To Mexico, on Such a Special Day...[September 16th, 2010: Bicentennial Independence Day]

In the darkness of a wild New World, a glistening city of pyramids rose high above a lake whose shape resembled the scars on the face of the Moon. This bustling city, which sprung forth from the vision of an eagle devouring a serpent, would later emerge as the largest city in the Americas, the wealthiest capital in the Spanish Empire and the seat of prosperity and glory of a new emerging nation: Mexico, a land of origins.

The privileged land now known as Mexico gave rise to two of the greatest and most advanced civilizations in the New World, to the discovery of agriculture in the Americas, the only formal writing system ever created in the Western Hemisphere, an independent discovery of the concept of zero and of the wheel and the most advanced Native American mathematicians and astronomers, truly dignified observers of the sky...Mexico would also give rise to countless mythologies, religions, languages and traditions and to one of the most beloved gastronomies worldwide, based on its corn, its chilies and the fruits, vegetables and legumes endemic to its forests.

As old and new civilizations crossed paths on its fertile valleys and mountains, Mexico——the proud home of mariachi and tequila and a tireless proponent of the sombrero and the sarape——also gave birth to a new hybrid nation: a people of mixed descent, the union of two cultures and two continents that today represents the Mexican people. 

Mexico’s past, reverberates its splendor and its accomplishments and it remains a testament to good fortune, to an utmost manifestation of beauty and culture and to the characteristic resilience and perseverance of its people.

——

The richness of Mexico can still be perceived today through the colors of its peoples, their homes and their clothes; the sounds of its cities and its music and the flavors and aromas of its nature and its food. The beauty of Mexico’s soul can still be witnessed through its languages and the beautiful towns in its central valleys...the aesthetic spirit that Mexican artists exude through their works...the magical beaches on its coasts. Mexico remains marvelous; Mexico remains splendid, yes, to this very day.

Along with the cultural richness of its past, however, vestiges of violence, injustice and exploitation have survived in Mexican society. Inequality, corruption and the lack of opportunities experienced by most Mexicans define the social terrain of their reality; and the discontent and desperation that has arisen in reaction to these harsh truths have given way to one of the most violent periods in Mexican history. The false and fragile social equilibrium achieved in previous generations——through coercion, deception and brute force——has now come undone and, as a result, Mexico today lies consumed in violence and lawlessness as it tries to overcome the tribulations in its path to a better day.

——

In spite of these trials, however, Mexico will triumph. Its people have never faced a challenge they could not surmount and this period of violence will not be the exception. The blood of today’s battles will not have been shed in vain, as this conflict——a struggle that implicates every Mexican at its roots——will become an opportunity for us to reflect on who we have become...to reassert the values that define who we want to be and, ultimately, it will allow us to pave the road for the fulfillment of our destiny: a more prosperous, more egalitarian and safer society...a better home for every daughter and son of that mythical land called Mexico, a land of origins, the privileged child of the Moon and the Sun.

¡VIVA MÉXICO!

Why Immigration Policy Should Focus on Economics, Not Politics

Ever since the rise of man as the dominant species of the planet, immigration has been the most compelling force behind progress and innovation. In a world without borders and politics, humanity spread wide across the world and civilizations from the Fertile Crescent and China expanded throughout the East and West while new civilizations arose independently in the Americas, all as a result of unfettered immigration.

Today, Arizona, and millions of Americans are waging a war against immigration, driven by political and emotional forces, completely unaware and unconcerned of the economic implications behind their actions. But the truth is that immigration is an inexorable economic force and that just as governments are incapable of effectively coordinating an economy through concerted and even well-intended efforts (as in the case of Communist societies) they are also unable to determine with any level of accuracy what is the optimal level and composition of immigration for any given nation. There is of course room and even the need for government regulation when it comes to immigration; however, as a whole, immigration is best left unrestrained.

Why politics tends to matter in immigration

In general, if politicians do regulate and restrict immigration it is not because they are trying to reign in and manage economic forces or crime. Rather, they are trying to control and profit from political forces that rely on the emotions of their constituents. When politicians claim that immigrants are taking jobs from American citizens or that they are contributing to rising criminality, for instance, they are not actually proposing solutions for unemployment or security, rather they are taking advantage of American sensitivities in order to obtain political capital and distract the public from their inability to resolve the underlying issues of the nation.

