From the BBC:

Speaking before the vote, Roger Naja, president of the National Commission for Andean, Amazonian and Afro-Peruvian Peoples, had urged Congress to vote to rescind the laws.

History, he said, would remember Friday as “the day that the disappearance of the indigenous communities in the jungles and mountains was avoided”.

Mr Pizango, leader of the Inter-Ethnic Association of the Peruvian Forest (Aidesep), hailed the repeal as “a moment of true democracy and true inclusion”.

“This is a new dawn for the people of this country, and for all Peruvians who wish to develop in freedom, not in oppression,” he said.

The laws were originally passed by decree of President Alan Garcia, a staunch ally of George W. Protests ensued, compelling the vote to rescind through tactics such as the taking hostage of two police officers, and the arrogation of an oil pipeline and a natural gas field.

Garcia took an alternate view of the event, saying history would mark it as the day, “when change came to a halt and hundreds of thousands of people were condemned to poverty, exclusion and marginalisation.”

Nice try, Garcia. The millions of acres already leased to multinational oil companies, and their despicable stewardship of them, belie your statement. And this breed of “exclusion and marginalisation” you speak of is fundamental to the preservation of the Amazonian tribes traditional way of life. As for the rest of the world, we should be happy to allow them the luxury of this “exclusion and marginalisation.” The more of the Amazon we can keep out of the talons of oil hawks, the better off we all are.

The Environmental Protection Agency shot down a plea from Texas to halve the biofuel quota in order to prevent severe economic hardship nationwide. With a near tripling of corn prices in the past three years, not only Texan livestock growers are hurting. All Americans are paying dearly for a mistake by Congress to force corn ethanol into fuel tanks. And the cost amounts to more than the expensive subsidies and tax breaks for the ethanol industry.

Nearly a third of Midwest corn goes into ethanol, raising prices for most grains and for food from Wheaties to chicken. In the first half of 2008, food prices were up 6.8 percent, with corn ethanol as a major culprit. And as stronger ethanol mandates kick in, consumers are expected to see even more food inflation – perhaps $1,200 more in 2009 compared with 2006.

With that battle won, the U.S. Renewable Fuels Association is focused on thwarting an alternate means of lowering food prices and reducing dependence on foreign oil; eliminating the 54 cent/gallon import tariff on Brazilian ethanol. From the Wall Street Journal:

According to Kansas State University grain market economist, Mike Woolverton, ethanol was responsible for 1.8 percentage points of the 4.3% increase in food prices nationwide. Ethanol makers in the U.S. are scared silly that high food prices will prompt Washington to either back off its mandates to blend ethanol with gasoline, or to cut the tariff on Brazilian ethanol in an attempt to lower gasoline prices, while also deflating pressure on corn and corn ethanol prices.

In Friday’s letter, RFA president Bob Dinneen argued that ethanol has played a central role in reducing oil imports and lowering gasoline prices. But that played right into Unica’s hands, because Unica’s argument is that if U.S. corn ethanol lowers gasoline prices, as Dinneen says, cheaper Brazilian ethanol would lower prices even more.

So, effectively, our government is propping up an inviable industry rather than bowing down to its ostensible master; the free market. If tariffs on Brazilian ethanol were cut, in conjunction with a reduction or elimination of subsidies for corn ethanol, the market would bring us a cheaper, greener means of reducing our dependence on foreign oil (US ethanol is $2.90/gallon, Brazilian ethanol is $1.40 without the 54 cent tariff). We would also increase the amount of corn destined for bellies and not gas tanks, thereby depressing food prices in both international and domestic markets.

The facts are so clear that even John McCain, the scarecrow in a suit propped up by no-hearted tin men, fully grasps it.

Make no bones about it, government subsidization of corn ethanol and the tax on Brazilian ethanol is good for corn growers alone. Every one else in the world suffers.

