Matt Damon Is Married To An Argentine Lady!

Icon for The Galactic Void The Galactic Void · Follow Posted by Sabina Voleckova Feb 16 Luciana Barroso was a young waitress from Argentina. She was twenty years old, a single mother, and had been left by the father of her only child. She was struggling to make a living in America. One day, while working behind the counter, a young man asked if he could "hide" behind the counter with her. He said he was an actor and explained that there were some journalists and people in the restaurant who recognized him. He was annoyed and overwhelmed by the attention since he was still new to being famous. Luciana didn’t know who he was, but she told him, “You can hide here, but you have to at least help me!” So he helped her by making cocktails, serving customers, and washing dishes. Luciana and the stranger talked for a while. At the end of her shift, she asked him his name. "Matt Damon," he said. They have now been married for eighteen years and have four daughters. Matt also adopted her oldest child. 846.5K views View 8,465 upvotes View 79 shares 430 comments from Rebecca Donner and more

Protestors In Brasil Call For Amnesty For Bolsonaro

Begging For Forgiveness: Protests in Brazil Call For Amnesty For Former Leader Bolsonaro Brazil Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro led a demonstration over the weekend in São Paulo to push for an amnesty law that would drop criminal charges against him and also his supporters who stormed the country’s Congress in 2023 after his successor’s election win, the Associated Press reported. Speaking to thousands of demonstrators wearing yellow Brazilian soccer jerseys, the former president said he had faith in the Brazilian people and hoped Congress would pass the amnesty law proposed by his supporters. On Jan. 8, 2023 – a week after Luis Inácio Lula da Silva’s inauguration – Bolsonaro’s supporters stormed key government buildings in the capital of Brasília to protest the election results. Brazilian prosecutors have charged Bolsonaro with attempting to orchestrate a coup after his election loss to Lula. Investigators also say Bolsonaro and 33 others plotted to poison Lula and kill a Supreme Court judge. The panel of Supreme Court judges agreed that the right-wing former leader should be tried for involvement in an armed criminal organization and threatening the state’s assets and heritage sites – among other charges. On Sunday, Bolsonaro denied the charges and said they are part of a campaign of political persecution targeting him and a ruse to disqualify him from the 2026 election, wrote MercoPress. Bolsonaro has already been barred from running for office until 2030 by Brazil’s Electoral Court for attacking the integrity of the voting system. He said he would appeal the ruling and is preparing to run for president in 2026.

Peru:A Massive Crime Rate Is Bringing The Country To Its knees

Home Alone: Rule By Might Brings Peru to its Knees Peru On March 16, renowned Peruvian singer Paul Flores was shot to death by hitmen who attacked a bus he was on with his Armonia 10 group bandmates after a concert outside the capital of Lima. The musicians had been threatened by a criminal gang who had attempted to extort them for money. That’s not uncommon anymore, however – extortion and murder are now an everyday occurrence in Peru. “We’ve been abandoned and left to fend for ourselves,” local resident Pedro Quispe, 48, of Lima, told the Associated Press. “If you get on a bus, you can get shot; if you go to work, you can get asked for extortion payments.” Between 2019 and 2024, reported extortions increased sixfold to almost 23,000 incidents. In 2025, one out of every three Peruvians said they knew someone who had been extorted. Homicides, meanwhile, have doubled since 2019 to almost 2,000 in the country of 34 million. In 2025, more than 75 percent of Peruvians reported being scared to leave home. And yet, for years, the government downplayed the situation, say observers. “Well, homicides aren’t a simple problem, and they’re not unique to this country,” said Peru’s health minister César Vásquez in January. “Violence has increased dramatically around the world, and other nearby countries are much worse off.” Still, soon after Flores’ murder, the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency in Lima and sent soldiers onto the streets. Protests broke out soon after with Peruvians outraged over the killing of the Cumbia musician and also the government’s inability to stop the crime wave that is bringing Peru to its knees. As a result, in a country that has grappled for years with deep political and economic instability, it’s the crime wave that has now become the top priority for voters, according to recent polls. Many are calling for a strongman leader, such as President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador, who has filled prisons with thousands of suspected gang members to stop the criminal gangs but has also repeatedly violated civil rights to bring order to the streets. The government of deeply unpopular President Dina Boluarte – her approval ratings are around 5 percent, while Congress’ is at 4 percent – has moved to institute states of emergency – three in the past year – which allow the government to use the military for civilian purposes and suspend civil liberties, for example making arrests without a warrant. The government says they have dismantled more than 60 criminal gangs. Meanwhile, in March, lawmakers designated the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as a terrorist organization. Yet the murders and violence continue, wrote Bloomberg. The northern city of Trujillo is known for its economic ties to organized crime and illegal gold mining and is a good example of how out of control the situation is, say analysts. Trujillo has been under a state of emergency for months due to high levels of criminal activity. One reason for that is that organized crime gangs are cashing in on a boom in illegal mining supported by high gold prices. Protests have been breaking out since last year over a rise in extortion demands there. Then, in January, the prosecutor’s office was bombed as it was investigating cases against organized criminals. Still, analysts say that if Peru doesn’t do more to address the obstacles in stamping out the crime wave, it won’t be able to halt the slide into gang totalitarianism. Meanwhile, Boluarte’s announcement of fresh elections next year won’t stop that slide, they add, without addressing corruption and collusion by politicians. “In 2024, the Peruvian Congress passed laws and adopted other decisions that undermined judicial independence, weakened democratic institutions, and hindered investigations into organized crime, corruption, and human rights violations,” wrote Human Rights Watch. “President Dina Boluarte made little or no effort to stop these congressional attacks against democracy and the rule of law, and her administration also pursued policies that contributed to the erosion of democratic norms and civil rights. These included efforts to suppress protests and a growing disregard for judicial independence.” Last year, Boluarte herself came under investigation for corruption and bribery: She allegedly received illegal contributions to her political campaign and failed to declare the many Rolexes and other expensive watches and jewelry she sports – some of which were allegedly on loan from a provincial governor – in a scandal known as “Rolexgate.” Meanwhile, more than half of all 130 members of Congress were also under criminal investigation for corruption and other offenses, local media reported. As officials come under investigation, they have also acted to blunt investigation tools necessary by police and prosecutors that are also being used against themselves, say observers. For example, the legislature passed a law in 2024 narrowing the definition of “organized crime,” hindering investigations into corruption and extortion while weakening the Attorney General’s office in a move the Lima Bar Association called “a setback” in the fight against organized crime. Also, the president vetoed a bill in 2024 that would have made it easier to detain suspected criminals. Still, Peruvian analyst Martin Cassinelli of the Atlantic Council warned that a crackdown on crime or a change in government might not be the panaceas that voters hope for unless there is institutional change along with them. After all, Peru has had six presidents in seven years, some of them currently jailed. For example, he said Peru might soon fall into the same trap it did in 2021 – when angry voters elected populist Pedro Castillo as president and then, afterward, as public corruption ran rampant, the president tried to undermine democracy with an unsuccessful “self-coup,” for which he was later impeached and imprisoned. “Yet, while authorities focus on crackdowns against violent crime, they risk ignoring the deeper cause of the crisis: a decade of institutional decay marked by jailed presidents and pervasive corruption,” he wrote, “(and) any real solution must also tackle crime’s institutional roots. Candidates (for office) should promote a comprehensive political reform that reduces organized crime’s influence in the country’s political bodies.” Share this story

UFOs in Brasil

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng8LpIUSjV0

El Salvador 2,400 Years Ago

A Bigger Role A set of 2,400-year-old ceramic puppets discovered on top of a pyramid in El Salvador is reshaping how archeologists view the region’s ancient past. In 2022, archeologists unearthed five rare figurines at the San Isidro site in what is now western El Salvador, dating from around 400 BCE. The ceramic figures – four women and one man – are believed to have played a central role in ritual performances, possibly reenacting “readily decodable events, mythical or real,” the researchers explained in their new study. “This finding is only the second such a group found in situ, and the first to feature a male figure,” lead author Jan Szymański, an archeologist at the University of Warsaw, said in a statement. Three of the puppets – measuring nearly one foot tall – have articulated heads and expressive faces that seem to shift with the viewer’s perspective. “Seen from above they appear almost grinning, but when looked at from the level angle they turn angry or disdainful, to become scared when seen from below,” Szymański explained. “This is a conscious design, perhaps meant to enhance the gamut of ritual performances the puppets could have been used in.” Though first assumed to be grave goods, the absence of human remains and the placement of the figurines atop a prominent pyramid led researchers to believe they were meant for public rituals. The researchers also recovered other figurine fragments, including parts that may depict a birth scene. They explained that these puppets closely resemble others found in Guatemala and are accompanied by jade pendants typical of cultures in Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama – suggesting that the site’s elites were part of a wider cultural and trade network. Once believed to be culturally isolated, El Salvador was long considered a peripheral player in ancient Central America because of its volatile geography and limited archaeological record. Volcanic eruptions, such as the catastrophic Ilopango blast around 400 CE, buried many ancient settlements and erased much of their artifacts. Large-scale excavations have also been difficult because of the region’s high population density today, according to Live Science. However, the recent discoveries challenge those assumptions and hint that El Salvador may have been far more connected to its Central American neighbors than previously thought. “This discovery contradicts the prevailing notion about El Salvador’s cultural backwardness or isolation in ancient times,” added Szymański. “It reveals the existence of vibrant and far-reaching communities capable of exchanging ideas with remarkably distant places.” Share this story

