Two questions kept running through my mind as I spoke to Gaby. One is: Why would we not want these motivated young people in our society? The other question is: Why should we limit young people who have persevered despite the odds being stacked against them?

As I have explained previously, DREAM Act students are undocumented individuals, who were brought to this country as children. They didn’t have any choice in the matter, but their parents were seeking a better future. Some may have been legal at one point and their status lapsed, and others may have entered the country illegally. However, children traveling with their parents are rarely ever in the driver’s seat. They travel with their caregivers, similar to how other youngsters have been traveling throughout time.

Gaby Pacheco has completed three degrees at Miami Dade College. She holds two associates degrees and a bachelor’s degree in education. She told me that if the DREAM Act became law tomorrow that she would apply for her master’s or another graduate program that would allow her to continue on to earn a Ph.D. so that she could practice music therapy. More specifically, Gaby wants to work with autistic children to teach them how to survive and be productive in the world. In expressing her dream, Gaby told me, “I want to teach them how to live. When I was in 12th grade, I saw a lot of kids in group homes who didn’t need to be there.”

It’s obvious that Gaby has the motivation and existing education to achieve a graduate degree, but her undocumented status is holding her back. In trying to figure out why the US would not want a motivated young person like Gaby fully contributing to our country, I did a little research on special education teachers with some data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment for special education teachers is expected to increase faster than average for all occupations because there is a shortage of people who specialize in working with youth who are disabled. Gaby could most certainly work with special needs children, but she could also train others to work with this population as well if she had her graduate degree(s).

Sadly, I know young people who have the benefits of legalized status who don’t even have half the motivation or ambition that Gaby and her fellow DREAM walkers have. Despite not being able to work legally, to pursue advanced studies, qualify for financial aid, or even live without having to worry about other family members and their immigration status, many of these students have achieved more and shown more motivation than some of their documented peers. It doesn’t make sense to further limit these student by not regularizing them into our society, and it really isn’t realistic to assume that they would fit in back in their countries of origin. This country has become their home.

I asked Gaby what President Obama and his administration could do right now to help alleviate the situation for the DREAM Act students, and she gave me two suggestions. She said, “He could encourage the congress to pass the DREAM Act, which he indicated that he supported back in the primary debates between him and Hillary Clinton. And he can stop the deportation of DREAMers or undocumented people who have a legal spouse or child.”

Some immigration rights advocates have pushed for comprehensive immigration reform, similar to the bill in the Congress that has been introduced by Representative Gutierrez (this does include the DREAM Act). Furthermore, some have suggested that the approach to immigration reform must be a whole one and not piecemeal since coalitions that support various parts of it could be broken or rendered less effective in parts. However, sometimes policies are implemented incrementally. I think that the DREAM Act could be the first piece in a larger comprehensive immigration reform if we don’t see more movement from congress before the summer.

When asked what she thought about the whole comprehensive approach versus implementing immigration reform in pieces where the DREAM Act might be passed before other elements of the existing proposal, Gaby offered this, “My parents came for us (their children). I think they would be fine with that. The dream of this country is to better yourself and that has typically been done through the children.”

When I asked Gaby about elected politicians who have expressed support for their walk and work to advocate on behalf of the DREAM Act, I was told that Rep. Mario Diaz Balart has personally congratulated her for her effort. Regarding the candidates for Florida’s hotly contested senate seat, Gaby also expressed that Governor Charlie Crist has been supportive of the DREAM Act students, as has Representative Kendrick Meek, while Marco Rubio has not indicated support for the DREAM Act or commented about the students on this walk. Congressman Alcee Hastings also issued a written proclamation in support of the DREAM Walkers while indicating that he is a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act when they commenced on their long journey in Palm Beach, Florida. The local support expressed for these students has truly been bipartisan.

Finally, if you believe in the DREAM Act and realize the benefit that our country could benefit from such diligent and motivated young people, I encourage you to assist the Trail of DREAMS walkers. Gaby expressed to me that they are most in need of money for food to keep them nourished and healthy, in addition to gas money for the RV that follows the walkers with their supplies.

