The winners of the Shalit Deal

The green flags must be all over Rafah. If all goes according to plan, Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit will be freed today in exchange for the release of 477 Palestinian prisoners now and 550 more in two months, in a big victory for Hamas. What will this mean for the fractured Palestinian politics?

For one, the Fatah camp is very worried about the boost to Hamas’ popularity. While it may be short-lived, the rulers of Gaza are back in the game now. The deal, after all, comes at a crucial time for Hamas: It happens about a month after Fatah started an attempt to reposition itself with the UN bid for statehood, and externally, the islamic group is watching the erosion of their base of support in Syria, which is going through deep troubles of its own.

Albeit those two recent elements renewed pressure on Hamas, many would say that they have been slowly setting the stage for a comeback for some time now. A few weeks ago, in a seminar in Georgetown, analyst Helena Cobban argued that “Hamas is in a better position to claim what a [Palestinian] State is than Fatah. Hamas control borders, and Gaza looks a lot more like a State than the West Bank does”. (The other panelist present at that seminar, Salim Tamari, replied that, given a choice, he would much rather live in a corrupt State than at the police State that Gaza has become, but that is beside the point).

On another note, there is much concern about the “message” the swap conveys. Hamas’ policy of resistance might look like a winner this morning, while negotiations are deemed a failure. “This deal has definitely improved the public position of Hamas and the perception of resistance,” admitted one Fatah member to Reuters.

Right now, Abbas is trying to portrait the exchange as a non-partisan Palestinian accomplishment, but there are serious doubts as to whether that will fly. Perhaps it could help in some tiny way with prospects of reconciliation for the two camps?

I suspect Salim Tamari would be skeptical, though. He is the one making a point about “the sad way in which Fatah and Hamas became accustomed to separation of their regions. No elections, no new agreements. You are now complacent with this kind of division. In the mean time, the territories are undermined, eaten from within.” With or without 1,027 freed prisoners.

Of the tweet, by the tweet, and for the tweet?

While Twitter may not be able to overthrow a government, some think it might be able to write a Constitution. Of course, some disagree.

The Heat is Up at the UN

Elected or not, Hamas’ move to control Gaza in 2007 didn’t exactly help out with peace negotiations in the Middle East. About two years later, when Biyamin Netanyahu was chosen (again) israeli prime-minister, almost every expert suggested that a peace agreement would have to wait until the next government. It felt like things would be cooking slowly for a while.

Now, however, it smells like something is burning.

The Palestinian Authority bid for statehood at the United Nations is turning the heat up. Not that it is surprising: less than 10 months after Bibi was confirmed, in november 2009, the main PA negotiator said that they would officially seek the UN vote. It is unclear whether it will succeed, and even if it did, It would not necessarily be a bad thing. There are some israeli based analysts reasoning that Palestinian statehood could the best scenario for Israel.

And still, there is a sense of impending catastrophe in the US, with the boiling soup spilling all over american domestic wars. The blame game has started, and it mostly says Barack Obama’s diplomacy missteps are at the heart of it all.

Could Obama have done more, or better? Certainly. He did not press any side strongly enough. The president lost ground very early, perhaps even before his inauguration, when he hesitated to comment on both the end of a Hamas cease-fire and the military action in Gaza in january 2009. He diluted his negotiators’ power by appointing too many of them. And he couldn’t get Israel to extend freezes on West Bank settlements, which was at least something concrete to go after. Even George H. W. Bush was tougher (although equally unsuccessful).

Provided the vote goes ahead, and it sounds like it will, Obama will have lost a historical opportunity to lead. But it seems going too far to say that the US will be pushed out of the center of the mediation, like some are now arguing.

First, there is doubt about how much more could any american president achieve right now, given the current interlocutors. Bibi doesn’t compromise much, Hamas is not even at the table, and Abu Mazen, at 76, wants to do something memorable before retiring. He lost patience, doesn’t like the alternatives, feels betrayed, and his move at the UN got him around 80% support from palestinians in the West Bank. And second, the american mediation would not be so simple to shun, for historical, practical, financial and other reasons.

It is hard to tell what will come out of the bid, if anything. But regardless of what happens in New York, Obama will face the consequences in the 2012 campaigns.

The Mexican Drug Dilemma

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Whatever the ultimate results of the War on Drugs, the drug abuse program of governments and private institutions will continue to help people who want to live drug-free lives.