Uruguay: One Of the Most Underrated Countries In the World

DESTINATIONS CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA Anthony Bourdain Called This One Country The Most Underrated In The World Elojotorpe/Getty Images BY SHELBY WILKERSONMARCH 20, 2025 8:00 AM EST The late Anthony Bourdain was more than a former television host with a keen sense of storytelling — he was a renowned culinary giant who undoubtedly revamped how people experience travel and food. A former executive chef turned host and author, his shows like "No Reservations" and "Parts Unknown" took watchers off the beaten paths, blending grungy locations with an inclination for the underdog and the hole-in-the-wall. His palate was impressive, his curiosity endless, and his ability to find these hidden gems made him a travel oracle. When asked by National Geographic about the most underrated travel destination he'd visited, he resoundingly answered Uruguay.  Located on South America's southeastern coast, Uruguay is the continent's second-smallest nation, and is often left in the shadows by the elevated pulse of well-known neighbors like Brazil and Argentina. Bourdain loved it for its authentic and unassuming energy, it's laidback soul, stunning beaches, and fabulous food. He raved about the national sandwich, the chivito. He wondered how such a place could remain this undiscovered, mostly known to the savvy Argentinians popping over for their vacations. With nearly half its 3.4 million people packed into the capital, Montevideo, Uruguay feels like a cozy, undiscovered treasure.  Getting there is easy, with the main port of entrance through Carrasco's International Airport in Montevideo, a travel hub promising to "bring Uruguay closer to the world." Many visitors opt to go during their summer season, October through March, when the sun offers long days, the beaches beckon, and the national Carnival reigns king. It's peak season, but worth it for the warmest days offering endless time to explore and acquaint oneself with the myriad adventures. Uruguay's beaches steal the show John W. Banagan/Getty Images Uruguay's coastline stretches about 410 miles along the gorgeous Atlantic Ocean, a golden strip of sand and surf beckoning sun-worshippers (Anthony Bourdain described them to National Geographic as "incredible"). From the stylish villages and resorts to the boho hideaways, there is a spot for every traveler. Punta del Este, also called "The Pearl of the Atlantic," is known as the crown jewel of Uruguay's coastline. Think South America's counter to the French Riviera. With its peninsula protruding into the ocean, it provides wonderful surfing, water sports, beach access, and a nightlife reverberating with glitz. The iconic La Mano sculpture, it's massive fingers reaching up from the sand, is an absolute must-see, while restaurants, art galleries, and fashionable shops line the streets waiting to be discovered.  For a more relaxed vibe, head to Jose Ignacio or La Barra, where barefoot vibes and serenity reign. These spots trade flash for soul —think horseback riding and sunsets that easily melt into the sea. Near to Montevideo, The Rambla stretches almost 13 miles, offering beaches like Playa de los Pocitos, a bustling enclave just minutes from downtown offers a beautiful stretch of golden sand, or check out Playa Carrasco where century-old mansions provide a beautiful architectural backdrop and a nod to the past. For solitude, Playa de la Aguada delivers quiet wave breaks perfect for surfing, while Laguna de Rocha, not a beach but a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, delights visitors with opportunities to see bright pink flamingos and birdwatching bliss. It's no wonder Bourdain saw this place as a sleeper hit — a true travel bucket list destination. Uruguay has a food scene worth savoring Abriendomundo/Getty Images Uruguay's culinary scene talks the talk and walks the walk — it's carved into its history, community, and lifestyle. The Fray Bentos Industrial Landscape, a UNESCO World Heritage site known as "the greatest kitchen of the world," revolutionizes meat processing while exporting over 200 products globally. This beef legacy lives on in the country, as grasslands cover about 80%, feeding cattle and animals that end up in popular dishes such as chivito. Bourdain called chivito the "the Mount Everest of sandwiches," stacked with beef, ham, bacon, egg, cheese, and more, often served atop a bed of french fries. It's a carnivore's dream, and a national icon. Then there is asado, the Uruguayan barbecue that's both meal and ritual. Slabs of beef, goat, or pork sizzling over an open, wood-fired flam, a smoky celebration of the country's community and pride. Vegetarians might struggle, but meat lovers will be in heaven. For dessert, dulce de leche reigns supreme, a rich and creamy caramelized sauce created by slowly cooking down sweet and condensed milk. Visitors will find this in many deserts, like flan, churros, or alfajores, shortbread cookies sandwiched by the rich and creamy gold. Pionono, a rolled sponge cake, and a sweet medialunas for breakfast round out the sugar rush. Uruguay is unapologetically simple, hearty, and steeped in history. The UNESCO nod to Fray Bentos provides the perfect punctuation: a food culture born from innovation and tradition, still thriving today. From beachside carnival feasts, Uruguay's table is set for adventure and delight. Go taste it for yourself to see why Bourdain called it a beautiful destination for your next South American beach vacation.  RECOMMENDED Not Even Rick Steves Would Return To This European Destination Rick Steves' Genius Trick To Keep Pick Pockets Far, Far Away Flight Attendants Are Always Watching For This While You Board The Clothing Color That Makes You A Target While Traveling Solo NEXT UP DESTINATIONS The 29 Most Beautiful Temples In The World molloykeith/E+ via Getty Images BY SYJIL ASHRAFAPRIL 29, 2020 2:30 PM EST Both places of worship and architectural marvels, these grand temples around the world are an amazing sight. A rental for every road Sponsored By Chase Travel See More 1. Lotus Temple (New Delhi) Naveen0301/E+ via Getty Images The lotus is sacred in many religions, including the Bahá'í faith, and as a floral symbol, it generally signifies enlightenment, rebirth, and purity. The Bahá'í House of Worship in New Delhi, popularly known as the Lotus Temple, takes on the shape of one to symbolize the unity of mankind, key to the faith. 2. Wat Rong Khun (Chiang Rai, Thailand) John D. Buffington/DigitalVision via Getty Images Wat Rong Khun is an undiscovered wonder of Thailand. Its distinctive design is in the Thai Buddhist style, and its pristine and white appearance seems to almost sparkle. 3. Temple Mount (Jerusalem) Ivoha/Shutterstock Jerusalem is an important city in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, and the Temple Mount is a significant place to all three religions. In addition to being the holiest site in Judaism, which dictates it as the site where Abraham offered up his son as sacrifice, it is also the third holiest site for Muslims, with the iconic Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque having been built here. 4. Kotoku-In (Kamakura, Japan) Patryk Kosmider/Shutterstock Kotoku-In is a Buddhist temple famous for being the home of the Great Buddha of Kamakura, the largest outdoor Buddha in Japan. Azaleas color the scenery during the blooming season, and the temple is surrounded by beautiful gardens as well. 5. Byodo-In Temple (Kaneohe, Hawaii) Shane Myers Photography/Shutterstock A lesser-known spot in Hawaii, the Byodo-In Temple is situated at the base of the Ko'olau Mountains of Oahu. The non-practicing Buddhist temple, which welcomes people of all faiths for worship, is surrounded by meditation spots, waterfalls, and a reflection pond — it even has some wandering wild peacocks. 6. Golden Temple (Amritsar, India) Traveler1116/E+ via Getty Images India's Sri Harminder Sahib, or Golden Temple, in Amritsar is one of the most sacred pilgrimage spots in Sikhism and gets its name due to the fact that it's built with 400 kilograms of gold leaf. The temple puts great emphasis on acts of kindness, notably feeding about 20,000 people for free every day and up to 100,000 for special occasions. 7. Temple of Heaven (Beijing) MediaProduction/E+ via Getty Images The Temple of Heaven in Beijing has a complex consisting of 92 buildings with 600 rooms. Two main sites are the Imperial Vault of Heaven and the Circular Mound, which is open to the heavens. 8. Temple of Confucius (Qufu, China) Elf0724/iStock via Getty Images Plus The Temple of Confucius is also a historical mansion that is the family home and resting place of the legendary philosopher and politician. In addition to the tomb of Confucius, the remains of more than 100,000 descendants are at the complex's cemetery. 9. Gawdawpalin Temple (Bagan, Myanmar) Rhombur/iStock via Getty Images Plus About 2,000 monuments and pagodas lie in the Bagan plains of Myanmar, including Gawdawpalin Temple. Towering above lush green trees, the russet tones of the temple match those around it in a mesmerizing sight. 10. Borobudur (Java, Indonesia) Adel Newman/Shutterstock The Indonesian island of Java is an underrated spot that's home to the largest Buddhist temple in the world. The Borobudur temple, which was built in the eighth and ninth centuries, has a main three-tiered stupa surrounded by 72 other stupas, each containing a statue of the Buddha. 11. Shwedagon Pagoda (Yangon, Myanmar) Xavierarnau/E+ via Getty Images Said to house multiple holy Buddhist relics, including strands of hair from the Buddha himself, Shwedagon Pagoda is a 2,500-year-old temple in what is now the coastal city of Yangon in present-day Myanmar. It was built using hundreds of gold plates and 4,531 diamonds encrusted into the top of its stupa. 12. Angkor Wat (Siem Reap, Cambodia) Martinho Smart/Shutterstock The temple of Angkor Wat is one of the largest religious structures in the world, originally built in the 12th century as a Hindu temple before being converted for Buddhist use. Marveling at this architectural achievement and its surrounding complex is a bucket-list experience for every American. 13. Temple Emanu-El (New York) demerzel21/iStock via Getty Images Plus New York City has plenty of sights, but you may not know about Temple Emanu-El. The new synagogue was designed in the Romanesque-revival style by Jewish architects and continues to be an important site in Reform Judaism. 14. Paro Taktsang (Upper Paro Valley, Bhutan) Avik/Shutterstock The South Asian nation of Bhutan's most iconic spot is the Taktsang Palphug Monastery, better known as Paro Taktsang. Situated on a cliff more than 10,000 feet above sea level, the temple complex is a breathtaking sight surrounded by majestic mountains and lush green valleys. 15. Mahabodhi Temple (Bodh Gaya, India) Tinnaporn/iStock via Getty Images Plus One of the first Buddhist temples built from brick that is still standing, the Mahabodhi Temple is an impressive 164 feet tall. One of the four main holy sites related to the life of the Buddha, the temple complex was established in the third century B.C. on the site where it is said he first achieved enlightenment. 16. Swaminarayan Akshardham (New Delhi) Sean Hsu/Shutterstock More than 8,000 volunteers from around the world helped build the Hindu temple Swaminarayan Akshardham in New Delhi, taking more than 300 million volunteer hours. This stunning work of architecture in the capital of India was made with marble and sandstone and is surrounded by lovely gardens and a courtyard. 17. Shri Swaminarayan Mandir (Robbinsville, New Jersey) Mihai_Andritoiu/Shutterstock Consecrated in 2014, the Shri Swaminarayan Mandir is a Hindu temple in Central New Jersey and is made entirely of Italian Carrara marble. The intricate carvings of the temple are one of the most breathtaking sights in America and include 13,499 individual carved stone pieces. 18. Wat Benchamabophit (Bangkok) Luciano Mortula – LGM/Shutterstock A landmark of the renowned city of Bangkok, Wat Benchamabophit — often known to foreigners as the Marble Temple — is an excellent example of traditional Thai architecture. The Buddhist temple was built using imported Italian marble and is notable for its striking golden and red roof. 19. Nan Hua Temple (Bronkhorstspruit, South Africa) Arnold Peterson/iStock via Getty Images Plus The largest Buddhist temple in Africa, Nan Hua Temple is also a seminary that draws in students eager to learn from all over the continent. Influenced by the architecture of eastern Asian temples, the building of Nan Hua Temple was supported by the significant Taiwanese community in South Africa. 20. Kashi Vishwanath Temple (Varanasi, India) Gaurav Joshi/iStock via Getty Images Plus Kashi Vishwanath Temple lies on the banks of the Ganges River where thousands of pilgrims come every year for a ritual bath. Located in Varanasi, one of the oldest cities in the world, the temple was built in the 18th century. 21. Pura Taman Ayun (Bali, Indonesia) Guitar photographer/Shutterstock Located in Bali, a paradisiacal island where it's always summer, Pura Taman Ayun dates back to 1634. Built in the traditional Balinese style, the temple grounds have a fountain area and lotus pond, as well as gardens. 22. The Grand Palace (Bangkok) Piyawat Nandeenopparit/Shutterstock Built in the late 18th century, Wat Phra Si Rattana Satsadaram is the royal chapel of the Grand Palace of Bangkok. The perfect spot for some self-care in the form of meditation or worship, it's also known as the Temple of the Emerald Buddha due to the elaborately emerald Buddha sitting on a golden throne inside. 23. Meenakshi Amman Temple (Madurai, India) Rchphoto/iStock via Getty Images Plus The Meenakshi Amman Temple in southern India is striking due to the rainbow of colors used to paint the figurines that cover the exterior of the Hindu temple. The temple was rebuilt in the 16th and 17th centuries after being destroyed along with much of the city in 1310. 24. Kinkaku-ji Temple (Kyoto, Japan) Marcociannarel/Shutterstock Kyoto is known for its gorgeous cherry blossoms and temples, and the Kinkaku-ji Temple —also known as the Golden Pavilion — is particularly lovely and iconic. Covered in gold leaf and home to sacred relics, the temple also has a garden and a teahouse on its grounds. 25. Cao Dai Temple (Tay Ninh, Vietnam) VuCongDanh/iStock via Getty Images Plus There are numerous temples in Vietnam dedicated to the Cao Dai religion, a widely encompassing religion that reveres figures from many religions and historic periods, including the Buddha, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Joan of Arc and Julius Caesar. Perhaps most impressive among them is the Cao Dai temple in Tay Ninh, which has bright yellow towers and red roofing that makes it stand out. 26. Bahá'í House of Worship (Wilmette, Illinois) Optop/iStock via Getty Images Plus Located about 16 miles outside of Chicago, the Bahá'í House of Worship is stunningly white both inside and out thanks to a combination of white Portland cement and quartz. Its nine gardens are also considered worship spaces, some including the pretty waters of a reflecting pool. 27. Seiganto-ji Temple (Wakayama, Japan) Nithid Memanee/Shutterstock A bright red temple with soft green roofs on its three tiers, the Seiganto-Ji Temple is a postcard-worthy sight. It stands against a backdrop of intense greenery and the beautiful waterfall known as Nachi Falls. 28. Salt Lake Temple (Salt Lake City) Lukas Bischoff Photograph/Shutterstock The iconic Salt Lake Temple is currently under renovation, yet is impressive all the same. Built in the Gothic style, the impressive temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is located in Salt Lake City's Temple Square, the most visited place in Utah. 29. Batu Caves (Selangor, Malaysia) Sallehudin Ahmad/Shutterstock Located just north of the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur, the Batu Caves have three main caves on site, accessed using a 272-step flight of stairs up a limestone outcropping. Several temples can be found within the largest cave, the Temple Cave, at the top of the steps. At the bottom of the steps lies the gigantic statue of the Hindu deity Murugan, making it one of the most awe-inspiring places of worship in the world. RECOMMENDED TSA Agents Just Can't Stand When You Wear This To The Airport The Real Reason You Should Skip Your Next Cruise Vacation The European Amenity Rick Steves Says Is Worth Splurging For Stay Away From This One Beach, It's Totally Overrun With Sharks DO NOT SELL OR SHARE MY INFORMATION Read More: https://www.explore.com/1811888/anthony-bourdain-called-one-country-uruguay-most-underrated-world/

