 This is Think Tech Hawaii, Community Matters here. Okay, we're back, we're live, Global Connections at the 2 o'clock block here on a given Wednesday with our friend in Puebla, in the University of Puebla, which is I think east of Mexico City and he joins us by Zoom. And we are happy to talk to him today on Global Connections about the new populism in Latin America. Welcome back to your show, Carlos. Well, thank you, Jay, and then actually I'm joining you today from Mexico City. I've trekked over here for the day, joining you to really reflect on some important changes happening in Latin America, the region that sometimes gets so neglected, given all the drama in the Middle East and Russia and China, such an important plaiter for the world. Latin America has just reached Mexico and Brazil 10 days ago, because it was so narrow, a new populist leader, a right-wing populist, and obviously a variation that will say more about a closely connected to his interests with Donald Trump and a very interesting ship from a traditional leftist orientation of their politics for the last decade or two towards the right. And in Mexico now, 40 days ago in December, they've inaugurated a new president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, another populist from the left, a leftist leader who both of these have some similarities in that they reflect a desire to really move away from the traditional political elite of government that are very different, one from the left in Mexico and one from the far right in the case of Brazil. So I want to maybe just reflect on these two and get a sense of what implications they're going to have for regional and global affairs, but also for the countries themselves, these two important Latin American countries. Yeah, we have a million questions. So how does this populism, the left and the right, differ? And how does it differ from Trump's populism? And I suppose I would also throw into that question, how are they affected by Trump's populism? Is this some sort of cause and effect here? It's an interesting question. I mean, on one hand, you could say, for example, the case of the Brazilian new president, he brought many of the tactics of Trump, but effective use of particularly social media and very aggressive against the establishment of a map fighter. And it does reflect a trend beyond even Trump. We've seen in some European countries a rise of populist leaders, primarily on the right, that are challenging the democratic ideals and then pushing more authoritarian tendency. And so the Brazilian case kind of follows us a bit. The leader Bolsonaro, he's been a long time politician, so he's not really outside of the system, even though that's how he came in. But he, in some ways, he campaigned bringing a very hard line anti-immigrant stance in many ways. He has said some outlandish things, saying that the military rule that Brazil left about 30 years ago didn't go far enough. And so he's made some initial moves that are rather on one hand, bubbling or addressing alerts to the far right. I'll articulate some of those in a moment. But the case of Mexico, also a populist leader who is taking on the establishment, but in this case from the left, a leftist leader because Mexico, long governed by a one-party rule, also experienced a brief temporary shift to sort of a right-wing party for about 12 years, but just now finished a president who came from the traditional party, Pena Nieto. He left office, and so a different case of the leader in Mexico, a leftist populist leader. But again, interesting to see parallels, but also real differences. Well, you know, this does raise the question of what exactly are we dealing with in Mexico these days? I mean, very interesting. Next hour, the next hour, we're going to be talking to somebody who's involved in an energy conference, a global energy conference in Mexico City. Who knows? Maybe it's down the block from where you are. Anyway, Mexico is arising somehow. People think of Mexico as a developing country, maybe a third-world country. But in fact, Mexico has a lot of first-world country attributes these days. Otherwise, you wouldn't be there, would you? And so what I'm saying is we need to understand more about Mexico, to understand what's his name, AMLO, AMLO, the president now, to see how populism could surface this way. And how Mexico reacts to what Trump and Trump's wall are doing. So what kind of a place, in that context, Carlos, what kind of a place is Mexico these days? Is it advanced? Or does it have poverty and shortages? Is it dangerous? Or does it have a rule of law? Well, all of you, Bob, except the last one, the rule of law is a bit weak. But it is a very mixed place. On the one hand, a very dynamic and burgeoning high tech and manufacturing sector. And the NAFTA agreement now 25 years in place has really been a boom, primarily to the north and parts of the central Mexico. Again, a steep level of integration and loss of economic growth. So that's unquestionable. And yet the criticism of that process of liberalizing the economy now about 30 years ago has also further deepened the divide there. There's an inequality that's quite substantial. So the southern part of Mexico and many parts of the urban areas, I mean, you have a large population, half the population, it remains very poor, very sort of outside of even the formal economy, a large informal sector. So that divide has been a source of frustration. And indeed, part of what's pushing for this new shift to the left is a desire to address that, the inequality and injustice. Now, add it onto that. And it's interesting because, yes, there is violent, highest rates of murder. And obviously, these organized criminal organizations, we know the Narcos cartels, even Netflix, a popular show and all. It is here. It's very real. There are parts of Mexico where clearly the state does not have effective control. But then, having said that, there is still a very dynamic, modern, you know, and I would say, while there is crisis, in fact, in some ways, it's more of a country that's in flux. It's going through the motions of trying to address these challenges. Now, this new leader is, of course, on one hand, supporters, as addressing a lot of this corruption and incompetency and inefficiency and social injustice, some of his critics and attractors obviously fear that he might be lurching, maybe comparing him to Venezuela, Zubo Chavez, more state intervention, reversing many of the market reform. It remains to be seen. But certainly, he is bringing some change. Some of it needed, some of