There are a few items that I will be blogging about this week, but in the never ending search for new material, I came across this piece regarding Latinos and the “tea party movement.” Essentially, Latinos have become the perfect scapegoats for the Tea Partiers. Here’s the latest video from the Facebook group “Cuentame” exposing some of the hate being spread around at these tea parties:

In California politics, Mayor Villaraigosa’s cousin, John Perez was sworn in as the new Speaker of the Assembly. Perez is the first openly gay speaker to serve in this role. Today he expressed that his sexuality does not define him, but he gave a nod in acknowledging gay political leaders who came before him. Perez also distinguished himself from his cousin, Mayor Villaraigosa, when asked about the possibility of following his older cousin’s career path:

“It’s not my goal in life,” Perez said in a recent interview with the Times. “You never rule anything out but it’s as close to a rule-out as you can possible do. I love my cousin. We’re very different people in many ways. Just because he did it doesn’t mean I want to do it.”

You can read Speaker Perez’s swearing-in speech here. I particularly liked the part about public-private partnerships in the community colleges and his expressed commitment to fight for higher education in California.

In regards to the recent earthquake in Chile, I have come across some interesting pieces about why Chile is poised to recover more quickly from this disaster than Haiti was. Most notably, Chile has more modern building codes, but its economy is considered one of the “best run” in all of Latin America. Also, this week, Secretary Clinton will be hand delivering the first American assistance to Chile in the form of satellite phones.

Secretary Clinton is even utilizing GWB rhetoric about not intending to “cut and run” from Afghanistan. Frankly, I’m disappointed in both Obama and Clinton for beating the war drums like this. This isn’t the change I voted for, but I also realize the grip that the military industrial complex has on both parties. The US has been geared for war since WWII, and unfortunately, despite peace movements, we haven’t been able to move away from this reality.

Finally, if you are unsure about the situation in Afghanistan, then I would urge you to not support it. There is no point in supporting something that you don’t wholeheartedly believe in, especially when lives are on the line. The people at Brave New Films have some great resources that are worth examining. Please check them out, and let us know what you think:

In the meantime, the de facto leaders of Honduras have waged a war at home against any opposition to its rule and one abroad with a successful public relations effort, led by Lanny Davis, a Clinton supporter in 2008 and pro-Israeli spinmeister. Lanny Davis has ties to the pro-Isreali lobby, is the treasurer of a pro-Lieberman PAC, and has even referred to himself as a “good friend” of George W. Bush. With credentials like these, it is no wonder that the current government in Honduras tapped Davis to run its PR effort. He is firmly planted in the neocon political establishment, and in doing so, he made it more plausible to connect Zelaya to South American, socialist boogeyman Chavez, even though evidence from the Millennium Challenge Scorecard, utilizing data from the World Bank, UNESCO and Heritage Foundation, shows that the country had relatively high scores for economic freedom. And if the connection of Zelaya to Chavez wasn’t enough to earn the minds of people on the fence in supporting the coup, Davis could also connect Zelaya to Ahmadinejad in Iran, citing Chavez’s support of the Iranian President in his own election woes this spring, which fits nicely with his pro-Israeli portfolio.

Back in Honduras, there have been mass arrests, illegal detentions, violations of women’s rights and the blocking of media that is not favorable to the de facto government. Groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented these abuses, which have yet to be investigated or prosecuted by the Honduran attorney general’s office. Furthermore, many candidates who are running for public office, including one presidential candidate, have removed their names from the ballots for tomorrow in protest against the existing government, likely producing lopsided results. And the current state is coercing workers into participating in the election by informing them that they must show documentation indicating that they have voted or else they may lose their jobs. So far only Panama, Costa Rica, and Peru have indicated that they will recognize the election results, along with the US, as signaled by State Department official Thomas Shannon earlier this month.

The US should reconsider recognizing tomorrow’s elections in Honduras not only because of the widespread abuses of the existing government but to show that things can be different in the region – that there can be full participation in elections by all factions, not just the elite or the usual suspects. Additionally, Secretary Clinton should pay closer attention to the situation and not merely assume that her pal Lanny Davis has it under control. Lanny Davis has credibility issues and is too tied to business interests and neocon factions. If the current government truly represents democracy, it would not abuse those who disagree with it and would allow freedom of the press. Last month a US polling firm surveyed Hondurans and found that 54 percent of the respondents favored a constitutional assembly to resolve the current crisis. This is what ousted President Zelaya was calling for: a constitutional assembly. The US could support dialogue that would lead to a constitutional assembly and not recognize the new government until they restore civil liberties and human rights, while promoting more transparency. Doing so could help restore the credibility and faith that many hoped would accompany the Obama administration, instead of the business as usual approach that the US has taken for decades, contributing to the distrust and skepticism that our neighbors have of US intentions. We wouldn’t tolerate elections under these oppressive conditions, why should we expect the Hondurans to do so?