Soccer Solidarity: Fans Join Grannies Protesting Low Pensions In Argentina

Soccer Solidarity: Fans Join Grannies Protesting Low Pensions Argentina Argentine soccer fans and retirees clashed with police in Buenos Aires Wednesday in one of the most violent protests yet against the austerity policies implemented by President Javier Milei, France 24 reported. Every Wednesday for the past year, pensioners have hit the streets in demonstrations that have generally stayed small and peaceful. However, during this week’s protests, a large group of soccer fans arrived, waving flags in support of the pensioners, the Associated Press reported. The crowd chanted “Milei, garbage, you are the dictatorship!” and “Don’t touch the elderly.” Police formed a cordon to block their march toward Congress and used tear gas, rubber bullets, and water hoses to scatter the protesters, who threw firecrackers, stun grenades, and stones in response. More than 20 people were injured and more than 100 were arrested. A video showing a police officer pushing and hitting an elderly woman who fell onto the ground, with her head bleeding, went viral on social media. Milei was elected on a promise to stabilize the economy and the country’s budget. As a result, he has made numerous cuts to social services and benefits. Retirees have taken the biggest hit. Milei last year vetoed a law that would have increased pensions.

El Salvador's Business Model Fills Jails

El Salvador’s New Business Model Fills Jails El Salvador Last month, Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele made an unusual offer to the United States: He said he was willing to take violent prisoners in US jails – citizens, legal residents, and migrants of any nationality – and house them in a mega-prison that now holds tens of thousands of suspected gang members. The offer was warmly welcomed. Bukele “has agreed to the most unprecedented, extraordinary migratory agreement anywhere in the world,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said after meeting with Bukele in early February. “We can send them, and he will put them in his jails.” “There are obviously legalities involved – we have a constitution,” he added. “But it’s a very generous offer. No one’s ever made an offer like that.” Bukele has made El Salvador’s harsh prisons a trademark of his aggressive fight against crime. Now he’s offering to “outsource” them for a fee, he said on X, explaining that the payments would make the enterprise sustainable, essentially a viable business model. The crown jewel of the prison system is the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), which was opened in 2023 just outside of the capital of San Salvador. It can house about 40,000 inmates. Bukele says the prison is a symbol of El Salvador’s successful transformation: “El Salvador has managed to go from being the world’s most dangerous country to the safest country in the Americas. How did we do it? By putting criminals in jail. Is there space? There is now.” For years, powerful street gangs had a stranglehold on the country, terrorizing residents, strangling business, and threatening governance. Then, in 2019, Bukele was elected on a promise to bring crime under control. Three years later, he declared a state of emergency, suspended civil liberties, and sent the army out into the streets after rival gangs went to war and killed 62 people in a few hours. Since then, about 84,000 people have been arrested, in three years tripling the prison population to about 110,000 in the country of about 6 million. Homicide rates have plummeted, life has changed. “The environment where we live is very different now,” one woman told the Associated Press. “It’s very quiet now for the family, for the kids.” El Salvador last year had a record low 114 homicides, a decrease of almost 50 percent over 2023. In 2015, there were 6,656 homicides. As a result, Bukele’s approval ratings among voters hover in the 90 percent range. He won the election last year with 83 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, the number of Salvadorans trying to cross the border into the United States has fallen by a third. Now, he’s looking ahead, trying to revamp the country in other ways, too. Recently, he lured Tether, the world’s leading stablecoin firm, to El Salvador to create its first physical headquarters. That’s part of his attempt to turn El Salvador into crypto central: In 2021, El Salvador became the first country to make Bitcoin legal tender. Last week, however, the International Monetary Fund told the country to stop accumulating and mining the currency. He’s been reshaping the government, too. Recently, he’s changed the constitution to make it easier to change it. Now he’s trying to eliminate public financing of political campaigns. Both moves, critics say, are designed to eliminate political competition. As a result, the “World’s Coolest Dictator,” as he calls himself, has opposition groups, human rights organizations, and others worried. A year ago, he won his second term even though the constitution forbids consecutive terms for presidents by packing the judiciary and resigning just before the election. Now he’s already talking about an illegal third term. Meanwhile, he has cracked down on journalists, unions, and civil society groups, intimidated opposition lawmakers, and ousted judges who cross him, wrote World Politics Review. He has also jailed thousands without any access to lawyers or due process: Amnesty International said that El Salvador is essentially undertaking the “gradual replacement of gang violence with state violence.” El Salvador has become the most incarcerated country in the world, with 1.6 percent of the Salvadoran population now behind bars – more than four times that of the United States. Now, there is a different type of climate of fear in the country: Salvadorans say that it is common to end up in jail because someone has anonymously reported them to the police, who don’t investigate the claims. Meanwhile, the US State Department describes El Salvador’s overcrowded prisons as “harsh and dangerous,” lacking water and other basics. El Salvadoran officials say they want to keep these individuals in jail for life, regardless of what crime they have – or haven’t committed. Now, Bukele is turning his success at reducing crime into a nationwide business by importing criminals. As Foreign Policy noted, “Where El Salvador has become a true leader – not only in the Western Hemisphere but globally – is incarceration.” Share this story

El Salvador's Experience With Cryptocurrency Ends In Failure

Finance & economics | Bukele buckles El Salvador’s wild crypto experiment ends in failure Its curtailment is the price of an IMF bail-out. And one worth paying A Bitcoin statue in San Bartolo Plaza in Ilopango, El Salvador Relic of another agePhotograph: Getty Images Mar 2nd 2025 Save Share Give For much of the time since Nayib Bukele became president in 2019, El Salvador has teetered on the brink of default. The warning signs were familiar: high debt and interest payments, exacerbated by a wide fiscal deficit; low dollar reserves; anaemic investment and GDP growth. Negotiations with the IMF over a bail-out were deadlocked. Mr Bukele’s relentless attacks on the judiciary, his opponents and the media did not inspire confidence. Then there was his crypto fixation. In 2021 El Salvador became the first country to make bitcoin legal tender, alongside the dollar. The president vowed to shun conventional capital markets, and raise billions via tokenised blockchain bonds. He would buy $500m-worth of bitcoin, build a “bitcoin city” in the jungle and develop geothermal energy to power bitcoin miners. The conventional markets shunned him. Several Salvadoran bonds traded below 30 cents on the dollar in the summer of 2022. When the government started deferring public-sector salaries to preserve cash, investors prepared for the worst. Yet El Salvador has defied expectations—and on February 26th the IMF’s board approved a $1.4bn loan to be disbursed over 40 months. In order to obtain the money, El Salvador has made the usual promises on fiscal discipline. It is also scaling back its crypto project. After a change to the law in January, taxes are no longer payable in bitcoin, and its acceptance in the private sector is voluntary. On its way to the IMF deal, El Salvador showed remarkable commitment to paying its debts; Mr Bukele was in part motivated by a desire to show up his Wall Street doubters. The country’s bond prices have climbed all the way back to par. Officials used scarce dollars to buy back bonds at a discount, saving a good share of future payments of principal. The fiscal deficit, which hit 10% of GDP in 2020, has returned to pre-pandemic levels of 2-3%. A crackdown on tax evasion, strong inflows of remittances and an economic uptick have boosted government revenue; the phasing-out of energy subsidies and pandemic-era programmes have slowed spending. The fund’s loan lowers the risk of a debt crisis, especially if it unlocks a further $2.1bn from other multilateral lenders as is hoped. Despite the deficit-cutting, the country might not have managed much longer. When debt is high and growth low, raising money at 12%, as El Salvador did in early 2024, is unsustainable. Sovereign default is all the more costly in a dollarised economy such as El Salvador’s, with no lender of last resort to avert a bank run or financial contagion. Local bank deposits are partly backed by government debt, so default might snowball into a banking crisis and even de-dollarisation. Pumped, now dumped As for bitcoin, its demotion may be more of a blessing than a concession. Mr Bukele promoted the cryptocurrency as a way to provide financial services to the two-thirds of adults without a bank account and to lower the cost of remittances, which come to almost a quarter of GDP. But the main barriers to financial inclusion are the size of the formal economy and low digital literacy. Remittances are expensive because Salvadorans like to send and receive banknotes, a pricey business made pricier by crime. The government also rushed the roll-out of Chivo, a digital wallet. Bugs and identity theft, to snaffle the $30-worth of bitcoin for signing up, were rife. The IMF was wary of lending to El Salvador while bitcoin was legal tender. Its volatile price posed a risk to financial and fiscal stability. The fund also pointed to bitcoin’s potential use in crime. El Salvador, according to the IMF, will limit “transactions in and purchases of” the currency. The country has in fact kept buying up to 1.6 bitcoin a day since the deal, according to blockchain data. It may yet have to reduce or reverse purchases to comply with the agreement. El Salvador owns 6,102 bitcoin, valued at around $550m, including unrealised gains of $250m or so, about which the president boasts regularly. Despite these profits, crypto has brought El Salvador more costs than benefits. The free publicity has been welcome, yet crypto-investment and crypto-tourism have been small beer. Gains in financial inclusion and from more efficient payments are meagre at best: the currency never really caught on. In 2022, when the hype was at its peak, a survey by CID-Gallup found that only a fifth of firms accepted bitcoin and just 5% of tax payments were in crypto. Recent numbers are likely to be even lower, as Salvadorans have retained their strong preference for cash and payment cards. Moreover, the policy cost $375m in all—from the Chivo rollout, subsidised transaction fees, bitcoin ATMs and more—according to Moody’s, a rating agency. That far exceeds the profits on bitcoin holdings, which could still evaporate. By delaying an IMF deal, the crypto experiment kept El Salvador’s risk premium high. Mr Bukele enjoys stratospheric approval ratings, often above 90%. It was not crypto that made him “the world’s most popular dictator”, as he calls himself, but his draconian crackdown on crime, in which due process and the rights of presumed criminals have been forgotten. His obsession with cryptocurrency has done little to ease El Salvador’s economic woes. Although bitcoin may remain a reserve asset on the national balance-sheet, its days as legal tender are over. Mr Bukele is just the latest crypto-utopian to see his wild ideas dissolve on contact with reality. ■ For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, finance and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.

