Latin America: US involvement a decade too late....

So, Bush wraps up a 5-day tour in Latin America, but brings back nothing with him.

This tour has come too late at a moment when US diplomacy is at its weakest in decades, even in recent weeks of renewed diplomatic talks with countries in the Middle East and China, and only thanks to Rice, who has been eargely making the rounds, in a move to clear up and wash out the Bush Administration's lack of foreign diplomatic overtures.

Latin America, with all its complexities and problems, seems to be hanging tough, as they have waited years to see trade agreements finalized, economic aid disembursed, and political commitments materialized. South America has for now found their guy in Venezuela's Chavez, who is more than willing to fill in the vacuum and which has plenty of cash and free advice to give.

This is exactly the danger and the frivolity of territorial politics, and the Bush Administration never seemed to capitalize on it. As Lebanon fell to Hizballah when Syria pulled out, everyone seemed too busy with the 'terrorists' and insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the US.

Now, it is too late for US deals and cheap talk; China has moved in to provide trade and aid and Chavez has continued to engulf South America and Central America with his populist rethoric. Today, Venuezuela's political and economic influence in the region is proportioned to Russia's oil supply to China's economy. China is always shopping for oil suppliers and has found a loyal one in Venezuela, which only helps to fuel Chavez's regional agenda.

I say this to Bush: go back to your drawing board and come up with a new set of economic and political policies that can efficiently compete with Chavez's own.

The Addiction to Oil: Hidden Consequences

After watching the movie Syriana for the second time (it takes two times to actually understand the plot) I was compelled to analyze how oil consumption and addiction has made nations weaker and vulnerable in many ways when it comes to stability and collective security.

The US consumes 25% of the world's oil production and many of the world's security conflicts stem from our self-confessed addiction to petroleum products. Let me break it down for you:

Just recently Cheney's critical speech of Russia's autocratic government was met with silent dismay (calls have been raised to suspend Russia's membership into the G8 because of its democratic crackdowns). Behind the lack of response? Oil and natural gas, and of course Russia has plenty to feed US demand and the world's.

The US, Europe and Asia need oil and natural gas and are willing to abandon western principles and independence to get them. This is called addiction. One possibility to the lack of consensus the US has tried to gather from the European Union and the UN Security Council to stop Iran from enriching uranium (accused of developing nuclear weapons) may have a deeper explanation: as the world's oil reserves diminish and ways to explore and extract it become more expensive, securing Middle Eastern oil and Russia's own production is at the heart of the debate. I still fathom the possibility that the Iraq war has been the linkage to securing a buffer zone to deal with extremist regimes in the Middle East that are sitting on the oil wells we westerners have an addiction to.

Another good example of how our addiction is in direct conflict with our democratic principles is our ambiguous relationship with Saudi Arabia, which supplied 15 of 19 Sept. 11 terrorists. Most of our oil comes from this country, yet as we continue to crackdown on terrorist and extremist Muslim nations worldwide that can produce attacks on US soil or allies, we seem to ignore the fact that this nation still teaches militant Islam in school textbooks, and has not produced democratic elections in decades.

We all know that the cost of oil will keep rising thanks to climate change, widespread authoritarianism (Venezuela and Iran) and nuclear proliferation. Developing countries will be hit the hardest as their bargaining power is almost non-effective and citizens end with most of the hidden costs.

We need not only to recognize that we have an addiction, but to seek practical alternatives to oil. There is much to learn from Brazil, which developed a cost-effective, alternative to oil. Three decades ago, Brazil made a shift in consumption and invested in sugar cane ethanol production. Today, Brazil has succeeded where other industrialized nations have failed: it has become energy independent. During his most memorable moment in this year’s State of the Union address, Pres. Bush finally recognized this country’s addiction to oil; now let’s act together to find the cure.

During his most memorable moment in this year’s State of the Union address, Pres. Bush finally recognized this country’s addiction to oil; now let’s act together to find the cure. Developing alternative energy sources is not economic suicide like many have advocated, instead it is a national security issue just as it’s a vital economic one. It would be advantageous for the US to assume a leading role in a cleaner and more sustainable world.