Several prominent members of the de facto government in Honduras are members of the elitist, ultra-conservative Catholic Opus Dei movement, who were upset that ousted President Zelaya vetoed the ban the “morning-after” pill, which is essentially high dose birth control not to be confused with the Mifepristone “abortion pill.” The legislation was passed by the Honduran Congress under the leadership of now de facto executive Roberto Micheletti and was proposed by then Congresswoman Martha Lorena Alvarado, who today serves as the Deputy Secretary of State of the de facto regime. One day after the coup on June 29, a ban on emergency contraception was enacted, which just went into effect this month.

Honduras has the highest adolescent birthrate in Central America, and one half of women 20-24 give birth by the age of 20. Moreover, some 70% of the population lives in poverty and 40% of those live in extreme poverty. Early motherhood has been linked to extended poverty, higher infant mortality, and often perpetuates a lower standard of living as mothers have difficulty resuming school and focusing on occupational advancement. The availability of birth control and the morning after pill would help prevent unwanted pregnancies and allow Honduran women the opportunity to gain more education to better position themselves to provide for their families.

The new coup government has a documented history of violence against women. In August, an international human rights fact-finding mission found that over 400 cases of violations of human rights against women were registered. One of the first people to be killed was a transgender woman Vicky Hernandez Castillo, who was out on the night that the new government assumed power, and happened to be unaware of the imposed curfew. She was shot in the eye and strangled, and the state has refused to perform an autopsy on her.

There have been reported physical assaults, beatings that aim at women’s reproductive organs, breasts, and hips. And there have been reports of gang rapes carried out by the police to “punish” women for being involved in anti-coup demonstrations. These rapes appear to have been premeditated, as police used condoms. The victims, fearful of retaliation, have reported what has happened to human right’s organizations, but not with the current government Human Rights or Women’s Rights offices. Finally, women leaders who are opposed to the de facto government have received death threats from the police and military via e-mail and voicemail. Some women have received threats that name them specifically, along with their profession, to make them aware that the authorities are expressly tracking them.

The irony of the coup government cracking down on women’s rights is that it has sold itself as a defender of freedom. It certainly is a paradox for the de facto government to not allow women some privilege in exercising reproductive freedom and basic civil liberties, while presenting itself as democratic and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to top US lobbyist and PR firms to build them an image that purports to be respectful of the rule of law. Secretary Clinton should seriously explore these rights violations before blessing the results of the upcoming Honduran election.

This morning I heard this clip on YouTube, where a journalist even suggests that Obama should consider replacing Clinton as Secretary of State because of the mixed signals:

Seneca has offered this in response:

Obama is not going to boot Hillary out over the Honduras fiasco. But the cumulative unsettling evidence of this foreign policy team begins to define the Administration: actions (or pratfalls) in Latin America over the recent Colombian-US agreements on military cooperation have become muddled, the contradictions to 40 years of US policy on the Israeli settlements issue resulted in Hillary backtracking to recover, the Cuba policy was not seriously addressed before the President stumbled onto it at the US-Latin Summit last spring nor has the administration (nor the previous two administrations) ever defined Chavez as a national security threat if in fact he is, the Plan Merida to help Mexico appears to have fallen into the doldrums of policy fatigue, the corrosive effects of the Afghanistan war (“where empires go to die…”) are increasing, the Iraq pull-out has been turned over entirely to Secretary Gates. The most intriguing question is: How can an inspirational and uplifting leader on the world stage choose some of the best and the brightest of Americans to handle foreign policy fall so short too often by carelessness or lack of focus?

Since 1992 and the fall of the Soviet Union, US policy toward Latin America has been generally ‘insufficient’ or one of ‘benign neglect’.  In fact, many observers have concluded that both the Clinton and W. Bush administrations basically handed the lead on Latin policy to the Cuban American lobby in order to secure Florida, a swing state in the Presidential elections. The Summitry Process began by Clinton which some critics considered an every four year photo op and not much more. It did have two substantive themes: a hemispheric free trade area and strongly endorsing democracy by pointing out that Cuba was the only non-democratic country in the region.