In times like these, in which "recession" and "unemployment" have become ubiquitous preoccupations, politicians like Jan Brewer of Arizona--not unlike the German Nazis of the 1930s and 1940s--find it convenient and necessary to find a scapegoat towards which they can redirect the anguish and fear of a frail nation. Accordingly, they are singling out undocumented immigrants as the culprits of our economic woes and rising crime and using them as a distraction that, profiting from our fears, allows them to gain political momentum.

Why politics should matter less

Do undocumented immigrants truly contribute less than documented immigrants in the US? Do they make our country worse off? Does our government truly have the capacity to distinguish which immigrants are best for our country? From an economic perspective, the answer is a resounding NO. The US is a highly-industrialized, services-oriented economy in which most citizens do NOT want to 1) pay higher prices for commodities and 2) work in jobs that they find gruesome, low-paying, demeaning or inconvenient. Undocumented immigrants come to the United States precisely to work in those gruesome, low-paying, demeaning and inconvenient jobs so that we can keep our low prices and eat our cake, too! Unlike the British investment banker in New York City (which is actually occupying a job that is coveted by Americans) the Mexican migrant worker that picks grapes in California and potatoes in Idaho is carrying out a job that must be done and that yet none of us are willing to do, especially not at the wages that ensure that our grapes and potatoes remain cheap...

What is the logic then behind policies that allow highly-educated foreigners to work in the United States with relative ease, while criminalizing the work of undocumented immigrants in the agricultural and construction sectors? Are politicians truly qualified to create regulation that intends to achieve the optimal level and composition of immigration into the US? In my opinion, it is clear that they are not, as their priorities are not economic, but political, and based on the prejudice and ignorance of their constituents.

Will Brewer's policies reduce unemployment in Arizona? No. In fact, they might increase it as more Hispanic families and businesses flee the state as a result of her restrictive immigration policies. Will Brewer's politics reduce crime? No. They are not targeting criminality as such but are rather criminalizing everyday activities, which will have no lasting impact on long term crime rates. Further, the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are not criminal and those who are could simply be singled out and apprehended just like any other person in the US who might commit a crime, without the need for wholesale persecution of undocumented immigrants.

Refocusing the issue

So long as we want a competitive economy and affordable consumer products in the US, there will be a strong demand for low-skilled labor; and as long as there is a demand for low-skilled labor in the US and low wages in neighboring Latin American countries, undocumented immigrants that are willing to take a chance in the US will keep coming, no walls will hold them back and no laws will prevent them from carrying out the jobs they came to do. Instead of criminalizing their jobs--which we require to be performed--we should create opportunities to legalize the efforts of these entrepreneurial and courageous immigrants by working together with American employers and immigrant workers in order to create an immigration policy that makes economic sense and benefits everyone. Creating a legal path for low-skilled immigrants in the US will allow us to maintain prices low, keep the country competitive and will contribute to reducing the economic gap between countries like the US and Mexico. In fact, Michael Clemens, an economist and senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, has recently suggested that allowing immigrant workers from developing countries into rich countries could be the most effective long-term development strategy to help increase the standard of living in countries such as Haiti or El Salvador.

So why should the US create barriers for the people it needs? Why do Americans believe that it is best to keep a foreigner in Wall Street than in California's Central Valley? Which job would you rather have?

The Undignified Showdown between Colombia and Venezuela at the OAS

Yesterday, Colombia publicly accused Venezuela of harboring Colombian terrorists in its territory and demanded that Venezuela open its borders to carry out a multilateral investigation. Sadly, the accusations could not have come at a worse timing or at a poorer venue...Venezuela’s reaction: eliminate all diplomatic relations with Colombia.