Ecuador: Bring In The Calvary

Bring in the Cavalry Ecuador Ecuador will seek foreign military aid to combat drug cartels and organized crime groups in the South American country, officials said this week, as authorities continue to grapple with rising violent crime, the Associated Press reported. On Wednesday, Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa ordered the foreign ministry to create cooperation agreements with “allied nations” that would allow “the incorporation of special forces” to aid Ecuador’s security forces. The arrangement did not specify which countries Ecuador is asking for security assistance. The proposal comes weeks after Noboa won the first round of presidential elections, with the second vote scheduled in April. It also comes as Ecuador struggles with a spike in violence tied to the trafficking of cocaine produced in neighboring Colombia and Peru. Mexican, Colombian, and Balkan cartels operate in the country with help from local gangs. Noboa’s administration has managed to reduce the homicide rate from 46.18 per 100,000 people in 2023 to 38.76 per 100,000 people last year. Despite the dip, it remained far higher than the rate of 6.85 killings per 100,000 people recorded in 2019. Security analysts said the request is a temporary measure that would see foreign troops help in gathering intelligence, and local security officials stop trafficking via the country’s ports. Wednesday’s announcements came months after Ecuador’s constitutional court ruled in favor of an amendment to the constitution that would allow foreign military bases in the country. For a decade, the United States military operated a base in Ecuador primarily dedicated to anti-narcotic operations. However, this ended in 2009 when then-President Rafael Correa terminated the agreement with the US, citing concerns over sovereignty. The constitutional court’s decision will now be debated in the legislature and, if approved, ratified through a referendum. Share this story

Rio Suffers Its Hottest Day In A Decade

World Rio de Janeiro records its hottest day in at least a decade — about 145 degrees hotter than North Dakota Updated on: February 18, 2025 / 8:06 AM EST / CBS/AP Rio de Janeiro recorded its hottest day in at least a decade when temperatures on Monday reached 44 degrees Celsius (111 degrees Fahrenheit) — about 145 degrees warmer than Bismarck, North Dakota — as residents flocked to the ocean to try to cool off. It was the highest temperature since the southeastern Brazilian city started a climate alert system just over 10 years ago. The second-highest was 43.8°C in November 2023. City officials issued an alert for extreme heat for the coming days, set up hydration stations and prepared the public health system to handle an increase in heat-related cases. People cool off in showers during a heatwave at the Ipanema beach in Rio de Janeiro People cool off in showers during a heatwave at the Ipanema beach in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil February 16, 2025. Pilar Olivares / REUTERS Raquel Franco, chief meteorologist of the Rio Alert System, said the previous heat record for February in the city was 41.8C, recorded in February 2023. With no rain on the horizon, "we may have one of the driest Februarys in history," Franco said. Rio Mayor Eduardo Paes on Sunday ruled out canceling Carnival festivities that ramp up over the coming weeks, but he recommended that revelers take precautions. "We are expecting the hottest summer in recent years," Rio's health secretary Daniel Soranz told AFP on Monday. "In January, more than 3,000 people were treated in municipal emergency services due to the intense heat," particularly for sunburns and dehydration, Soranz said, adding this was more than double the numbers seen in recent years. APTOPIX Brazil Summer Weather People flock to Ipanema beach during summer in Rio de Janeiro, Sunday, Feb. 16, 2025. Bruna Prado / AP There has been heightened concern about heat at public events in Brazil since a Taylor Swift fan died during her Eras Tour concert in Rio during the November 2023 heat wave. In Copacabana, wilting doorman Robson Oliveira stopped to take a picture of an electronic display showing the temperature at 39C. "This heat is unbearable," he told AFP. "I'm not used to it. It's about time for a little rain to cool off." The weather picture was decidedly different in the U.S. on Monday. The National Weather Service warned of "life-threatening cold" as wind chills dropped to minus 50 Fahrenheit in parts of Montana and minus 60 Fahrenheit in parts of North Dakota. The temperature in Bismarck, North Dakota on Monday reached a low of minus 35 Fahrenheit. Agence France-Presse contributed to this report. More from CBS News Brazil's Bolsonaro charged for alleged plot for coup, poison try on successor "No Kings on Presidents Day" rallies across the country target Trump, Musk Over 150 false killer whales stranded on beach can't be saved, experts say The pope has a "polymicrobial respiratory tract infection." What is it? In: Brazil Heat

Uruguay Is Moving Toward China

Stability Über Alles Uruguay Last fall, when Uruguayans were asked in a referendum whether they would like to retire five years early with bigger pension payments, they resoundingly said no. They worried that the country would become unstable if it took on more debt to fund the changes. It’s unusual for voters to vote against their own personal interests anywhere. But in this small, prosperous South American country of 3.4 million people in the center of a region marked by violence, instability, and authoritarian governments, voters see stability as their interest. That drive for moderation and stability is evident in the politics of the country – here, elections are fought from the center, wrote World Politics Review. That was especially true of the elections last fall. For example, the winner, Yamandú Orsi of the left-wing Broad Front party, won on a campaign that promised stability and “Safe change that won’t be radical.” His opponent, Álvaro Delgado of the center-right National Party, delivered a similar message. During the election, as the Americas Society/Council of the Americas explained, voters liked the idea of decreasing the retirement age from 65 to 60. But they worried it would put too much pressure on the national budget. Some say that such caution isn’t helping the country solve its problems. For example, one top concern is the deteriorating security situation, mainly due to the rise of criminal gangs, which is harming the country’s reputation as a beacon of stability. Cocaine shipments to Europe have surged through the port of the capital, Montevideo, fueling a rise in gang violence, wrote Insight Crime. The murder rate has almost doubled in a decade to 11 per 100,000 people. That has shocked the population, which is unaccustomed to such violence. “Uruguay is in a precarious position,” wrote Reuters, “fighting a lonely battle against cocaine-smuggling gangs” that have expanded into every corner of Latin America over the last decade, turning once-tranquil nations like Ecuador into cartel badlands. Other issues facing the country, in spite of it being one of the wealthiest countries in Latin America, are the cost of living, education, and poverty. About half of all children finish high school, one in five children live in poverty, and the country has one of the highest youth unemployment rates in Latin America – about 26 percent. Another issue that worries voters is the economy and trade. Economic growth is slow and steady in the country, at around 4 percent last year. But Ecuadorians are rattled by US President Donald Trump’s tariff threats and other shocks to the global economy. As a result, Uruguayans are growing closer to China and also Europe. “Energy is expensive. China is now seen as a complicated competitor. The US is getting more and more protectionist. In this new geopolitical scenario, it is key for Europe to strengthen the partnerships they can have,” Uruguay’s Foreign Minister Omar Paganini told Politico. “For Latin America, the situation is rather similar … in the sense that we are being pulled by different powers like China, the US. We need long-term friendships with stable partners.” Top European Union officials visited Uruguay in December to sign a landmark free-trade agreement with the Latin American Mercosur trade bloc, made up of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay. The deal had been in the works for decades. Meanwhile, China and Uruguay are negotiating a bilateral trade deal even as Uruguay is also pushing for a wider Mercosur trade agreement with China. China and Brazil are Uruguay’s top trade partners. Uruguayan officials say they have tried for years to get a free trade agreement with the US and would have preferred that, given that they have “issues related to how the Chinese believe, and their political organization, the human rights issues,” Uruguay officials explained. “So let’s be pragmatic, we are a small country in a complicated world, we need trade partners – and they are stable people,” added Paganini. “Moreover, the world is changing and not for good for those who believe in rules-based relationships and agreements.”

Brasil: Why The World's Green Engine Is Stalling

Why the world’s green engine is stalling Ana Lankes Brazil bureau chief A few weeks ago I visited the port of Açu, which lies 320km north-east of Rio de Janeiro. There were no containers piled up in warehouses or big gantry cranes hanging over terminals. Instead, the site looks almost like a nature reserve—including a sanctuary for baby loggerhead turtles and a broad-leaf forest—with most of the action concentrated on the distant horizon. The port was built to provide offshore logistical support to oil platforms that pump crude out of nearby basins, as part of a plan to establish Brazil as a global oil-and-gas hub. Now, though, the current owners have different plans. They are ploughing billions of dollars into turning it into a hub for green industry, including factories to build wind farms, make clean steel and produce ammonia. The transformation of the Açu is representative of Brazil’s broader aspirations. The country has everything it takes to become a green powerhouse. It has huge potential sources for clean energy, thanks to mighty rivers in the Amazon basin, consistent sunshine in the north-east and strong winds from the Atlantic. It is also an agricultural behemoth, producing much of the sugar, soyabeans, cotton, coffee and oranges the world consumes. The waste from these products can be converted into fuel. All this could make Brazil one of the cheapest places to produce green hydrogen (which requires vast amounts of renewable electricity to replace the power usually provided by coal) as well as biofuels, which are needed to decarbonise heavy industries like steel, shipping and aviation. Investors should be flooding in. Brazil has attracted some foreign direct investment in renewables, but it will need much more to realise its green ambitions. Why is the cash slow in coming? There are several reasons, but an important one is Brazil’s volatile economy. Even in more stable countries there are dangers to investing in big decarbonisation projects. The German government has ploughed $525m into a green-steel plant owned by ThyssenKrupp. It was set to open in 2027, but may be cancelled due to escalating costs. Now think of Brazil: last year the real was the world’s worst-performing major currency. The interest rate is expected to reach 14.25% in March, compared with 4.25-4.5% in the United States and 6.25% in India. Many investors worry that President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is a spendthrift and that their investments could eventually get caught up in a wider economic crisis. The president has also sent mixed signals. Even while pursuing green ambitions, he is pressuring the environmental regulator to grant Petrobras, the state oil firm, a licence to drill for oil near the mouth of the Amazon. That is a bad look for a country that will host the COP30 climate summit in November. Brazil has everything it needs to be the world’s green engine. It just needs the right driver. Thanks for reading this edition of the Climate Issue. Do you think Brazil can become a green superpower while still pursuing oil? Should it push ahead with big green investments regardless of the risks? We’re always interested to hear our readers’ views. Write to us at climateissue@economist.com. .