After 9/11, Latin America was readily served up and all but forgotten so it seemed. At first, the Bush Administration catered to the fiercely anti-Castro sector which had strongly voted for him. In W’s second term, the policy was pretty much given to the bureaucracy to manage and handle. This disappointed many hardliners. The objective evolved to keep the region’s problems from distracting Secretary Rice from more serious and important areas of concern. The designated hitter for Latin Policy became a fourth level bureaucrat, an Assistant Secretary was left to fend for himself without much visible top cover. Obama reached the White House and Hillary Clinton was ensconced as Secretary of State after having successfully blocked Bill Richardson from the job. Admittedly, Gov. Richardson was in the midst of a brewing scandal in New Mexico. Several political and media wags noted that all the key Latin foreign policy slots have been given to Latinos. These included Dan Restrepo at the NSC, Arturo Valenzuela at State, Frank Mora at Defense and Carmen Lomellin as Ambassador to OAS. This has been applauded notably by the Latino constituency groups. The issue has become now one of policy. Does the Obama administration care about the Latin American region? Where does it stack up? The fact is that the region once again finds itself vis-a-vis the US on the back-burner. It is not on the cutting edge of foreign policy. Yet early on Obama found himself in a tussle on two issues: Cuba and Chavez.

When Obama attended the Summit of the Americas meeting in the spring in Trinidad Tobago, he ran into unexpected or unscripted situations: is the US now ready to re-admit Cuba to the OAS? The vast majority of the Hemisphere’s countries were angling to get Cuba back into the OAS. The Obama team seemed surprised and almost unprepared for this challenge. The other one was how to deal with Chavez. Obama showed class and engaged Chavez briefly but certainly in awkward photo ops. The Cuba question dogged Hillary in the June OAS ministerial in Honduras. At the eleventh hour the Obama team was able to scramble and cobble a mutually acceptable communiqué that did not re-admit Cuba but addressed the irregularity of Cuba being absent from the OAS family. Some labeled the new Administration’s performance “Bush Light.” At the same time the US Mexico relationship was steadily moving forward. Obama revealed his support of Plan Merida to enable Mexico to better take on the drug cartels which have created enormous instability. But the funding for Merida was largely held up because of bureaucratic lack of clarity and other requirements. The other US Mexico challenge is undocumented immigration. No political bravery has emanated from the White House to wrangle with this most sensitive political public policy issue. In fact, no one is able now to predict if immigration reform will be an agenda item in the first two years of the Administration. So far it seems like the Democrats have concluded that the immigration reform bill is a lose-lose situation. The post 9/11 anti-terrorist sentiment coupled with the global economic downturn has inflicted pain on the US body politic. The US public has become more reluctant if not hostile to new immigration flows. This has plainly put a crimp into Obama team’s outlook. The continuation of building the border wall and draconian Homeland Security illegal-immigrant raids on job sites have not been seen sympathetically in Latin America and among Latino audiences in this country.

The more defining moment for the Obama Administration has been the on-going Honduras ‘golpe’ or coup crisis. The Obama team initially sided with the ousted President Zelaya and declared that the sacred principles of democracy had to be adhered and respected. Hence, Zelaya’s restoration to power became the battle cry for US interests in the initial months. Five months later the Obama administration is backtracking on the defense of democratic principles. The Administration appears to have tired of the Honduran crisis. The de facto regime in Honduras dug in and used PR and propaganda cleverly. More interesting seemed to be the Administration’s inability to persuade the defacto regime to cede power. Honduras is small with no political influence, no economic power nor military might — only diplomacy is in its arsenal. The US having all these options thinks in exhausting the first three before employing diplomacy. Hence, the Hondurans readily resorted to the old small country approach to concerns: use diplomacy but follow the rules of not speaking first, do not get angry and finally if unable to resolve favorably the problem then tangle it more. In using these tactics, Honduras wore out the US. The Obama administration slowly began to show  impatience and wariness. They saw Honduras as a small pesky country becoming increasingly more annoying and troublesome on the international stage.