It may well be the case that Colombia’s accusations are true——hell, we know that Chávez is not the most enlightened leader on the planet and there exists evidence to suggest that the accusations are true. However, it was extremely irresponsible on the part of Álvaro Uribe (outgoing president of Colombia) to have brought about such a profound dispute right before his handing over of the presidency (he is scheduled to finish his term on August 7th). Venezuelan-Colombian relations were already unstable after a series of spats and in the past year commerce between both nations plummeted as Chávez put barriers to Colombian exports. As it stands now, the situation could potentially undermine any possibilities of reconciliation between Venezuela and the incoming Colombian administration, which by the way seems to favor a more pragmatic approach on its relations with Venezuela. 

What’s worse is that by using an extraordinary meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS) as the forum in which to present the so-called evidence, Colombia lost street cred through its lack of decorum and wasted potentially valuable information on an organization that is 1) unable to do anything about the situation and 2) composed of various nations that are not particularly interested in siding with Colombia against Venezuela (e.g. Bolivia, Ecuador, etc.). 

This profound lack of professionalism and pragmatism on the part of Uribe a few days before leaving office suggests that he is more preoccupied with his own legacy and personal battles than the welfare of his nation or the future relations between Colombia and Venezuela.

That said, Venezuela’s reaction was equally melodramatic and childlike, but that’s nothing new coming from Chávez. This time, however, his remarks were made even more ludicrous (and awkward) than usual by the presence of Diego Maradona at his side (random...).

We cannot ignore the situation in Venezuela and something certainly needs to be done in order to prevent countries from fostering terrorism. However, carrying out accusations in such an undiplomatic and undignified fashion eliminates the possibility of cooperating to resolve the underlying issues by further alienating petulant nations. Undoubtedly, when it comes to Venezuela, being the bigger "person" is still Colombia's best bet.

Is Globalization Destroying Language? (Part II)

This post is Part 2 of a two-part series. 

In the realm of global communications, the English language has taken a central role as it has become the de facto lingua franca of business, travel, academia and technology worldwide. At the same time, according to Ethnologue and the Endangered Language Fund, of the nearly 7,000 languages in existence in our planet 473 (7%) are nearly extinct and close to half of all existing languages in the world will be out of use by the end of the century. In the island of New Guinea alone there are approximately 1,000 living languages, most of which are spoken by only a few thousand people. As Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya (Indonesia) become more intimate with the rest of the world, the future generations of that island may well end up speaking only three languages: Tok Pisin, Bahasa Indonesia and English (all of which are official languages on the island).

In general, we can think of three different dynamics at play throughout this global process of linguistic consolidation: 1) existing languages that unite different groups will grow and survive, 2) existing languages that divide will wane and ultimately die (with few exceptions) and 3) a limited number of pidgins, creoles and linguae francae will arise to unite linguistic groups that are economically, politically and culturally related.

Within the group of languages that will survive we will have most major world languages of today, namely English, Spanish, Mandarin, French, Arabic, Russian and Hindi. All of these languages are spoken by large numbers of people that culturally identify with them and are already being used as common languages that unify different nations and regions around the world. These languages will survive precisely because they offer a higher level of efficiency in communication between peoples who more and more believe that economic and political integration are valuable. 

Within the group of languages that won't survive are all existing languages that are confined to small numbers of people, are considered divisive and are closely-related to neighboring languages (e.g. most national languages). These languages will likely go out of use, as economic, social and political impulses compel us to reinterpret our linguistic diversity as an obstacle to growth and unification. The exception to this rule will be national languages in relatively wealthy countries that are sufficiently distinct from neighboring languages and that have large numbers of speakers (e.g. Turkish and Japanese). Only these national languages will be able to survive as part of a cultural resistance before an economically-charged process of assimilation.

Finally, some parts of the world——particularly those that have high levels of linguistic diversity——will undergo a process of regional linguistic unification. Through this process neighboring countries with closely-related languages and close economic, political, cultural and social ties will either adopt a single predominant local tongue or, perhaps more interestingly, will develop regional creoles that incorporate aspects of one or several local languages.

As a result of these three major dynamics, most countries in the world will experience one of three major outcomes as linguistic unification arises at the national level or as part of a regional effort of integration: 1) the adoption of a major world language, 2) the adoption of a unifying national language or 3) the adoption of a local regional language.