it important, but his own particular style is also called into question. He's very impulsive. He doesn't have a lot of detailed plans but tends to kind of lurch one way or the other. But clearly, he's taking on some very powerful vested interest, and that's not easy for any politician. So it's been sort of a mixed bag so far. He's been making important changes, trying to address even maybe a, he represents kind of a very different kind of leader outside of the traditional sort of politicians we've seen in recent decades. He's a more plain talking, frugal living. He cut his salary in half. He moved out of the presidential palace and turned it into an open sort of cultural, museum for the population to see. He's trying to stamp out corruption, but it's also one of those things you can't do overnight and it takes on some powerful interest. So beyond that, so again, AMLO represents this shift for Mexico. His focus is clearly more domestic. He hasn't been particularly interested in foreign affairs. He hasn't, at this early stage, he still remains, I think, fairly cordial in the relations with the US. He hasn't taken it on as a big issue. He's addressing more domestic issues understandably. But nevertheless, the relations with the US remain still very delicate. This came to office, we've seen a very tense situation given the crisis over the caravan, the migration, the wall, all of that. Mexicans, obviously, look with a lot of disdain at the very critical of the words that have come from President Trump. So they're also puzzled with how much further than that go. When will it change? So we're still in a period of US-X relations but it's down from where they had been in previous years. But their importance for the countries are deeply interconnected and certainly in terms of trade and commerce. I mean, there's a lot that connects the two countries and that will continue. But Mexico, again, has a particular complex interdependence of US that doesn't exist with Brazil. Brazil is a bigger country, bigger industry, like Mexico, again, very similar. Complex, deeply divided society, a large population that's marginalized but also a very dynamic, industrial, high-tech industries, major exporter. Both of these, we would consider them emerging powers. They are regional players, Brazil in particular, part of the Bricks Club, the Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, sort of a leader among the developing world. But these terms, we hear, third world development, they're not always accurate because again, you can go to Palo or to Rio and have a very modern first world experience, turn the corner, just like in Mexico City and suddenly you're hit with the reality of injustice, poverty, in efficiency. So it's a real mixed bag on one hand. But very important, these are countries that have a profound trade relationship with the US, with Europe, and they are not going away. They're gonna continue to be evolving, more urbanized, large growing middle classes. I think because of these changes going on now, they reflect a lot of disenchantment with corruption that's happened in recent years, both on the left and right, and just a bit higher for change. So there's some parallels with understanding phenomenon, part of it is the individual, part of it is this sort of changing global economy where obviously some people are being left out and maybe the story of a generation or two ago is suddenly not the same and there's a lot of anxiety there. Well, what I get is there's a common denominator here between Mexico and even though the populism is in the one case left and the one case right, the common denominator is that people are dissatisfied, there is a big divide, and they're looking for a solution and they don't mind, in fact, they will vote for somebody who's selling populism in each case, which is sort of repressive, autocratic, not necessarily rooted in the rule of law, a complete change, and as one fellow put it to me the other day, disruptive. They're looking for something that will disrupt the status quo and I think it sounds from what you say that that's a common denominator in both places and other places too. Yeah, absolutely. And again, taking on the establishment now and what that means is that while they both receive very substantial support, Amlo has a majority now in the Congress with his own new party. He received the overwhelming majority, the same in the case of Brazil. I would say we have to understand it's not so much the excitement about them as individuals, although they each have their core base, but as much a frustration with the political establishment and the protest vote, let's say you could say with Trump's base, he's got a core base, but there were many who simply wanted to send a protest signal to the traditional political elite. That is there. Again, as we speak to in Brazil and Mexico, it's just fascinating to see that you've got one model in Mexico pushing to the left, addressing social justice, trying to root out the corruption, but in a way that kind of also opening space, giving a voice to those who traditionally have been voiceless, so that on one hand is good, but it also means trying to rule by, you know, in some way by popular decrees and that can be messy. Democracy, obviously are supposed to be where you elect officials and let them make decisions, but in the case of Mexico, this new leader has already embarked on a lot of what he calls a consultation, like a referendum, but they're not necessarily done very well. A small percentage actually show up to vote and then you're suddenly making decisions rather, you know, impulsively by very complex ones. For example, a very large new airport that's being built here in the outskirts of Mexico City, a massive project, $10 billion, 30% of it's done. The new president comes in, calls a referendum, the people who support him overwhelmingly say, no, we don't want that. So now they reverse that and it's a very messy process. Wow, that's messy, yeah. And you know, if it had been at the earlier stage, you might understand, okay, they're deciding against it, but it's more than 30% done and now the decision has been made to just stop it. Well, you can be assured that the business interests, you know, have contracts that they're gonna get paid with and it's been kind of sending mixed signal to the business community about what the new regime means. So that's one of the challenges, you know, trying to rule in ways that are giving voice to the voices, but often if it's not done well, it can also, you can lose credibility and legitimacy by just, you