Finally, the US after having declared itself initially pro-restoration of Zelaya and passing the problem to the OAS and Nobel Laureate President Arias of Costa Rica to resolve saw itself being drawn back into the fray. The contentious process dragged out in the discussion of whether the ouster of the Honduran President was legal or not. It attracted Republican die-hearts who defended the coup (because of the Chavista factor against Zelaya) while the Administration and the whole international community condemned the coup as anti-democratic. Obama’s team began to see themselves politically caught between a rock and a hard place: do we support and restore a Chavista (enemy of the US ) while defending democracy? After five months, Secretary of State Clinton and her Assistant Secretary for Latin America (who was being denied confirmation as Ambassador to Brazil by the Republicans) sought to cut a deal and injected themselves finally into the process to basically extricate themselves from this tar-baby. This required an about face or a betrayal of the previous US position. This has now become most troubling in Latin America to see the young dynamic US Administration as less than gracious in this process. In fact, many pundits in and outside the US are remarking or noting that the Administration not only demonstrated confusion or ineptitude or at best a maladroit approach, but callously left most of the OAS membership holding the bag.

To shore up support and bring someone high-level from the US Administration, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis was chosen to be the senior US participant in a so-called Verification Commission to secure the recent signed accords now being hailed as the final solution. Solis, practically unwitting or unfamiliar with the situation, was carefully choreographed by the State Department to ensure that she would stick to the diplomatic script and not become a freelancer. Hilda had been initially hailed as the most liberal member of the Obama cabinet but by the time she left Tegucigalpa she was seen as apologist for the defacto ‘golpista’ government. She now takes the hit, not Hillary. Rather clever and cynical maneuvering it was indeed. As soon as Tom Shannon, the State Department’s overseer of this whole show announced that the Hondurans no longer had to restore Zelaya to get international recognition of the upcoming elections, the defacto government felt it was off the hook and home free.  The Brazilians, who are housing Zelaya in their Embassy and waiting for his restoration, feel the US has behaved at best negligently and indifferent. The problem could have been avoided or minimize by having initially forceful high-level US leadership on the issue. The OAS  had its Secretary General and all the countries in the region had their Presidents or Prime Minister through their Foreign Ministers decry this US perfidy. The US has had a fourth-rung bureaucrat (the Assistant Secretary) in the lead.  Obama’s team failed to recognized from the beginning the limitations of the State Department if not given top White House cover. Moreover, in handing over the volatile issue in this case to the bureaucracy, it plainly did not understand that ‘diplomats seek the path of least resistance, they believe in nothing and everything to everyone’ and as bureaucrats they adhere to: never get between a bureaucrat and his/her ambitions. They mow you down….the additional factor is that while the US behaved like a world power during the Cold War: it basically ordered everyone except the Soviets to do its bidding. In Spanish it was referred to as the ‘dedazo’…now in the post Cold War-era even the tiny insignificant powers have begun to lose their fear of the US. Yet this muddle and lack of focus produce the image of a Gulliver with Lilliputians throwing ropes over his back to bring him down. The US Latino community regardless of partisan bias will feel that if this is all the Obama Administration can provide in terms of moral leadership and support for democratic ideals and most of all the lack of consistency in policy toward Latin America then a closer  look at the expectations must be undertaken. Disappointment is the only word to describe the first real test of fortitude, skill and determination in dealing with Latin America. Arturo Valenzuela the new Assistant Secretary will now have to rectify, re-define as well as need to provide the real Obama vision of the region.

A few days ago, Gustavo Arellano of the OC Weekly wrote a blog post about Loretta Sanchez’s flawed logic when it comes to The DREAM Act, which would provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented students and young adults who complete college or serve in the military (I have blogged about this topic as has Seneca).  The Orange County Dream Team, a group of undocumented college students who would benefit from the proposed legislation, met with Congresswoman Sanchez last weekend seeking her co-sponsorship of the bill in the House, and she refused citing her preference for “comprehensive immigration reform.” However, she did indicate that she would vote for the DREAM Act if it ever reaches a House vote.

In my view, Sanchez is missing an opportunity here by not co-sponsoring the DREAM Act. I feel that this piece of legislation will most likely be the first step in achieving comprehensive immigration reform because it makes most sense to tap into the talented young undocumented people who are already here and willing to give back to society with their acquired skills. Why import highly technical H1B consultants from other countries, when we could readily use the DREAM Act students, assuming they are given a chance to regularize their immigration status?

If you go to Thomas.gov, you can see a list of the five bills Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez is sponsoring/co-sponsoring in the current congressional session. She is willing to lend her name and support to a House Resolution to designate September as “National Child Awareness Month,” but she stops short of co-sponsoring a substantive piece of legislation that could improve the lives of so many young people in her district. If you support the DREAM Act, I encourage you to contact Congresswoman Sanchez’s office and politely request that she sign on as a co-sponsor of this bill that would help so many of our youth.