Take Ghana, for instance, a country with 79 languages. In the first scenario, as a country that considers English an official language, Ghana would most likely end up becoming a truly homogenized, English-speaking country. Under the second scenario, which is admittedly least likely to occur, Ghana would create a unifying creole for all its peoples or impose one of the major local languages like Asante or Ewe in all its territory. Finally, under the third scenario Ghana and its neighbors (from Senegal to Cameroon) would witness the rise of a regional language. Unlike the adoption of English, this outcome would allow all member countries to benefit from the economic, political and social advantages of creating a broad regional linguistic community, while maintaining a sense of “localness” and ownership over the spoken language. A possible candidate on which to base such a language for Ghana could be a far-reaching, Niger-Congo language such as Fulani.

If Ghana and all other countries in the world were to adopt major world languages as their official system of speech, we would experience a major loss of cultural diversity, as most world languages are of Eurasian descent. On the other hand, attempting to save all 7,000 existing languages in the world or even just one for every country, although certainly a noble effort, would be nothing more than an unjustified, politically- and emotionally-motivated venture that would be excessively costly and in all likelihood result in failure. 

That having been said, global linguistic diversity does not have to be a thing of the past. The possibility of creating and adopting new common regional local languages that unite many smaller, related languages is a viable option (and perhaps the best chance we have) for a truly diversified linguistic future. Moreover, this alternative is not as far-fetched as it might appear at first sight: languages like Swahili, Bahasa Indonesia and Tok Pisin are just a few examples of modern languages that arose as a means of promoting regional unification. In intensely diverse linguistic contexts like Sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and New Guinea, new concerted efforts to unify closely-related languages and dialects could arise: it would be interesting to see a new language called Neo-Bantu spoken from Equatorial Guinea to Mozambique to South Africa, for instance.

What if this doesn’t happen organically? What if no African languages were to survive at all as globalization runs its course? Should we do something now to preserve at least a minimum amount of linguistic diversity? It is difficult to swim against the current and, historically, efforts to promote minority languages or promote artificial languages intended for unification like Esperanto or Volapük have been limited in scope. It is possible, however, to create linguistic policies that flow not in the direction of separatism as is the case of Catalonia and its beautiful language, but rather towards the realignment of our cultural preservationist goals with the economic, political and social realities of the day. 

The case for Neo-Bantu, in my opinion, is a particularly good one: there are approximately 500 Bantu languages in Sub-Saharan Africa, many of which are neither official nor considered national languages, and most of which are intimately related. In an effort to unite the peoples within and between countries like Botswana and Zimbabwe, for instance, it would be a more favorable outcome to create a common language that is inspired in the autochthonous Bantu languages, rather than simply promoting the use of English as a lingua franca. The same could be said for Neo-Guinean, Neo-Turkic, Neo-Fulani and other newly-created languages in Central and Southeast Asia, Europe, Nilo-Saharan Africa and the Americas.

So what will it be? A homogenized linguistic future or one characterized by limited diversity? Only time will tell, but for now we can be sure that some languages will inevitably perish despite our best efforts. We can also be certain, however, that if our efforts are aligned with the spirit of the times, we will be able to keep at least one African tongue...

Is Globalization Destroying Language? (Part I)

This post is Part 1 of a two-part series. 

Globalization is changing the way we travel, eat, play and even write and speak. As improvements in transport and telecommunications have brought civilizations around the world closer together, the languages we employ to communicate have been affected in various ways: while a few languages have been strengthened by this closeness, almost every other language in the world has been weakened by a constant pressure towards homogenization. Some would even say that if this trend continues to progress unfettered the effects of this globalizing force will whittle away at languages around the world until the entire planet ends up speaking only one: English.

What will be the languages of the future? Will we all speak a single tongue? Will it be English? What will happen to the rest of the languages of the world? Why does this matter?