President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva told farmers that concerns about food prices and shortages around the world offered them an exceptional opportunity. “We have more Chinese people eating, we have more Indians eating, we have more Africans eating and we have a lot more Brazilians eating … Without any arrogance or self-importance, we Brazilians need to confront what for others is a crisis, as an extraordinary opportunity to truly transform ourselves into the granary of the world, as many people have long predicted” …

In fact, of the 350 million hectares of land available for agriculture across Brazil, analysts say only 70 to 80 million hectares are being used, and the potential for growth is enormous.

Though Brazil has been actively working towards this “quiet revolution” in food production for over a decade, there is one potentially insurmountable obstacle ahead: climate change. At a recent agribusiness conference in Sao Paolo, one presentation predicted the effects of global warming will cause a slump in Brazilian food production. The successes of Embrapas, however, the state-run agricultural and livestock research agency, suggest technology may be able to overcome some of the hazards it’s caused.

And what about that other agricultural superpower, the United States?

Well, as an ironic backhand to the poor countries that did little to contribute to climate change but will suffer most from its effects, our total production is expected to increase, with warmer weather transforming low-yielding or idle acres into profitable farmland.

But having the land to till isn’t akin to using it wisely. Right now, under the CRP (Conservation Reserve Project), the United States pays farmers to leave 37 million acres of land fallow. Under the CRP farmers sign 10 year contracts with the government, which pays them a fixed amount annually for each acre of land left idle. Farmers can only void the contract prior to its 10-year term if they pay back all previous funds, plus an additional penalty fee.

So what’s the problem?

With the government’s Renewable Fuels Mandate diverting so much corn from food to fuel production, corn prices are sky-high. Naturally, farmers involved in the CRP with land suitable for a corn crop are itching to get back on their tractors. The government’s pay-out simply can’t match the profits made in the corn market. If the penalties of voiding the contract weren’t so onerous, these farmers, reacting to the market, would increase overall production, which would in turn depress the price of corn in both domestic and international markets. This, in turn, would depress the cost of foods that rely on corn feed (cattle, poultry, pork).

But the 2008 farm bill did not address the issue of early-outs under the CRP, and stubbornly persisted in a Renewable Fuels Mandate centered around inviable corn ethanol.

Unlike the leadership taken by the Brazilian government, its US counterpart chose to ignore the global food crisis, placing political expediency over all else. It’s not surprising, but it’s galling nonetheless.

By 2020, the study says, the value of six of Brazil’s food crops – rice, coffee, beans, manioc, maize and soya – could fall by between 6.5bn reals ($4bn, €2.7bn, £2bn) and 7.1bn reals if average temperatures rose by between 1ºC and 2ºC…

The study, based on climate change models from the UK Met Office’s Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research, predicts the biggest drop in production for soya; suitable land will drop 21% in the best-case scenario, 24% in the worst. Of course this land will still be arable, with the sugar cane, which thrives in high temperatures, slated for the most dramatic increases.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts similar changes for traditional crops in the United States. The sum effect predicted, however, is an overall increase in total crop yield. And maybe that’s the reason the US is lagging so far behind in agricultural research and development. Brazil, fast becoming the world leader in the field, is head and shoulders above the rest.

Embrapa, the government-run agricultural and livestock research agency, is spearheading the movement. Its successes are manifold. From the NYT:

Embrapa is a model, not just for the so-called developing world, but for all countries,” said Mark Cackler, manager and acting director of the Agricultural and Rural Development Department of the World Bank. “A key reason that Brazil has done so well with its agricultural economy is that it has invested heavily and intelligently in front-end agricultural research, and Embrapa has been at the forefront of that effort.”

The conversion of 1,000 miles of formerly un-usable savannah into Brazil’s grain belt, the development of more than 40 tropical varieties of soybeans, the extraction of bio-polymers from spiders, and the development of a lower-fat, lower-cholesterol tropical hog; the research of Embrapa will not only help Brazil to cope with the coming effects of climate change, it will help the entire world. Brazil, in this respect, represents exactly the sort of leadership we need from our rising global superpowers.

The fund will promote alternatives to forest-clearing for people living in the Amazon, and support conservation and sustainable development. Officials will seek donations abroad and aim to raise $21bn (£11bn) by 2021.

Those who keep a bead on these things no doubt recall a similar initiative announced in 2007 by Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa.

