The challenges of Open Government Partnership in Latin America

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Open Government Partnership (OGP) “owes” its origins to a case called Claude vs Chile was the first time a government was induced to release information backed by article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights that guaranteed the right to such information, setting the first precedent in the Inter-American court of a litigation for access of state-owned information. Other similar cases around the globe have set up the foundations of a new era in the access of information with inspiring experiences.


In Latin America there are countries still reluctant to join the group, but OGP seems to have learned how to navigate the turbulence of Latin American politics.

The United States and Brazil co-hosted the first Open Government Partnership (OGP) conference in Brasilia, Brazil; a strategic location pick given it’s a role model in the region.

Brazil has a well-founded reputation as a leader among its fellow Latin American states. Their growing and stable economy has placed them as the seventh biggest economy, pushing past the U.K., France and Italy. Most of the international news coverage from LATAM is focused on Brazil and usually comes with a praising tone. Brazil is confident [and wealthy] enough to ask for a permanent chair in international organizations like the UN Security Council or the G8, affirming its world-player status, unknown to any other Latin American nation. It has become almost common sense for LATAM countries to follow Brazil wherever it goes, and that includes the OGP.

Why is the Brazilian role model necessary in Latin America?

Latin American culture is as vast as its territory. The variety of religions, ethnicities, traditions and political views differs from region to region, from neighborhood to neighborhood. Yet, in such a multicultural population there is one common feeling: a distrust of the United States. This is an intrinsic mind-set for any Latin American who grows up hearing about events such as the “Dirty War,” “Operation Condor,” the Cuban embargo, “Plan Colombia,” and other infamous military-economic methods aimed at Latin American countries.

Decades after these covert operations were over, and left a lasting impression on Latin American citizens and governments, the United States spearheaded a worldwide war against terrorism that enlarged its military reach throughout the globe. Even though Latin America was the least militarized region after Antarctica, the few bases placed in its territory brought back memories of the times of dictatorships and linkages with the US. Throughout LATAM OPG is mistakenly labeled as a made-in-USA organization, and Brazil will play a key role in rebranding the initiative.


Peer pressure

“If you see people in neighboring countries with all those rights and tools that improve their poor quality of life, you’re going to ask for them to your government” says Karina Banfi, who is chairman of Regional Alliance, a South American NGOs’ network integrated to OGP.


When asked about countries like Venezuela or Argentina that are still reluctant to join OGP or don’t fulfill the requirements she says “Access to information is a human right." she says It is easy to see the politic cost of denying it. Nowadays, we are more attentive of what goes on in our continent, and events like this [conference] make a great deal on spreading the word in the region they are hosted.”

In the inaugural meeting of the OGP in Brasilia, Hillary Clinton said "In the 21st century, the US is convinced that one of the most significant divisions between nations will be not between east or west, nor over religion, so much as between open and closed societies." Her words ricocheted in the media worldwide.

"We believe those governments that hide from public view and dismiss ideas of openness and the aspirations of their people for greater freedom will find it increasingly difficult to create a secure society," Clinton closed, offering a clear vision of which countries will excel in the future.
 
The peer pressure strategy is likely to work in LATAM where a democracy is the accepted government structure and the democratic values emanating from OPG, but that tactic seems unlikely to be encouraged by societies where democracy is an unfamiliar paradigm instead of inherited idiosyncrasy (like the case of Egypt, Iran, Libya or China.)
“So far, so good” says Banfi who is very positive about the further success of the new organization in LATAM, but clarifies that “Latin America takes an extra quota of patience and political tact.” 

What do Kelpers, English and Argentinians want from Malvinas?

The potential oilfield under the Malvinas (called Falklands in England) islands, if found, would turn their sheep-ocracy into a tiny oil nation, making many islanders rich and tripling the British tight reserves.  Regardless there are still people questioning the viability of defending the island infrastructure, which with only 1,300 people already costs $100 million dollars a year. 


Part of the reasons the Kelpers (islanders) want to keep their Englishman status are England’s $93 million grants, tuition for their students and taxes from every natural resource taken from the 3000 inhabitants island. The Latin American agreement forbidding any ship with the Falklands flag to sell or buy any goods from Latin Americans ports makes the islanders more dependent on England and Europe and turns Malvinas into a costly colonial territory.


The Kelpers are the great-great-great grandchildren of a policy that sent slaves, prisoners and volunteers to populate the remote places conquered by the British Empire.  It was the cheap alternative to a costly British Army base and a way to keep the territories through time. Hundreds of thousands of Brits living in Kenya, Rhodesia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Cyprus and every other British colony had to accept their independence or return to England.

In Las Malvinas those pushing to maintain the status-quo argue they must keep the islands in honor of the 233 English soldiers that lost their lives on the islands in their quest to retake them from Argentina – a weak argument considering that in Mau Mau, Malay and Cyprus English blood was also spilled. There is no self-determination to discuss and the war in 1982 was a reminder of where the Kelpers are from. Today, the debate in both Argentina and Britain is tainted by nationalist pride and resentment that makes no sense and no good.

