arguing.

As it happens, their prescription would be a disaster for the Cuban people. The good news is that President Obama says that he has pinned his Cuba policy on respect for human rights and political freedom and is looking for evidence of genuine change in Cuba before considering changes in U.S. sanctions.

Mr. Donohue’s coalition pushed for U.S. agriculture sales to Cuba in 2000, and last year U.S. farmers sold about $700 million in exports to Cuba. He argued at the press conference that U.S. business could make a lot more money trading with the bankrupt communist island and, at the same time, would help undermine the very regime doling out these lucrative deals. Mr. Donohue must know that the Cuban regime has required some farm groups to sign accords committing themselves to working against U.S. sanctions. Are these fervent agents of change going to work against the regime that is cutting them sweetheart deals?   The fact is, one of the best arguments against resuscitating the Castro regime is that the island’s economy is bound to recover mightily once Cubans are truly free, and American business can cash in without sacrificing our principles or the fate of 11 million Cubans.

The question today is not whether to keep the embargo on Cuba but how you go about lifting it. Shall we make unilateral concessions to an illegitimate, abusive, and hostile regime that is clinging to power or shall we save that leverage to use with a transition government that might give Cubans their country back? Anyone who gives a hoot for the Cuban people would have no problem answering that question correctly.

On Sunday, Panamanian voters gave maverick conservative Ricardo Martinelli a 61-to-37 percent win over the ruling party candidate, Balbina Herrera. While one might read this result as a judgment that the country is on the wrong course, it is more of a rejection of the legacy of jailed dictator Manuel Antonio Noriega, with whom Herrera was closely identified. In fact, although Martinelli pledged “real change” and a crack down on crime, he is likely to keep the country moving up a free-market, pro-growth path after he assumes office on June 1.

Panamanians have a knack for using elections to alternate power between the left-leaning Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD) of dictator Omar Torrijos and a cluster of conservative parties. For example, in 1998, despite the fact that Panamanians approved strongly of the performance of then PRD president Ernesto Perez Balladares, they soundly defeated a constitutional amendment to overturn the ban on presidential reelection. “We like him,” I recall a local telling me the day of the vote, “but we can’t allow a ‘civil dictatorship.’”

Voters subsequently elected opposition figure Mireya Moscoso, whose administration was marred with corruption and weak leadership. The PRD reclaimed the presidency in 2004, with the legendary Torrijos’s unassuming son, Martin, winning a plurality over a splintered opposition. Torrijos has governed these last five years as a centrist, pro-growth leader, and his administration’s policies have produced an impressive economic boom that is evident in the towering cranes that are transforming Panama City. When nearly 80 percent of voters voted 18 months ago to approve a $5.2 billion project to modernize the Panama Canal with a new set of locks to accommodate new vast freighters, the referendum was seen as a vote of confidence in the government. Torrijos used his popularity to win ratification of a free trade agreement with the United States, which is languishing in the U.S. Congress.

Just over a year later, the ruling party was divided by a bitter primary fight that led to Herrera’s victory amid cries of fraud. Allegations of corruption, a slowing economy (which had been galloping at 8 percent to 9 percent annual growth a few years ago), and Herrera’s historic ties to Noriega and to the meddling Venezuelan leftist Hugo Chavez resulted in a landslide for the outspoken Martinelli.

Panamanians should be proud at how they are using democratic elections and able management of the Canal (which one insightful U.S. diplomat told me they are “running as a business, rather than as a public utility”) to build a firm foundation for the future. The Obama administration can do more than issue a press release congratulating Panamanians on a clean election; it should also commit to getting the pending trade agreement through the Democratically-controlled U.S. Congress. Panamanians have earned that strategic partnership.