Mayorkas was instrumental in the Carlos Vignali pardon by Bill Clinton. Carlos Vignali was serving a 15 year sentence for cocaine trafficking. His father, Horacio Vignali, was a big contributor to Antonio Villaraigosa, Xavier Becerra, Bob Hertzberg, and to the Democratic Party after his son’s conviction in 1994. Los Angeles Cardinal Mahony was even in on the lobbying effort to get the younger Vignali released, as was Hillary Clinton’s brother, Hugh Rodham, and LA Sheriff Lee Baca. I wonder how much money or quid pro quo was in it for Mayorkas to get involved in getting this coke dealer busted out. Inquiring minds want to know…or perhaps Mayorkas has more liberal views about cocaine possession and trafficking laws and will be willing to go to bat for others in another capacity (we can only hope).

The US has sent Latinos/Hispanics as envoys to Mexico. The first one was John Jova in the 1970′s, a career diplomat born in Long Island of Cuban-Spanish descent. His aristocratic bearing made him most acceptable. The second one was not so fortunate. Julian Nava was chosen by Jimmy Carter towards the end of his Presidential term. Nava, a Mexican-born California college professor, became among the Mexican elites the caricature of the Pocho/Naco coming home. At times his mangled Spanish, sprinkled with Spanglish, and his sometimes maladroit demeanor made him a reason for many Mexicans to insist that sending a Gringo envoy with such a background and behavior is a manifestly insensitive effort by gringos to insult the Mexicans. Plainly, it suggests an insecurity of the Mexicans’ identity conundrum. The third one Reagan sent. John Gavin, the glamorously handsome movie star of yester-year whose mother was a high-born Mexican from Sonora cut his swath. He spoke impeccable Spanish, manifested a self-possessed élan and almost recklessly proceeded to alienate all Mexicans with a sniffy contempt not seen since Lane Wilson the execrable US envoy of the early twentieth century. Most recently W. Bush sent his Texas friend, Tony Garza, a Mexican-American from Brownsville. Garza has no patrician airs, but looked and behaved like a regular gringo. He was not revered like Jova nor disdained like Nava nor loathed like Gavin, but viewed as a light-weight but amiable friend of the First Family and who managed to romance and marry the richest woman in Latin America, a Mexican beer heiress. However, it is known in some Washington circles that Garza did deliver in the end for the Mexicans. When the Plan Merida appeared to be headed for the budget chop at OMB, Garza readily called the White House and successfully persuaded President Bush to restore the Plan Merida funding. This is the kind of envoy the Mexicans hoped that Obama would name. Instead Carlos Pascual, a former career foreign service officer (with a zen-like demeanor) has been selected but not yet given agreement  (approval or acceptance) by the Mexican Government. Pascual, a Cuban-born, Stanford/Harvard educated Hispanic achieved recognition mostly during the Clinton Presidency. He was sent to the CIS countries (former part of the Soviet Union) in the early ’90′s. He apparently has an academic concentration in Russian and related fields. Strobe Talbott, initially the State Department’s CIS head and later Deputy Secretary became aware of Pascual’s linguistic and programmatic accomplishments as a USAID development officer.  Pascual was subsequently detailed to the National Security Council to manage the Russian and CIS portfolio.