The government of Ecuador will wait up to one year to see if the international community offers to compensate the country for not developing a major oil field in the heart of the Ecuadorian Amazon, Energy Minister Alberto Acosta says. The area of lush, primary rainforest shelters a unique diversity of animals and plants.

Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa and his government say that if the international community can compensate the country with half of the forecasted lost revenues, Ecuador will leave the oil in Yasuni National Park undisturbed to protect the park’s biodiversity and indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation.

“The first option is to leave that oil in the ground, but the international community would have to compensate us for immense sacrifice that a poor country like Ecuador would have to make,” said Correa in a recent radio address.

The germane question at the time, as posed by Seminal writer Hannah McCrea: “Will the industrialized powers put their (abundant) money where their mouth is on climate change and biodiversity protection, and actually buy back the environment they helped degrade?”

The answer: No, not really.

More than one year later, Spain and Germany are the only governments on board, with contributions of 4 billion Euros and an undisclosed amount, respectively.

There’s reason to believe Brazil will fair better; Correa’s tightness with Venezuela’s Chavez mars his standing in the international community, while Brazil’s prominent, and growing, role in the global economy makes for fast friends. More importantly, Brazil has taken the conciliatory tack, with Lula saying “it’s better for our country’s image to do things right, so we can walk in international forums with our heads high.” In his framing, he presents Brazil as a country intent on keeping its sovereignty, doing the responsible thing, but one that is not threatened by leaning on its international friends in the process. Correa chose a more confrontational approach which, while perhaps justified, is not the most efficacious route.

Regardless of the success or failure of the fund-raiser, this is a big step in the protection of the Amazon. It marks the first time the Brazilian government has acknowledged the link between forest preservation and climate change.

“We are committed to reducing the destruction of the rainforest, to eliminating illegal burning and to guaranteeing a better quality of life for all,” said Brazilian Environment Minister Carlos Minc. “Our war is not won by simply reducing illegal burning in one month, it will be won once this environmental model that is destroying our communities and biodiversity is history.”

As they say in Brazil, amém, Senhor Minc.

Once the agreement is reached it will be the latest notch in the belt for Chavez’ Bolivarian Revolution; the electricity and gas industries are already nationalized, and plans to nationalize the cement and telecommunications industries are currently being implemented.

Did you know? The United States of America twice had a nationalized bank, the Bank of the United States. The first was proposed by Alexander Hamilton, the second was founded by James Madison after the government realized it was unable to finance the country after the war of 1812. Andrew Jackson shut it down in the sort of hotly contested affair typical of his presidency.

From the L.A. Times:

Activist priest Gerard Jean-Juste has been seen leading protesters in the seething slums of the capital, stirring concern that political agitators have been taking advantage of the food crisis to undermine Preval’s efforts to stabilize the country and defuse gang violence.

So what does Louis offer that Ericq Pierre and Robert Manuel, the rejected nominations, did not? It’s not entirely clear at the moment, though she does carry less baggage than Manuel, a former top security official heavily involved in the crackdown on supporters of former president Jean-Bertrande Aristide (whom he armed and incited to violence during his time in office).

More clear are the expectations of Louis: court international investment, increase national food production, lower the cost of living, crackdown on the kidnapping that plagues the captial Port-au-Prince, etc. Unfortunately, the to-do list in Haiti, the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, is a lengthy one.

Godspeed Prime Minister Louis.

The men were demanding 14 years of back pay and the reinstatement of the armed forces, which were disbanded in 1995 by ex-president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The soldiers say the move was illegal and they continue to demand back pay.

After the army’s dissolution — sweet revenge for Aristide, who was overthrown in a military coup 1991 — a 9,000 member UN peacekeeping mission became the only security presence in Haiti.

As the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, and an island nation heavily dependent upon imports, the boom in commodity prices is pushing desperate Haitian men and women to embrace more and more desperate measures. The food riots of last April, which began in the slum of Les Cayes and lead to Prime Minister Jacques Edouard Alexis’ ouster, is one example. This latest standoff is yet another.