I love language. Some might even say I am obsessed with languages——world languages, obscure languages, growing, dying and extinct languages alike. I would therefore like to think that the cultural richness we have amassed in the almost 7,000 tongues around the world will survive into the future. The truth, however, is that the vast majority of them will not. Further, it is unlikely that new systems of speech will arise around the world in sufficient numbers to maintain the diversity we have today. Globalization, like every other moment in history that has brought different groups of people together, will gradually change languages, their relationships to one another and the very concept of language itself. This does not mean that languages will all die systemically and that English will become the solitary language of the planet. No. In my opinion, although the vast majority of languages will become extinct in the next 200 years, many will survive and the cultures, stories and myths they enclose will live on with them.

This is an emotionally-charged subject for most of us. There are few things in our lives that we cherish more closely than the very words we enounce every day. We place an identity on every language, we ascribe value to them and we define our lives by them. But as much as we hold our languages in great esteem, the truth is that we have other imperatives beyond our seemingly innate desire to preserve our cultures and languages. We want to eradicate poverty; we want to mature into more efficient societies, economies and polities; we want to become a global community that has learned to live in peace. All of these objectives can be more easily met as a global society if we work together in unison and, arguably, anything that serves to divide us——including language——can disrupt that badly-needed cooperation. Could it be that the price we must pay for progress and peace will be our mores, traditions and speech?

What can we expect from here onwards? Does the future of language necessarily have to be bleak? Again, no. Progress may come at a price, but it does not have to result in a total cultural loss. In part two of this post, I will describe what in my opinion are the characteristics of those languages that are going to survive. Additionally, I will explore possible scenarios and outcomes and a potential alternative that may allow us to realistically maintain a minimum amount of linguistic diversity in spite of the overall trends brought about by globalization. For now I leave you with this preview: 

The languages of the future will be those that unite; languages that divide will by that very fact create the conditions for their own demise. 

Stay tuned!

Why Colombia is Still Not Green

Last Sunday Colombians elected a new president: incumbent-party candidate Juan Manual Santos. Santos was elected in a runoff election against Antanas Mockus (opposition Green Party), after neither was able to secure the presidency in the first round on May 30th. Prior to that first election, however, most people believed that Santos and Mockus had approximately equal chances of winning the presidency. In the last revealed poll before the election, the level of support for Santos and Mockus was 34% and 32%, respectively. However, once the votes were counted after the first round it became clear that Santos had a significant advantage (46.7% to Mockus's 21.5%). By the second round, to no one’s surprise, Santos easily secured the presidency with 69% of the votes. How was Santos able to craft this "last-minute" advantage? Did Mockus really ever have a chance?

After the first-round election, there seemed to be a profound sense of public disillusionment all over Bogotá and other major cities; Mockus's supporters were in disbelief. But even though the grief seemed to be generalized, somehow almost half of the voters had supported Santos and now he had a clear lead.

In truth, despite appearances, the disappointment that followed the first election was restricted to the higher social rungs of Colombian urban society. Santos, who offers a continuity of Uribe’s strong “security first” policies, represents a disenchanting choice for all those who, although grateful for the improvements Colombia underwent under Uribe, are thirsty for change. For Mockus’s supporters, Santos represents yet another elite politician besmirched by scandals who is willing to use any means, however detrimental, to achieve his goals. Mockus, on the other hand, ran on a platform of post-modern promises: strengthening institutions, upholding the rule of law, improving the quality of life of citizens and, above all, respecting human rights and the value of all human lives. His beautifully-colored, star-studded campaign created a lot of hype and momentum, but in the end his supporters were simply not enough.

Ultimately the vast majority of Colombians supported Santos because he offered them the things that they understand and want, namely security and jobs, not some vague ideas about a brighter future. The disappointment in Bogotá was visible and strong because it is the home of the upper-class elites, not because the whole country was actually agonizing over the loss. The reality of Colombia is that it is simply not a post-modern society and although there is certainly a large upper and upper-middle class that can appreciate those values, there are many more people within the middle and lower classes that are still more preoccupied with their survival than with abstract principles and beliefs. In Colombia, survival has an economic sense to it, but for most people it is first and foremost a matter of security. Many people might have therefore felt galvanized by Mockus’s campaign and his rhetoric, but at the end of the day, they simply were not able to make the philosophical leap. And so, as some would say, Colombians sold their soul to the Devil in order to keep the status quo.