Most Latin AMerican Migrants No Longer Go To The United States

The Americas | Migration Most Latin American migrants no longer go to the United States Can the region cope with a new wave? Venezuelan migrant holds his daughter while resting in a hammock Photograph: AP Feb 13th 2025|Cúcuta Save Share Give Listen to this story. Esther Hernández fled Venezuela to Colombia in 2017 with her husband, three daughters and a sewing machine. Her voice cracks as she recalls sleeping in a shelter, cooking on an open fire and at times going hungry. Her husband left for Chile in 2018, desperate for work. He eventually got a construction job in Puerto Montt, some 8,000km (5,000 miles) away. Ms Hernández built up a sewing business. Saving furiously, and with regularised legal status in Colombia, the family eventually bought land in El Zulia, a small village near the Venezuelan border. Brick by brick she built a house there. Now, after six years away, her husband is coming home at last. “I am a Zuliana now,” she smiles. If you listen to American politicians you might think that every migrant in Latin America is heading for the United States. In the past most did, but not any more. The Hernández family, rather than those who make for the United States, is now typical of Latin American migrants. Between 2015 and 2022 the number of intra-regional migrants in Latin America and the Caribbean soared by nearly 7m to almost 13m. Over the same period the number of migrants from the region living in the United States increased by just 1m. Map: The Economist Most of those migrants are Venezuelans fleeing dictatorship and economic chaos. Some 8m now live outside Venezuela, 85% of those in Latin America and the Caribbean. They are joined by Nicaraguans, also ditching dictatorship, who tend to make for Costa Rica. Haitians, escaping the horror of their gang-run state, also tend to settle in Latin America and the Caribbean, particularly in the Dominican Republic and Chile. With a 2,200km border with Venezuela, Colombia is on the front line. Some 2.8m Venezuelans live there, one in every 20 people in Colombia. The country has been remarkably welcoming. In 2017 it opened the first of a series of schemes giving some Venezuelans access to health care and education, and the right to work, for two years. In 2021 it went further, guaranteeing Venezuelans who had arrived before February that year most of the rights enjoyed by Colombians, even if they had entered the country irregularly. This scheme lasts for a decade, and provides a path to permanent residency and citizenship. Almost 2m Venezuelans, including Ms Hernández, have already received their new identity card under this scheme. Some 350,000 more applications are being processed. This warm welcome can be seen at the Centro Abrazar (roughly, hugging centre) in Bogotá, a kindergarten-cum-migrant-centre funded by the city’s government. Mere days after long, scary journeys, dozens of Venezuelan children twirl and sing, wearing paper sashes decorated in crayon with their favourite word about themselves (“happy”, “beautiful”, “brave”). The centre is free, open every day of the year and, crucially, helps new arrivals quickly get their papers in order and their children registered in Bogotá’s school system. A nativist might expect such a welcome to lead to severe economic disruption. Yet migrants did not push up unemployment among local workers, even in Colombia. The wages of less-educated and informal workers did fall in Brazil, Colombia and Ecuador, but the decrease was usually small and temporary. The IMF estimates that since 2017, Venezuelan migrants have increased annual GDP growth by an average of 0.1 percentage points in receiving countries like Panama, and by 0.2 in Colombia, a boost which will last until 2030. Hospitals and schools feel the strain, nowhere more so than in Colombia. In 2019 the country spent 0.5% of its GDP looking after migrants, according to the IMF. Spending has declined since then to around 0.3% of GDP. The IMF says the costs will be balanced over time by rising tax revenues as more migrants enter the labour force. Quick regularisation is helpful, as it brings down health-care costs as well as boosting the tax take. Many Latin Americans, especially Chileans, think migrants bring crime. A study by Nicolás Ajzenman of McGill University and co-authors, which examined data from between 2008 and 2017, found that when the proportion of migrants in a given part of Chile doubles, the share of people there who say crime is either their biggest or second-biggest concern jumps by 19 percentage points, relative to the nationwide mean of 36%. But they found no impact on crime of any sort. Colombia saw an increase in violent crime near the border in 2016, when migration was surging, but the victims tended to be Venezuelan, suggesting it is migrants who bear the risks. Still, crime has risen overall in Chile in recent years. Politicians blame migrants. The influx of black Haitians also “triggered much more evident racism”, says Ignacio Eissmann of the Jesuit Migrant Service in Chile, an NGO. Attitudes are hardening elsewhere, too. Between 2020 and 2023 the share of Costa Ricans who say migrants damage the country jumped by 15 percentage points to 65%. In Peru and Ecuador four in five people believe the same. Governments—most of which were welcoming initially—are reaching their limits. From 2018 Chile demanded that Venezuelans and Haitians must get a visa before coming. Peru and Ecuador started demanding the same of Venezuelans in 2019. It is now nearly impossible for Venezuelans to get a visa at home; after Nicolás Maduro stole the election in July, all three countries closed their embassies there. Chile’s leftist president, Gabriel Boric, says the country cannot take more migrants. Regularisation has stopped, and he is pushing to widen deportation powers. Peru’s government has made it much harder for migrants to regularise their status. In theory migrant children can attend school regardless. In practice the missing paperwork often blocks them. Brazil and Colombia remain relatively generous. Carlos Fernando Galán, the mayor of Bogotá, says political leaders have a responsibility “to ensure there is not more xenophobia, to show the benefits that migration can bring”. Yet angry voices are growing louder. Almost 70% of Colombians think that migrants cause an increase in crime. That may be why Gustavo Petro, Colombia’s president, has been slow to introduce new regularisation schemes for recent Venezuelan arrivals. (He recently announced a scheme so restrictive that few will benefit.) “The central government has gone backwards,” sighs Gaby Arellano of the Together We Can Foundation, an NGO which helps Venezuelans. Mr Maduro’s rule in Venezuela is becoming more despotic. Arrivals to Colombia have increased since July 2024, though official numbers are unreliable. The border is riddled with trochas (illegal crossings); at official crossings people are often waved through without a document check. Some say the Maduro regime’s persistence makes little difference to migration. “Whoever comes will be manageable,” says Jorge Acevedo, mayor of the border town of Cúcuta. His words reflect Colombia’s welcoming spirit, but his city is now dealing with an influx of Colombians displaced by violence in the nearby region of Catatumbo. More Venezuelans could break a strained system. Whoever comes, Colombia, Peru and the region, not the United States, will again feel the biggest impact. ■ Sign up to El Boletín, our subscriber-only newsletter on Latin America, to understand the forces shaping a fascinating and complex region. Explore more Venezuela Immigration The Americas United States

The US Is Giving El Salvador A Nuclear Reactor For Housing US Prisoners There

The Trade El Salvador El Salvador offered to incarcerate criminals of any nationality deported from the US and house them in its mega-jail, a deal made the same day that the US offered to help El Salvador develop nuclear energy capabilities, CBS News reported. According to El Salvador’s Foreign Minister Alexandra Hill Tinoco, the civil nuclear cooperation agreement signed by El Salvador and the US aims at providing the country with “competitive” energy pricing while cutting its dependence on favorable geopolitics and oil prices. Tinoco explained that the US’ experience on civil nuclear energy will provide El Salvador with the tools to train the expert personnel who will manage the technical and regulatory aspects of this “unprecedented” transition. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio approved the nuclear agreement immediately after praising El Salvador President Nayib Bukele’s offer to take individuals incarcerated in the US, including US citizens, as an “offer of friendship” that no other country ever made, the BBC reported. Bukele said he would house convicted criminals in El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) – a mega-jail capable of holding up to 40,000 people – charging the US a fee that would be “relatively low” for the country but “significant” enough to make El Salvador’s prison system sustainable. El Salvador’s nuclear plans are in a very early stage. According to the World Nuclear Association, the US is the largest producer of nuclear energy. Nuclear supporters say that this resource is one of the most reliable and environmentally friendly energy sources, while critics believe it is dangerous, wasteful, and expensive. Before receiving significant exports of US nuclear material and equipment, partner countries will need to sign a 123 Agreement intended to promote mutual nuclear nonproliferation between the United States and its partners. Because El Salvador is not one of the eight countries able to enrich uranium and procure the necessary fuel for nuclear power, it has to rely on other countries for new nuclear technology. El Salvador signed a similar agreement with Argentina last October.

The Huge Problems With US Deportations To Latin American Countries

Carrots, Sticks, and Dignity Central America / South America When US President Donald Trump sent a plane of deported Colombians back to the country recently, Colombian President Gustavo Petro balked, saying he would only permit deportees to be returned “in a dignified manner.” He turned back the flights. US threats of high tariffs on Colombian goods and other punishments led to a standoff until Petro gave in, but only after the White House promised “dignified” returns in the future. The affair served as a warning to the entire region, wrote the Los Angeles Times. “For Trump, the episode gave him a chance to show the rest of Latin America the risks they face if they do not fall in line with his deportation plan.” As a result, other leaders in the region, such as those of Brazil and especially Mexico, are trying to avoid a showdown, choosing pragmatism instead. For example, when a flight with deportees to Brazil landed in the city of Manaus in late January, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva wasn’t happy. The Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the highest-ranking diplomat at the US embassy in Brasília soon after to demand that such an incident not be repeated. The issue was how 88 deportees were forced to travel handcuffed on an aging US airplane in uncomfortable conditions. The Brazilian officials demanded – and were given, similar to the Colombians – assurances that such fights in the future would provide “dignified, respectful, and humane treatment” for the returning Brazilians. “We had a very sober reaction,” said Brazilian Minister of Justice Ricardo Lewandowski after the incident. “We do not want to provoke the American government.” Still, it’s Mexico that has the most to lose. Colombia is a minor trade partner with the US and also isn’t a major source of migrants. But Mexico is not only the largest source of migrants to the US, the US is its largest trade partner – 80 percent of its exports head north. As a result, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum is playing it safe. “The relationship with the United States is special,” Sheinbaum said. “We are obliged to have a good relationship.” Mexico might be feeling a little put upon since Trump became president again, however: “More than any other country, Donald Trump went after Mexico on his first day in office,” the Economist noted. For example, the flurry of actions directed at Mexico included threatening tariffs on the country of 25 percent, ordering an investigation into trade imbalances, ordering its criminal gangs to be designated as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs), declaring an emergency at the southern border, and reinstating policies that leave third-country migrants languishing on Mexican soil. The migrant issue poses a particular problem for Mexico. Thousands who were hoping to cross the border are stuck in Mexico. Some border towns are worried that they will be overwhelmed with deported Mexicans – illegals are estimated to number about five million in the US – plus millions more who are not Mexican. Tijuana recently declared a state of emergency over the issue, CNN reported. While Mexico accepted thousands of migrants deported from the US last month, one sticking point is the third-country nationals and who will pay for them. Sheinbaum has allowed some of those flights to land but said Mexico wouldn’t accept everyone, especially those foreign asylum-seekers who are part of the resumption of the “remain in Mexico” policy. Still, in most cases, Sheinbaum is acquiescing to US demands or making it seem as if she is, the Washington Post noted. Meanwhile, there is one US demand that has crossed a line for Mexico – renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. Sheinbaum said when she encountered that executive order, she couldn’t help but laugh. “He says that he will call it the Gulf of America on its continental shelf,” Sheinbaum said, noting the gulf was named four centuries ago. “For us, it is still the Gulf of Mexico, and for the entire world, it is still the Gulf of Mexico.” But she wasn’t joking when she sent Google a note afterward, telling the company to reverse the name change because one country could not unilaterally rename the gulf. Maybe we should “rename North America as ‘América Mexicana,’” she added. “That sounds nice, no?”