Mexican president Felipe Calderón didn’t just have a gruesome reminder of the state of his drug war strategy when a gang attack against a Monterrey casino left over 50 dead last month, supposedly after the owner refused to pay extortions to drug cartels. He also had the dark perspectives of his party (PAN) for the 2012 elections rubbed in his face, less than a year before the country goes to the polls.

More than 40,000 were killed in violent incidents since he took office in 2006. While the body count continues to rise, it becomes increasingly obvious that PAN’s promises of redemption after taking over the presidency in 2000 failed. And it becomes increasingly likely that government will go back to the PRI‘s hands.

It shouldn’t be so difficult for the PRI, which dominated mexican politics for around 70 years in the 20th century, to get their style back in the corridors of power. They’ve remained strong in Congress and at the local level anyway.

Regardless of who wins, in 2012 and beyond Mexicans will have to deal with a controversial question: should they go back to some sort of truce with the drug cartels, in the name of stability? If indeed the PRI wins, comparisons with the scenario during the 1980′s and 1990′s, when they allegedly had deals with drug lords, might be more recurrent, particularly if the bloodshed increases.

The slaughter at Monterrey already spurred renewed discussions about a truce. The hawkish former president Vicente Fox (PAN) suggested they might not have an alternative but to cut a deal with drug bosses. Calderón and the PAN reacted with criticism, even passing a motion to censor Fox. And, for now, the PRI’s aspiring candidates were not seduced either.

It seems to some that Mexico is trying to be another Colombia, that had a military/police approach to its drug problem and lowered violence numbers in the long run (while creating other problems). But the wars of Mexico and Colombia are hardly comparable. Mexico does not have today the resources and US support that Colombia had. “Plan Colombia” had estimated US$ 6 billion pouring down their streets and actual American presence. Mexicans are lucky to count with part of the Merida Initiative, of US$ 1,4 billion for Latin America, plus some training, vehicles and equipment.

Not that there would be any appetite in Mexico right now for an increase in American interference in their war, although most support the help that Washington currently provides (link). And it is practically unconceivable that the American public could stomach more involvement abroad, be it financial or military.

From the perspective of a Brazilian who has noticed the difference in the streets of Sao Paulo whenever there is a truce with a drug gang, I wouldn’t discard that option without looking more deeply into it. It’s not as if this would undermine intelligence work and the effort to dismantle criminal organizations. But it can make life easier for people tired of violence. It’s just hard to say if it is ever worth it.

Fidel strikes again

Newsrooms, particularly in Latin America, were flooded this past week with rumors of a grave deterioration of Fidel Castro’s health, prompting journalists to update those old obituaries that have been accumulating dust for the best part of the last decade.

Rumors about the death of the ailing Castro, 85, arise all the time. But given the credibility of the current gossipers _ including the venezuelan reporter Nelson Bocaranda, one of the first to write that Hugo Chávez had cancer _ the “news” were greeted with more concern this time. The american media didn’t to pay much attention to the story. But I saw experts here fastening their seat belts and waiting for a huge amount of requests to analyze yet again the post-Fidel era. A couple of them told me that the rumor was strong in Havana as well, although cubans would probably be the last ones to know for sure.

Even if the claim probably is false, the considerations about it are timely. The gradual economic and (more limited) political reforms that have been under way in Cuba bring new sides to old questions about the survival of the system without the presence of the leader, even though the transition has been fairly smooth since Raul Castro took his place. Have recent moves to open more space for new generations within the communist party been enough to maintain fidelity, or did it foster ambition? Is the admission of frustration by the leaders with the pace of reform generating impatience or sympathy? Will the agricultural reform be accelerated? How will those factors play when outside pressure mounts, catalyzed by the death of Fidel?

Perhaps most interesting, though, were old-fashioned reactions to the rumors that came from some circles 90 miles north of the island. This is how a third generation cuban-american expressed his sadness to me: “My family will be relieved. But I do not want to see a McDonald’s on every corner of Havana”. And markets apparently agreed with the idea of rapid change to come. Funds that have been waiting to profit from a resumption of US trade with Cuba already experienced a surge due to the latest rumor, some companies up to 25%.

Do people still think it would be that easy? Fidel passes away, and puff – overnight we have foreign companies distributing communications services around. I doubt even hard-line lobbists believe so.

In any case, Fidel himself must find it amusing that, five years after he fell ill, we are still fretting about what will happen when he is gone for real. That is, if he ever does. Other octogenarian leaders defy that notion. Just ask Robert Mugabe, 87, still exercising every morning.