In 2000 before the Clinton Administration ended, Pascual was made Ambassador to the Ukraine. After a successful stint there, he returned in the first term of the George W. Bush Administration, and Colin Powell selected him as the first Director of the State Department’s Reconstruction Office. This office primarily focused on strengthening emerging democracies and faltering states. He later left State and the Foreign Service to replace Jim Steinberg at the Brookings Institute as Vice President International Affairs when Steinberg became head of the LBJ School at the University of Texas. Strobe Talbott had become Brookings’s President. Now in the Obama Administration Steinberg is Deputy Secretary of State (the old Talbott position). Susan Rice, also formerly at Brookings and an Obama confidante, is US Ambassador to the UN. Pascual is seen by his Brookings colleagues as a perfect fit for Mexico with his programmatic talents and his glowing accomplishments. Yet he has no Mexico or Latin American experience or connection except for being born in Cuba and may speak Spanish as good as Ukrainian. Clearly, the Brookings group promoted him into this job as a fellow member of the Institute’s guild. However, it is generally perceived that both Hillary and the White House leaped like trouts when Pascual’s name came before them with hefty recommendations from Brookings along with a Hispanic last name to boot. But the Obamites failed to appreciate the significance of a recent dust up in senior Mexican official circles caused by the public assertion or suggestion  by some high ranking US officials that Mexico was either a ‘failed state’ or fast headed towards that status. Now the selection of the former head of the ‘failed states’ bureau at State Department as the US Ambassador caused the Mexicans to scratch their heads or recoil in frustration. Hence, why did Hillary not make the scheduled announcement after she met with President Calderon? Moreover, Pascual does not have any notable direct links to President Obama. Adding to the Mexican concern is their natural distrust of Cuban Americans because of the Miami crowd’s animosity over the years towards Mexico for being the only Latin country to preserve continuously diplomatic relations with Fidel Castro. Certainly, Pascual does not appear to share the Miami Calle Ocho syndrome. Any President reserves the right to send whomever he desires to be his envoy. But the acceptance (agreement) by the receiving country has to be manifested. In this case, the US did not think this carefully through. Moreover, the Latino political leadership in Washington was either unaware of the appointment or equally ignorant of the consequences. Now the challenge for the talented Pascual, assuming he gets Mexican approval, will be to manage the disjointed Plan Merida program and be as successful as in the Ukraine. The problem will be that the Mexicans, unlike the Ukrainians, will not drop to their knees or kiss up to the US. The Ukrainians had good reason: they sought US protection from the Russians next door. Hence, their servility to the Americans was evident. The Mexicans with their historical and morbid suspicion of American intentions and actions will be harder to read, distant at times, unrelentingly independent, reluctant to be led or guided by the US…the question arises, ‘Is Pascual really a fit or a misjudgment by the Obamites and the Brookings crowd?’ He may have to choose between trying to conduct the bilateral relationship or just managing the US Plan Merida programmatic cast of thousands who will appear throughout Mexico. Sarukhan, who is already conducting the basic thrust of the bilateral relationship in Washington, will ultimately prefer having Pascual do the programmatic drudgery and he (Sarukhan) carry out the more glamorous weight of the bilateral relationship fraught with diplomatic sensitivity, sovereignty issues, political suspicions, the treatment of Mexican illegals in the US and the NAFTA political and bureaucratic thickets. Sarukhan has quickly mastered that a country knows when its relationship with the US is equal and mature. This is discernible when the bilateral relationship is conducted in Washington by the foreign country’s ambassador and not in the capital of his country with the American would-be pro-consul. The US can send as envoys retired politicians, used car salesmen, fat cat businessmen, and political party donors to countries like France, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the Scandinavian countries, Japan, Spain and sometimes even to Russia and China. These countries in return send the US their top professional diplomats or statesmen to conduct the bilateral relationship directly with the White House, State Department and the myriad of US agencies in Washington. The US sends normally career diplomats as chief of mission generally to weaker, less significant countries to conduct the bilateral relationship in those countries. Mexico has joined the ranks of these more mature relationships. Hence, the US Embassy in Mexico is not as influential as in the past, but it remains a huge job.
 
Where were the Latino advocacy wags and politicos in Washington on this critical selection process? It was noted that several Latino advocacy groups were included in the pre-trip briefing dinner held for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton before she set out for Mexico. Apparently, neither the State Department’s talking heads and analysts nor the domestic Latino groups present like the National Council of La Raza added any value to the expected substantive discussion. Plainly, Mexico appears to be treated as an appendage of the domestic Latino concerns not as a foreign policy priority. The appointments of Dan Restrepo, a Colombian American to the National Security Council, Frank Mora, a Cuban American to the Defense Department’s Office on Latin America, Pascual to Mexico and the pending appointment of Arturo Valenzuela, a Chilean American to be the Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere appear to be solidifying. These selections have the Latin Americans already wondering if the Obama team is trying to address Latin America or the domestic Latino/Hispanic agenda. If it is the latter: what has been the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’ role? And the advocacy groups’ input into such selections would be most interesting to examine. This zany selection process demonstrates that the Obama team has to be more surefooted in vetting not only for qualifications and ethnicity but for political sensitivity.  Moreover, it needs to distinguish better the domestic from the foreign policy concerns. This is a classic case where a perfectly sound and qualified Latino is selected but stumbles for more nuanced and complex reasons.

Photos: Secretary Clinton in Mexico, Mexican Ambassador to US Arturo Sarukhan, and Carlos Pascual