Panama's Canal Treat Declassified

The Panama Canal Treaty Declassified Panama Canal Treaty in the Pan American Union Building in Washington, September 7, 1977 Jimmy Carter and General Omar Torrijos shake hands after signing the Panama Canal Treaty in the Pan American Union Building, Washington, September 7, 1977 Formerly Top Secret Records Shed Light on True History of Canal Negotiations Canal Negotiations Were Bipartisan Effort, Spanned Four Presidencies Kissinger Signed “Declaration of Principles” for New Treaty; Oversaw Diplomatic Advances on Ceding Control of Canal Zone in mid 1970s Kissinger Warning: “This is no issue to face the world on. It looks like pure colonialism.” Published: Feb 3, 2025 Briefing Book # 884 Edited by Peter Kornbluh For more information, contact: 202-994-7000 or peter.kornbluh@gmail.com Regions Mexico and Central America Carter and Torrijos at Sept 7 1977 Signing Ceremony Carter and Torrijos at Sept 7 1977 Signing Ceremony Carter and Torrijos at Sept 7 1977 Signing Ceremony Carter and Torrijos at Sept 7 1977 Signing Ceremony Robert Anderson Robert M. Anderson served as special ambassador to Panama to negotiate a Canal Zone treaty from April 1964 to June 1973 Ellsworth Bunker Ellsworth Bunker, the former US Ambassador to Vietnam, served as a lead negotiator on the Panama Canal accords during the Ford and Carter administrations. Sol Linowitz In 1977, Jimmy Carter appointed Sol Linowitz to work with Ambassador Bunker to finalize the Panama Canal treaty negotiations. Washington, D.C., February 3, 2025 - Continued U.S. control of the Panama Canal “looks like pure colonialism,” Henry Kissinger advised President Gerald Ford during a National Security Council meeting in May 1975, 50 years ago. “Internationally, failure to conclude a treaty is going to get us into a cause celebre, with harassment, demonstrations, bombing of embassies,” Kissinger warned, according to a declassified memorandum of conversation posted today by the National Security Archive. The lead negotiator for a new Canal Zone treaty, Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker, reinforced that point: “I have no doubt that failure in these negotiations would entail unacceptable risks,” Bunker told the president, “including negative effects beyond Panama which would disrupt our relations with Latin America, lead to world condemnation, and hamper the operation of the waterway.” According to Kissinger, “This is no issue to face the world on.” The NSC ”memcon” is featured in a new Electronic Briefing Book published today by the National Security Archive as confrontation over the Panama Canal escalates into a central U.S. foreign policy and international issue. On February 2, Secretary of State Marco Rubio held meetings in Panama to press the Trump administration’s claims that the presence of a Chinese company in the Canal Zone violates the neutrality clause of the 1977 Treaty. “Secretary Rubio made clear that this status quo is unacceptable and that absent immediate changes, it would require the United States to take measures necessary to protect its rights under the treaty,” the State Department said in a threatening summary of the meeting. During his inaugural address, President Trump said, “We didn’t give it to China. We gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back”—an ominous statement that prompted Panama to file a complaint to the United Nations that the U.S. is in violation of the UN Charter prohibiting “the threat or use of force” against the territorial integrity of member nations. But during Secretary Rubio’s visit to Panama, Trump reiterated that threat: “We’re going to take it back, or something very powerful is going to happen.” CIA memorandum The documents posted today include CIA reports, NSC briefing papers, White House meeting minutes, telephone transcripts and audio tapes dating back to the Kennedy era. Although the current Canal accords were signed by President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian leader General Omar Torrijos in September 1977, negotiations for a new treaty ceding sovereignty of the Canal Zone back to Panama spanned a period of 13 years—from 1964 to 1977—during the Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations. Almost a half century after complex and protracted bilateral diplomatic efforts finally removed the Canal Zone as a contentious and internationally repudiated symbol of U.S. hegemony in the Latin America region, these fascinating archival records provide a contextual, factual overview to understand and appreciate the historical foundations of the foreign policy crisis that is escalating today over Panama. Memorandum for the president Historical Takeaways The various phases of bilateral talks evolved during different eras and with a variety of approaches on both the U.S. and Panamanian sides. But as a collection, the documents provide several key takeaways that can inform the increasingly misleading and aggressive political discourse over Panama. Among them: **The Canal Treaty negotiations were bipartisan: Diplomatic negotiations to withdraw U.S. control of the Canal Zone and recognize Panama’s sovereignty over the waterway were conducted under two Democratic administrations—Johnson and Carter—and two Republican administrations—Nixon and Ford. Although the Carter administration receives due historical credit in the media for negotiating and signing the current Panama Canal accords, that historic agreement evolved from talks initiated under the Johnson Administration in early 1964, after anti-American protests in the Zone and the U.S. response cost the lives of 22 Panamanian students and four U.S. soldiers and left hundreds injured. In April 1964, Johnson appointed the first “special ambassador,” Robert M. Anderson, to negotiate a new treaty to replace the imperial 1903 agreement giving the U.S. carte blanche political, military, economic and administrative control over the Canal territories. Over the course of three years, Anderson negotiated a package of three treaties governing the administration and defense of the Canal Zone; for political reasons, the accords were never signed or ratified in either Washington or Panama. But Anderson continued as chief negotiator during the Nixon administration until June 1973. Kissinger signed a "Declaration of Principles" On February 7, 1974, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger signed a "Declaration of Principles" with Panama's foreign minister, Juan Antonio Tack, creating a framework for a new Canal Zone treaty. During Henry Kissinger’s tenure as Secretary of State, negotiations between the U.S. and Panama gained significant momentum. In February 1974, Kissinger traveled to Panama for a signing ceremony of a “Declaration of Principles” that established an eight-point framework for negotiations to cede control of the Zone to Panama. Given the contentious domestic politics surrounding U.S. control of the Zone, the Ford administration planned to finalize and sign an accord after the November 1976 presidential election on the assumption that Ford would win. Instead, the new Carter administration quickly affirmed that it would finalize negotiations to replace the 1903 treaty with a two-treaty package—one on administrative control and one on the future defense of the canal. President Carter also committed himself to a major public relations campaign to educate U.S. public opinion on how the new treaties would advance U.S. interests and lobby swing senators from both parties to vote to ratify the two-treaty agreement. **U.S. policy motivations were to secure sustainable, peaceful access to, and defense of, the waterway: After President Carter died at age 100, President Trump accused him of “giving [the Canal] away.” But the documents show that Carter, like his three predecessors, sought to advance U.S. strategic and economic interests in redefining an enduring and unstable symbol of an imperious U.S. presence in Central America into a zone of mutual and harmonious collaboration. As early as 1962, as a declassified memorandum of conversation between President Kennedy and Panama’s President Roberto Chiari reveals, Panamanian officials warned the U.S. of “the intensity of the feeling of the present Panamanian generation with regard to the 1903 treaty” and demanded new accords that respected Panama’s sovereignty over the Canal Zone. Those warnings became reality when violent, deadly riots broke out in early 1964, convincing President Johnson that a new treaty was needed to stabilize the geostrategic and economically imperative waterway. In three different national security directives, President Nixon instructed his negotiators to continue treaty negotiations, at one point calling for a new draft treaty by the end of 1971. When President Ford faced hostile domestic opposition to a treaty and division among his own national security team, top aides led by Henry Kissinger advised him on the regional and international repercussions of terminating the Canal Zone negotiations: “There will be an uproar in Panama, with riots and harassment. It will become an armed camp and will spread rapidly to the Western Hemisphere. It will become an OAS issue around which they will all unite. Then it will spread into the international organizations,” Kissinger told him. Ford was convinced. “It is my feeling that yes, we want a treaty,” Ford told his advisors during a July 1975 NSC meeting. “We don’t want a blow-up here in the United States or down there either. We want the situation under control here and certainly not a renewal of the fighting from 1964 there where people were killed and we had a hell of a mess.” **Domestic politics were a critical consideration and obstacle: Changing public opinion about the Canal and securing a two thirds vote in the Senate to ratify a new treaty with Panama were ever-present considerations for U.S. presidents. President Kennedy flat-out rejected the entreaties of Panama’s president, Roberto Chiari, to negotiate a new treaty on political grounds because, according to the summary of their conversation, “he could not see the end of the road in sitting down to rewrite the treaty nor how he could demonstrate to two-thirds of the Senate that such a course had advanced the United States interest.” President Ford was advised that “a new treaty could constitute a striking foreign-policy achievement for the Administration. It will not be easy to move a treaty through the Senate. But the real problem derives more from ignorance than antipathy.” With Ronald Reagan challenging Ford in the 1976 primaries with the mantra “When it comes to the Panama Canal, we built it; we paid for it; and…we are going to keep it,” discussions on treaty negotiations during the Ford administration repeatedly addressed how to sustain the pretense of talks while not actually finalizing an agreement until after the November 1976 election. The very first policy review meeting on Panama during the Carter administration determined that the President should start the campaign to inform public opinion by including Panama in his fireside chats, and that he should authorize “a National Citizens Committee on the Panama Canal…to stimulate a national educational campaign.” The Carter administration did mount a major and ultimately successful public relations effort to win hearts and minds (and votes) that included recruiting Hollywood star John Wayne to specifically rebut Ronald Reagan for spreading falsehoods and “misinforming people” about the treaty proposals. Panama Canal **Diplomacy Produces Positive Results: In his first conversation with the President of Panama after the January 9, 1964, riots in the Canal Zone, during which U.S. security personnel shot and killed some 20 Panamanians, President Johnson portrayed himself as “cold and hard and tough as hell.” But by April, when he appointed a special ambassador to engage in treaty negotiations, Johnson had adopted a proactive diplomatic attitude which helped contain the dangerous and explosive threat of unrest targeting the Canal Zone for the duration of his presidency. Mitigating unrest through the promise of diplomatic negotiations for a new treaty was also a strategy of the Nixon/Ford administrations. Carter had far more empathy for Panama’s historical grievances than his predecessors—“It is obvious we cheated the Panamanians out of their canal,” he wrote in his diary—but according to Kai Bird’s biography, The Outlier, Carter was influenced by intelligence briefings of how vulnerable the Zone was to political unrest and that 100,000 U.S. troops would be needed to defend it. Diplomacy