At the end of the day, the results are disappointing for those who would like to see Colombia continue to grow politically, socially and economically. President Uribe concentrated his efforts in keeping Colombia safe (particularly in the cities) and this newfound security certainly brought about an unprecedented economic transformation; whereas no one would have dared to invest in Colombia in the late 1990s, during Uribe’s presidency investors from within and abroad rushed in to open up banks, construct new buildings, extract minerals and, most surprisingly, bet on tourism in Colombia. Nonetheless, what most supporters of Uribe are not willing to recognize is that having obtained security in the country has simply raised Colombia’s prospects to where they should have been without conflict and war. Uribe closed the security gap between Colombia and its neighbors, but it is not clear whether a continuation of those policies will yield the necessary economic results that Colombia needs to maintain the fragile social equilibrium that is currently keeping the peace in this historically volatile nation.

That said, there is nothing to do for now, as the results would not have been any other way this time around. Until Colombians are not, as a whole, a society that upholds the values of good governance, strong institutions and economic prosperity and equality, it is simply unfitting to expect political leaders with such values to rise and to end up in Palacio de Nariño. And Colombians won’t achieve that society until they can stop worrying about the basics. At any given time, every nation simply gets the leadership it deserves.

For now, the only green we’ll see in Colombia is the color of its mountains and prairies...at least until the summer rolls around. 

Where We Stand Today and Where We are Headed

If we step back to see where we stand right now as a global society, we will find many disappointing realities all over the world. We will witness the drug wars in Mexico spiraling out of control, the oil spill near Louisiana rapidly becoming the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history and Hugo Chávez continually antagonizing his neighbors. If we look elsewhere, we will see that while the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Sub-Saharan Africa continues to cripple entire families, villages and nations, Europe braces itself for a second round of economic and financial crises in 2010. Further away, we will hear about the seemingly endless struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan and the violent outbursts that have recently consumed Thailand and Kyrgyzstan. And if we dig deeper, we will inevitably observe the social injustices that are being carried out around the world, whether it is exploitation in a sweat-shop in Vietnam or the manifestations of intolerance towards women and homosexuals that are found all over the Islamic world.

These are the headlines and the issues and events that reach our ears and eyes, but they are not an accurate indication of who we are or where we are headed. All of these issues certainly represent immeasurable suffering for millions of individuals around the world; however, these issues do not define us. Rather, they are a static snapshot of where we are today and the challenges that we need to overcome in order to evolve. The news leaves us numb, thinking that things will never change and that progress is an illusion, but are things not already improving?

In the past fifty years, standards of living have been rising steadily across the world, particularly in East Asia. And countries like Colombia that faced decades of unimaginable levels of violence and conflict are now poised to become purveyors of growth and hope for their citizens and even their neighbors. Multinational companies are now more than ever being held accountable for their disproportionate consumption of resources and their infractions. Human rights are consistently being upheld in countries where the concept did not exist a few decades ago and as a global community we are learning every day about better governance, more effective institutions, new policies and experiences that will allow us to meet the challenges of our present and our future.

The driving force behind all this is the fact that more and more of us are opening our eyes and reacting to the realities of our current situation. The human consciousness is continually expanding to understand the values of preservation and sustainability; of improving health and eliminating epidemics; of promoting education and opportunities and promoting growth and inclusion; and of mitigating social, political and economic disparities.

The future of our planet is not bleak.

Is it naïve then to have faith in humanity and in progress? In our resilience and our endless ability to adapt and surmount any test or trial? In this blog, I would like to share my opinions on those problems and their potential solutions, on new ways of framing our problems and resolving them and on innovations that are already being implemented around the world. Additionally, I would like to highlight the cultural richness that is arising as we discover more about one another in every corner of the world, with a particular emphasis on global culture, food and language.

I believe in a day in which there is no conflict and no war, a day without poverty and disease...a day in which humanity once and for all transcends its flaws and learns to live in peace and abundance in this paradise called Earth. To that day and to all of what it represents, I dedicate this blog.