know, moving forward with these referendums as a way of making public policy. But, you know, again, in the case of Brazil, a different side, what we've seen is more alarming, initial move, you know, restricting indigenous rights, the LGBT rights have now been also taken away, eradicating a labor ministry. So eroding what had traditionally been maybe rights of different groups in society. A couple of days ago, the president of Mexico decided not to join a large group of other Latin Americans to criticize Venezuela, in many ways, taking the position that, well, if they're sovereignty, we don't wanna, you know, interfere with their domestic affairs. But meanwhile, Colombia, Venezuela, other, I'm sorry, other neighboring countries, Chile, Peru, have all been very critical of the case of Venezuela because of its assault on the press, on, you know, human rights, on, you know, a range of issues. These are tough issues and, you know, I can't be optimistic, but I'm hopeful that, you know, in this age of media, we also bring out more transparency because we can see more and more of what goes on and it's a pretty ugly underbelly once we open that up. Well, you know, years ago, I remember the Organization of American States was at OAS. And of course, it was supported by the U.S. and as I recall by the United Nations as well. And the idea was to bring South America together and to make it a powerful and moderate, you know, economy and a political society that was easy to live in and that would be collectively a force in the world. Sort of the United States of sorts where everybody cooperated, state by state. That hasn't happened and in fact, so many governments have failed in South America and in fact, American policy, to the extent there has been policy from president to president to try to help countries in South America, that's failed. It's gone off the side. It's had a 180, you know, effect of what it was intended if it was intended to do anything. What can the United States do? What can a leader, I mean, a continental leader, if you will, in South America do? Maybe it would come from, he would come or she from Mexico. But what can we do to make South America, Latin America the kind of OAS that it was hoped to be years ago? Yeah, OAS, you mentioned organization, but it still exists. It's, you know, obviously critical theater, the relatively weak, it brings together all of the America, Latin America and Canada and the U.S. But here a quick answer I would tell you is that the U.S. has a lot of baggage and it's seen from Latin America as having had a long history of intervention, military intervention, the Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, hey, the on and on, you know, overthrowing governments in Chile, supporting right wing authoritarian governments in the season 70. So there's a lot of baggage that quite often Americans don't realize, Central America, I mean, a deep entanglement there and supporting repressive regimes, et cetera. Somewhat less with Mexico. Mexico always a bit more autonomous at least after the 1920s. But that legacy has meant there's always a healthy skepticism about the U.S. Some thought has gone, get the later in some power and falls out to Mexicans as rapists and murderers and it hasn't gotten much better since then. And so it's not a pretty, you know, fin- You know, that's one, we're almost out of time on this and I just want to ask you one more question that is sort of an elephant in the room question. You know, Trump has been called and I mean, I think it's true by every indication he's been called a racist and part of that racism is against Latinos south of the border. In fact, Latinos in the country too, but that's not the issue right now. And he's trying to keep Latinos out of the country and claiming that they're, you know, they're not adequate human beings. And it's quite offensive to me and I'm not Latino. But what about you? What about the people in Mexico? What about Amlo? If I were, if I were you guys, I would be really, really, really ticked off with his racist remarks and policies. Are people irritated about that? Oh, they are. It's insensitive and so it's vulgar and so yes. And yet seriously, Amlo, for example, he has just kind of not bothered to waste his time on that. He's looking internally domestically and doesn't want, I mean, he doesn't speak English, which is also rare for a Mexican person. In the last 30 years, we've had these more sort of technocratic sort of English educated. So he's kind of a different leader in that regard. But overall the population looked at Trump and just shake their head like, you know, if this is not somebody who speaks well about us. And so there's a lot of disdain. I mean, let me finish with the final thought and that ultimately the solution and the answer to the challenges here has to come from Latin Americans and there is a growing regionalism effort to address these challenges. Maybe in Venezuela again, regional pressure is coming from them. They want the U.S. to be maybe a constructive engagement, not intrusive, not calling the shots, not dictating the terms. And yet at the end of the day, the U.S. has always had an asymmetric relationship. It is always the bully pushing this away with Mexico, with Central America. So there's an asymmetrical relationship there that won't go away. But the hope is that maybe Mexico, I'm not going to, the U.S. doesn't, you know, in fact maybe stay out of the, you know, affairs more. And that's not already happened. I mean, ever since 9-11, the U.S. has looked elsewhere and Latin America has largely been neglected in U.S. foreign policy. I would say too, it's unfortunate because the cultural and economic ties are so important and they will continue to be. So there needs to be an awareness and an acceptance, but also maybe more sympathy and support. We're not getting it today from Donald Trump. We'll have to see hopefully post-Trump that there might be an ability to rekindle, you know, long-standing U.S.-Latin American relations. Well, we can only hope, you know, I'm right along there with you and hoping, and I actually wish I could attend your classes at the University of Puebla, so I could hear this stuff coming from, you know, you and your class on a regular basis. Well, I'll have to settle for this show, Carlos. That's Carlos Juarez. Global connections for years and years. We do global connections. We are so delighted to be able to talk to him about all kinds of things. And two weeks hence, we'll do it again. Thank you so much, Carlos. Excellent. Aloha. Thank you and aloha. Take care.