was far more promising than the use of force. Carter’s special ambassadors, Sol Linowitz and Ellsworth Bunker, quickly negotiated a two-treaty solution—one on jurisdiction and administration and the other securing the U.S. rights to defend the Canal against threats to its neutrality. At a White House meeting with General Torrijos one day before the September 7, 1977, signing ceremony, according to the summary posted today, Carter told him that “the treaty opened the way to a new era of mutual respect, equality and friendship between our peoples.” For almost half a century since the signing of those historic accords, that “new era” has more or less endured; notwithstanding the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 to seize General Manuel Noriega, the Canal Zone has functioned to the advantage of the U.S., Panama and the international community—until now. “As the U.S. threatens a return to an era of gunboat diplomacy in Panama,” notes Archive analyst Peter Kornbluh, “the historical record of the Canal Zone negotiations reflects the pragmatic promise of actual diplomacy to advance U.S. interests.” The Documents KENNEDY AND JOHNSON AND THE PANAMA CANAL TREATY 1 Document 1 White House, Memorandum of Conversation of Meeting Between John F. Kennedy and Panamanian President Roberto Chiari, “United States-Panamanian Relations,” Confidential, June 12, 1962 Jun 12, 1962 Source Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XII, American Republics, Document 405 During a state visit to Washington, Panamanian President Roberto Chiari meets with President Kennedy at the White House regarding the status of the Canal Zone. Chiari presents the case for renegotiating the 1903 Canal treaty—arguments he has previously shared with Kennedy in a September 8, 1961, letter—suggesting that the original agreement has led to “misunderstandings” for many years. Chiari “asked in the name of Panama that the treaties be revised and not considered sacred just because they were signed 58 years ago.” According to this summary of their White House meeting, Kennedy’s response is diplomatic but negative. Kennedy “could not see the end of the road in sitting down to rewrite the treaty nor how he could demonstrate to two-thirds of the Senate that such a course had advanced the United States interest. He suggested that since sovereignty is the principal issue and we have recognized Panama as sovereign that we attempt within this framework to work out operation of the Canal along with mitigation of frictions.” The meeting summary notes that Chiari became “petulant and frustrated” with the conversation; his foreign minister, Galileo Solis, took over the presentation of Panama’s position. Solis “repeated that President Chiari cannot go back to Panama without agreement to discuss in a negotiation committee all the claims Panama may present; otherwise he will face a political crisis. President Kennedy replied that he was not in a position to give any commitment that the United States could at this time agree to, sign or ratify a new treaty.” Presciently, the former foreign minister, Octavio Fabrega reminded U.S. officials of “the intensity of the feeling of the present Panamanian generation with regard to the 1903 treaty.” 2 Document 2 CIA, Central Intelligence Bulletin, Daily Brief, “Panama,” Top Secret, January 10, 1964 Jan 10, 1964 Source CIA Crest database The CIA Daily Brief reports on January 9th riots that have led to death and destruction in the Canal Zone. The report notes that the violence broke out over “the issue of flying the Panamanian flag in the Zone…with the Panamanians insisting on this dual display.” The anti-American sentiment generated by the riots and the shooting of Panamanians by U.S. Canal Zone guards, according to the CIA assessment, “is likely to be prolonged.” The riots, deaths and injuries of dozens of Panamanians mark a turning point in the history of U.S. control of the Canal Zone. President Roberto Chiari responds by cutting diplomatic relations with Washington and demanding negotiations for a new Canal treaty as a quid pro quo for restoration of bilateral ties. 3 Document 3 CIA, Memorandum for the Record, “White House Meeting on Panama, 10 January 1964,” Secret, January 10, 1964 Jan 10, 1964 Source Lyndon Johnson Presidential Library Top Johnson administration officials convene to address the first foreign policy crisis of Johnson’s presidency. CIA Director John McCone provides an initial briefing on the violent riots and the prospect of their continuation. Officials agree on a series of crisis management steps, including a call from Johnson to the president of Panama, Roberto Chiari, and the immediate launch of a fact-finding mission to Panama led by Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America Thomas Mann. 4 Document 4 White House, Tapes, [President Johnson Telephone Conversation with Senator Richard Russell on U.S. Response to Violent Riots in the Canal Zone, January 6, 1964], Recorded on January 10, 1964 Jan 10, 1964 Source The Miller Center at the University of Virginia On January 9, 1964, violent riots in the Canal Zone and the heavy-handed U.S. response left four U.S. personnel and 20 Panamanians dead and more than 200 injured and led to Panama breaking diplomatic relations with the United States. The next day, President Johnson calls Senator Richard Russell to brief him on a phone conversation he has just had with President Chiari of Panama. Chiari told Johnson about the June 1962 meeting with Kennedy, complaining that “not a thing has been done” since then to address Panama’s demands for a new treaty. Johnson reports to Russell that he shut down Chiari’s efforts to press for treaty negotiations. “I told him that we couldn’t get into that,” Johnson states. “I was cold and hard and tough as hell.” Johnson appears to commend the toughness of the U.S. military commander who “had to order his people to start shooting,” killing 20 Panamanians. “I am not trying to unjustify it or justify it,” the President tells Russell. “I am just saying, it’s a hot [situation]—hot as a firecracker.” Audio file doc 5 Document 5 White House, Tapes, Conversation between President Johnson and Panamanian President Roberto Chiari, April 3, 1964 Apr 3, 1964 Source The Miller Center at the University of Virginia Between January and April, President Johnson rethinks his “cold and hard” position and turns to diplomacy to address the Panama Canal crisis situation. On April 3, he places a call to Panamanian President Roberto Chiari to mark the restoration of diplomatic ties, and to inform him of the appointment of a “special ambassador,” Robert M. Anderson, to begin negotiations with Panama on the conflict over the Canal Zone. Chiari is recorded telling Johnson that it is time for “a complete revision of the treaty,” which has become “the source of dissatisfaction” for the Panamanian people. In the seven-and-a-half-minute telephone call, Johnson makes It clear that the U.S. is willing to negotiate but with “no pre-conditions.” Over the next three years, Ambassador Anderson negotiates a “package” of three treaties. But the treaty ratification process is aborted when the U.S. Congress rejects the accord and Panamanian President Marco Robles fails to sign the accord amidst political turmoil before the 1968 elections. In October 1968, Robles' successor, Anulfo Arias, is overthrown in a military coup that eventually brings a National Guard officer, Omar Torrijos, to power. Anderson continues as the special U.S. negotiator to Panama until June of 1973. Audio file 6 Document 6 State Department, Information Memorandum, “Panama Canal Treaties,” Confidential, June 27, 1967 Jun 27, 1967 Source Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XXXI, South and Central America; Mexico, Document 439 One day after President Johnson and Panamanian President Marco Robles announce agreement on three new treaties—the Lock Canal Treaty, the Sea Level Treaty, and the Defense Treaty—this memorandum to Secretary of State Dean Rusk summarizes the provisions in the new accords. The treaties replace the 1903 original agreement, establish a “Joint Administration of the Panama Canal” to operate the Panama Canal and administer the “Canal Area,” and grant the U.S. rights to construct a new sea-level canal within the next 20 years. Under the Defense Treaty, “the United States retains certain defense areas in which it may maintain its Armed Forces” and where it can act unilaterally to defend those areas. A breakthrough at the time, this package agreement was never ratified by the U.S. Congress; in Panama, it was overtaken by a military coup in 1968, which brought Omar Torrijos to power. NIXON AND THE PANAMA CANAL TREATY 7 Document 7 NSC, “National Security Study Memorandum 86,” Secret, January 2, 1970 Jan 2, 1970 Source Richard Nixon Presidential Library National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger requests an interagency study on prospects for negotiating a new Panama Canal treaty. Three issues are to be addressed: 1) Identifying U.S. interests in a new treaty, along with timing and options “to achieve those objectives;” 2) An evaluation of the treaties prepared in 1967, during the Johnson administration, and what changes should be made to them; and 3) evaluation of U.S. policy towards the government of General Omar Torrijos and the internal situation in Panama as it would relate to advancing a new accord on the Canal Zone. 8 Document 8 White House, National Security Decision Memorandum 64, “Panama Canal,” Secret, June 5, 1970 Jun 5, 1970 Source Gerald Ford Presidential Library In response to an interagency study on prospects for a Panama Canal treaty, President Nixon issues National Security Decision Memorandum 64, ordering his national security team to begin “exploratory and preliminary talks” with Panamanian leaders. Nixon cites several “nonnegotiable” issues: effective U.S. control of canal operations; effective U.S. control of canal defense; and “continuation of these controls for an extended period of time preferably open-ended.” Ensuing meetings with Panamanian officials result in extensive negotiations on those very issues, which eventually become the core of the new treaty. 9 Document 9 White House, National Security Decision Memorandum 115, “Panama Canal Treaty Negotiations,” Secret/Exdis, June 24, 1971 Jun 24, 1971 Source Gerald Ford Presidential Library In this national security directive, President Nixon authorizes his emissary, Special Ambassador Robert Anderson, “to undertake formal negotiations with Panama with a view to obtaining agreement on the text of a draft treaty this year.” Nixon’s instructions also provide more latitude to Anderson to negotiate a shorter time period for phasing out U.S. jurisdiction over the Canal Zone, a demand Panama has made. 10 Document 10 White House, National Security Decision Memorandum 131, “Panama Canal Treaty Negotiations,” Secret/Exdis, September 13, 1971 Sep 13, 1971 Source Gerald Ford Presidential Library In a third national security directive on Panama, President Nixon authorizes Special Ambassador Robert Anderson to negotiate “the possibility of a termination formula” for the treaty, “provided that the duration negotiated is a long one and that other provisions of the treaty package are satisfactory to the U.S.” Nixon prefers an open-ended treaty but is willing to agree to a 50-year duration “with provision for an additional 30-50 years if Canal capacity is expanded.” Nixon also wants a joint guarantee that “the Canal will be open to all world shipping without discrimination at reasonable tolls and that Panama would take no action that would hamper the efficient operation of the waterway.” 11 Document 11 CIA, Directorate of Intelligence Memorandum, “Panama: 1973—Year of the Treaty?” Secret, November 28, 1972 Nov 28, 1972 Source CIA.gov website The CIA’s Office of Current Intelligence produced a comprehensive 13-page assessment that reviewed the history of negotiations on the Canal and provided substantive insight into the negotiating approach of General Omar Torrijos. “Torrijos’ efforts to demonstrate to Washington that he could be tough have always been balanced by signals that he was really quite reasonable,” the CIA analysis concluded. “If Torrijos' basic objectives are met, if he can get fairly complete jurisdiction over the Zone in a relatively short period of time, and if he can significantly shorten the duration period that was embodied in the 1967 drafts, then a treaty agreement may be possible in 1973.” 