Argentinian Blindness or “Viveza Criolla”(Native Cunning)

The most intolerant Argentinean opponent of its country approach towards Malvinas is Jorge Lanata. He says, "Argentina's policy towards the Malvinas is insane, erratic, senseless, blocking the ports is more of the same madness.” Lanata argues "Argentina needs to integrate the islands, Malvinas is not part of Argentina; it is part of our imagination. We're so blinded by years of rhetoric that we can't see reality."
He believes that “the revival of sovereignty claim comes at the same time when the government is putting austerity measures in place and it is being used as a smokescreen.” It is the first time a Peronista (Argentina’s most popular party) has to do it and “they don’t know how to do it” he says.

On the surface of the debate, Argentinians and English politicians keep talking about sovereignty, at the same time the British-owned Rockhopper Petroleum says it has found a site with 350 million barrels of petroleum.

Sovereignty is only a part of the discussion, and a part that will not be resolved any time soon.  There is a chance for an economic agreement, however, the all or nothing rhetoric of both countries leaves little room for a fruitful outcome and seems out of tune with reality. A bill to block all the English companies in the South American country is gaining popularity but English lobbyists are doing a good job keeping the measure from taking place. Before everyone’s eyes, Argentina has the chance to grab the quill and write down the terms of an agreement, but the priorities in the southern country are set to keep the Peronist machine rolling.

Links
Foreign Affairs
Los Angeles Times
Los Angeles Times

Roberto Briceño-León analiza la violencia en Venezuela

La controvertida foto de la morgue de Bello Monte publicada por diario El Nacional dejo a la vista las consecuencias de la inseguridad en Caracas. A pesar que las estadísticas muestran una siciedad diezmada por el delito, una suerte de miopía le impide al gobierno dar crédito de ellas, aunque deriven de sus propios estudios.
Roberto Briceño León, sociólogo y director del Observatorio Venezolano de Violencia habló con SCYCT para darnos una visión profesional y de primera mano.

Cual es la actitud del Gobierno ante las constantes denuncias por inseguridad?

La actitud del gobierno pareciera ser minimizadora. El día de ayer el Presidente dijo que era mentira que diez anos atrás había menos violencia, pero las cifras que salen de su propio gobierno dicen lo contrario entonces uno no termina de entender la posición del estado ante esta problemática. Sigue tirándole la culpa a los gobiernos anteriores aunque el este hace 10 anos.

Usted cree que esta minimización que se hace desde el gobierno ejerce influencia sobre el grueso de la comunidad venezolana?

Solo en un grupo muy pequeño. Por la sencilla razón de que es la gente la que esta en las calles todos los días.

Y que actitud tiene la fuerza policial en las calles frente al crimen?

La policía ha sido desmoralizada. La mayoría de los agentes tienen un sueldo apenas sobre el salario mínimo, no tienen seguridad social, si son heridos en el ejercicio de sus funciones su seguro no les cubre. En los últimos años la policía de Caracas, Táchira y Miranda entre otras han sido desarmadas, entonces cuando uno los entrevista dicen "pero si es que los delincuentes están mas armados que nosotros, además cuando los llevamos a tribunales al dia siguiente los sueltan y quienes tenemos un nuevo enemigo somos nosotros". Esta es la respuesta que tiene la policía en el país que siente que su actuación no tiene ninguna relevancia y esto tiene consecuencias dramáticas. Por ejemplo, 10 anos atrás cada 100 asesinatos se arrestaban 111 personas, hoy de 100 asesinatos solo 9 personas son arrestadas y probablemente la mayoría queden libres al otro día.

Por que el 64% de la población aprueba los linchamientos?

La población se siente desprotegida, sienten que no hay justicia. Sienten que no hay un estado, ni una policía que los haga sentir a salvo. Además con la experiencia se han dado cuenta que cuando un delincuente es aprendido o denunciado no va a ser encarcelado y saldrá al otro día. Esto hace que se sientan en constante amenaza lo que ha llevado a los linchamientos de alguien que ha sido un asesino o un sádico. Y cuando uno le pregunta por que lo han hecho la respuesta mas común es que "porque lo iban a dejar suelto y podría venir por nosotros". Lo que demuestra el miedo de la población y por otro lado el descuido de las autoridades y su incapacidad de brindar protección e impartir justicia.

Que factores llevaron a la realidad que hoy vive Venezuela?

El pueblo venezolano esta enfrentando una crisis de la institucionalidad y la quiebra del estado, todo gestado desde el mismo gobierno. El gobierno cree que la pobreza y el capitalismo son los orígenes del delito y de la violencia, por lo tanto lo único que propone son políticas sociales. Al mismo tiempo el gobierno dice que ellos han disminuido la pobreza. Entonces la lógica diría que si la pobreza es el origen del delito y si ellos han disminuido la pobreza debería haber menos homicidios y esto no es así. En 1998 tuvimos 4.550 homicidios y en el ano 2009 según los datos derivados de un organismo oficial tuvimos 19.000 homicidios. Si la pobreza ha bajado no tendrían por que haber aumentado cuatro veces los asesinatos. Entonces la explicación es nuestra crisis institucional.