The US government has responded to Haiti’s troubles modestly, offering a small chunk of cash ($170 million in USAID, $60 million less than we’re giving Pakistan to upgrade its aging F-16 fighters), but balking at further measures. Most notably, the Bush administration refused to revisit the issue of Temporary Protective Status for Haitians.

If TPS were granted, the government would immediately suspend all deportations to Haiti, thereby refusing to throw men, women and children back into our hemisphere’s worst conditions. It would also boost the economy of Haiti, ensuring that remittances to the island continue. Experts agree that remittances from citizens living abroad will play a key role in stabilizing life in Haiti. Currently, citizens of Burundi, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Liberia, Somalia and Sudan all enjoy TPS.

Though it seems callous, a strong case can be made for not granting TPS. Requests for Protective Status for Haitians is nothing new, and, if it were granted, the circumstances in Haiti are so dire that justifying its repeal would be a tricky business. “Temporary” status would risk becoming a de facto “permanent” status in this particular case.

Clearly, a lot has changed since the primaries, when Obama pledged unconditional talks with enemy nations. Gone is the optimism of the time, exemplified by Chavez’ comment that “we are hopeful, and it is within our plans to enter an era of better relations with the US government.” Now, both sides are reverting to hostility.

Though he still says “direct diplomacy” is essential, Obama is speaking out against Chavez the enemy, calling him a “destructive force in the region.” He’s even suggesting sanctions against Venezuela.

Considering that such a suggestion is likely to obstruct its coincident call for direct diplomacy, it’s not unlikely that Obama is including the latter simply to avoid charges of flip-floppery. Nonetheless, Chavez’ admonition– “let’s not kid ourselves, it’s the empire and the empire must fall. That’s the only solution–that it comes to an end” — makes it impossible for a US presidential candidate to label him anything other than “a destructive force.”

Chavez’ endorsement should be viewed as a rhetorical act crafted for effect and not sincerity. Any hope for mended relations relies on the election of Obama, not the war horse McCain. If Chavez truly wants to sidle up to the United States, he knows which mount to choose. If he wants to keep the United States at a hostile arm’s length, and keep a foil in the White House, the choice is equally clear.

The previous legal BAC was up to .06%, but the law was often bypassed via the Jeitinho Brasileiro, which might go like this—after a few caipirinhas or beers after work you are on your way home and get pulled over for messy driving; the officer gets you out of the car, finds out you are drunk, and then you both begin to talk. After chatting long enough to find some common ground, apologies become profuse and maybe a few of your Reals end up in a pocket on the officer’s uniform. In any case you are headed home thanks to the Jeitinho Brasileiro.

No longer! At least in the first month, the police appear to be out in force, forming checkpoints at different intersections around Brazil. Some interesting things have happened as people attempt to adjust to the law: a judge in Salvador, Bahia, was fined but not imprisoned after being caught with a .068% BAC, gas stations are reporting a 50% loss in alcohol sales (that speaks volumes), and the Brazilian Association of Bars and Restaurants has reported losses of 25% and has gone to the Supreme court claiming that the law is unconstitutional. The media reports certainly give the idea that the traffic stops are anywhere and everywhere—there was even a TV shot in a rural town in the Northeast where an enterprising man takes drinkers home for one Real–maneuvering through livestock and mud puddles with his wheelbarrow.

However, for this law to be effective in the long run, two problems will have to be solved—police corruption and inhumane prison conditions. Many Brazilian citizens see this as a tool of extortion for a corrupt police force. Instead of enforcing the law, the Jeitinho Brasileiro may just become more expensive. Another thing that will encourage the police to illegally freelance under the guise of the dry law, is that Brazil has jails in which people often take turns standing at night as there isn’t room in the cell for everyone to lie down at the same time. This law has more teeth than a shark, but it seems impossible to enforce and destined to increase corruption.

**Jeremy Tanner is a freelance journalist and an M.A. candidate in New York University’s Global and Joint Studies program, currently doing a FLAS fellowship in Brazil. His distractions from writing about Latin America include surfing, traveling, learning new languages, eating foods he shouldn’t, and dancing an erratic salsa.