12 Document 12 State Department, Declaration of Principles [signed by Secretary of State Kissinger and Foreign Minister Tack] February 7, 1974 Feb 7, 1974 Source Gerald Ford Presidential Library On February 7, 1974, Secretary of State Kissinger met in Panama with Panamanian Foreign Minister Juan Antonio Tack and, in a major ceremony, signed a framework for Canal negotiations known as the “Declaration of Principles.” The two countries agreed that the original 1903 Treaty, which the U.S. had essentially imposed on the Panamanian people, would be replaced by a new interoceanic canal treaty; the concept of “perpetuity” of U.S. control over the Canal Zone would be eliminated, and U.S. jurisdiction would come to an end. The territory of the Canal Zone would return to Panamanian sovereignty, and Panama would have “a just and equitable share of the benefits derived from the operation of the canal in its territory,” the joint agreement stated. “The Republic of Panama shall participate with the United States of America in the protection and defense of the canal in accordance with what is agreed upon in the new treaty,” according to a key principle. Both countries would also participate in the expansion of the canal should such development be needed in the future. The “principles” framework becomes the foundation for a renewed three-year effort during the Ford and Carter administrations to negotiate a new Panama Canal treaty. FORD AND THE PANAMA CANAL TREATY 13 Document 13 Department of State, “Issue Paper for the President: Panama Negotiation, ‘Roadmap,’ Secret, January 11, 1975 (with cover memorandum to Brent Scowcroft) Jan 11, 1975 Source Gerald Ford Presidential Library The State Department sends the White House a “roadmap” on the status of Canal treaty negotiations, identifying decisions to be made and actions to be taken. “Now there has been a negotiating breakthrough: a new treaty is in sight,” according to the secret memorandum. But there are significant political obstacles to overcome. “A new treaty could constitute a striking foreign-policy achievement for the Administration,” the memo advises. “It will not be easy to move a treaty through the Senate. But the real problem derives more from ignorance than antipathy.” 14 Document 14 Department of State, action memorandum, “Panama Canal Negotiations,” Secret, February 6, 1975 (with cover memo and attachments) Feb 6, 1975 Source Gerald Ford Presidential Library The lead U.S. negotiator, Ellsworth Bunker, sends Kissinger material for President Ford, including a public relations plan to educate the Congress and influence opinion polls on the treaty. The memo to the President provides a comprehensive update on the status of negotiations that “have progressed to a critical point at which certain tradeoffs are necessary to reach an agreement.” Ambassador Bunker seeks a “certain flexibility” in his presidential instructions in order to finalize the treaty. If the U.S. does not move forward, the memo warns, “serious confrontation, possibly involving violence against the Canal Zone, would ensue, plus a consequent deterioration of our relations in Latin America and mounting world censure.” 15 Document 15 White House, Minutes of National Security Council Meeting, “Panama Canal Negotiations,’ Top Secret, May 15, 1975 May 15, 1975 Source Gerald Ford Presidential Library President Gerald Ford convenes an NSC meeting to discuss negotiations for a new Panama Canal treaty that would eventually cede control of the Canal Zone back to the Panamanians. The meeting not only covers key areas such as the duration of the treaty and U.S. defense rights to protect it, but also the conflicting domestic and international political pressures on Washington that, as Secretary of State Kissinger makes clear, necessitate the negotiations to conclude after the 1976 presidential election. The lack of support in the United States for returning the Canal Zone to Panamanian sovereignty is also a subject of the NSC meeting. Kissinger states that “from the foreign policy point of view, I favor going ahead. However, domestically I’ve already encountered enough opponents to know what a barrier exists.” Kissinger points out that abandoning negotiations for a new treaty would generate turmoil in the canal zone, upheaval in the region and world-wide condemnation. “We would have [a] real uproar…demonstrations, violence, and we would be dragged into every international forum. This is no issue to face the world on. It looks like pure colonialism.” 16 Document 16 White House, Minutes, National Security Council Meeting, “Panama Canal Negotiations,” Top Secret, July 23, 1975 Jul 23, 1975 Source Gerald Ford Presidential Library President Ford convenes his national security team to discuss the Canal negotiations, which have come to a stalemate as the two sides disagree on major issues. “Negotiations are stalled and everyone is getting itchy,” Kissinger reports to the President. “It is not difficult to foresee that unless we begin the negotiations again there will be increasing unrest and eventually all Latin Americans will join in and we will have a cause celebre on our hands.” The meeting to address the issue of whether the President should favor a new treaty, given its domestic unpopularity and the political risks for his election in 1976, exposed divergent opinions among top national security officials. “It is my feeling that yes, we want a treaty,” Ford tells his advisors. “We don’t want a blow-up here in the United States or down there either. We want the situation under control here and certainly not a renewal of the fighting from 1964 there where people were killed and we had a hell of a mess.” 17 Document 17 White House, National Security Decision Memorandum 302, “Panama Canal Treaty Negotiations,” Secret, August 18, 1975 Aug 18, 1975 Source Gerald Ford Presidential Library President Ford issues a national security decision directive authorizing U.S. negotiators to “proceed promptly” to restart talks and address outstanding issues, among them the duration for both U.S. operational control and defense of the Zone before Panama assumes those duties. He also directs his negotiators “to obtain Panama’s agreement that the negotiations will remain confidential so that the Panama Canal issue will not be injected into the domestic political process in the United States in 1976.” 18 Document 18 NSC, Memorandum, “Panama Canal Negotiations: January Status,” Secret, January 28, 1976 Jan 28, 1976 Source Gerald Ford Presidential Library The NSC specialist on the National Security Council, Stephen Low, reports on the status of the treaty talks. His memo provides a brief overview of the history of the negotiations starting with the January 1964 riots in the Canal Zone which left four U.S. soldiers and 20 Panamanians dead. The memo also reports on the “threshold agreements” on U.S. jurisdiction, control and defense of the Canal that negotiations during the Ford administration have advanced. Key issues remain, among them the duration of time before Panama assumes control of the Canal Zone, the amount of territory the U.S. will cede back to Panama, compensation, and whether the U.S. will have a formal role in guaranteeing the future neutrality of the Canal. 19 Document 19 NSC, Memorandum, “The Sovereignty Issue in the Panama Canal Negotiations,” Limited Official Use, April 9, 1976 Apr 9, 1976 Source Gerald Ford Presidential Library NSC Latin America specialist Stephen Low sends National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft an overview on the issue of whether the Canal Zone is actually U.S. property. “Whether we have full sovereignty or ownership over the Canal is not central to the issue,” he argues. “The argument can go on and become very complex, as well as sterile. The important point is that it is not central to continuing the negotiations which are based on an assessment of our national interests.” The public argument that should be made, he suggests, is that “We are continuing these negotiations because the last three Presidents have all examined the matter carefully and found that our national interest in preserving access to the Canal over the long term is better served by negotiating a new arrangement with Panama.” 20 Document 20 State Department, Minutes of Secretary of State Kissinger’s Principals and Regionals Staff Meeting, August 25, 1976 Aug 25, 1976 Source Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume XXII, Panama, 1973–1976, Document 131 During his staff meeting, Kissinger and his top aides discuss whether to send Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker back to Panama for another negotiating session. The presidential campaign is in high gear, and any finalization of the treaty will complicate Gerald Ford’s chances of re-election as well as create problems for pushing a finalized treaty forward if he loses. Assistant Secretary of State Harry Shlaudeman tells Kissinger that sending Bunker to Panama in September “would be a good step in keeping Torrijos quiet, more or less.” “I have no problem with the going,” Kissinger responds, “as long as he doesn’t do anything.” CARTER AND THE PANAMA CANAL TREATIES 21 Document 21 White House, Policy Review Committee Meeting Minutes, “Panama,” Top Secret, January 27, 1977 Jan 27, 1977 Source Jimmy Carter Presidential Library One week after Jimmy Carter’s inauguration, his top national security aides hold a Policy Review Committee (PRC) meeting meet to discuss renewing negotiations on a Panama Canal treaty. The meeting addresses preparations for a visit from Panama’s foreign minister, Aquilino Boyd, for “informal talks” on the Canal treaty and how to set the diplomatic stage for reviving negotiations conducted by the Ford administration. The PRC concludes that the new administration should reaffirm the “Tack-Kissinger Principles” (a general outline of an agreement signed by then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger with the Panamanians) beginning with exploratory talks but with a goal to finalize a new treaty by mid-1977. The PRC also “suggested that a National Citizens Committee on the Panama Canal be set up to stimulate a national educational campaign” in order to shift public opinion in favor of returning the Canal Zone to Panamanian sovereignty. After the meeting, National Security Advisor Brzezinski transmits a summary of the conclusions to President Carter, advising him that he should mention Panama in his fireside chat, and/or State of the Union address. 22 Document 22 State Department, Cable, “Letter from the President to General Torrijos,” Secret, March 10, 1977 Mar 10, 1977 Source Jimmy Carter Presidential Library This secret cable transmits President Carter’s first message to Panamanian chief of state, General Omar Torrijos, agreeing to re-open negotiations on a Canal treaty. Carter’s letter comes in response to a communique Torrijos sent the new U.S. president in late February asking to continue negotiations that had started during the Ford administration. “I can assure you that the United States wishes to proceed cooperatively to meet the proper concerns of both Panama and the United States,” Carter writes. “My purpose lies in assuring that the Canal will remain permanently open and of use to the ships of all the world. The treaty should provide for an arrangement which allows the United States to meet its responsibility to operate the canal during the treaty's lifetime and which recognizes our security interest in the continuing neutrality of and access to the canal after the termination date of the treaty.” Carter’s letter concludes that “I will be pleased if we can agree on a new treaty and meet personally to sign it on behalf of our two countries.” 23 Document 23 White House, Memoranda from National Security Adviser Brzezinski to President Carter, “Panama Canal Treaty—Last Decisions,” Secret, ca. July 28, 1977 Jul 28, 1977 Source Jimmy Carter Presidential Library In this dramatic memorandum, Zbigniew Brzezinski advises President Carter on the “momentous” decision he faces to finalize the Panama Canal treaties. The Panamanians want a significant financial “package” of U.S. payments as part of the accord. But if Carter accedes to this demand, Brzezinski argues, it is unlikely that the Senate will ratify the treaty, with serious consequences for U.S. security and Carter’s own political interests. “A defeat in the Congress on this issue will not only jeopardize the Canal and our relations with Panama and Latin America; because you will have to invest so much of your political capital in this effort, a defeat might strike a significant blow at your overall effectiveness.” But denying the Panamanians the sizeable economic payout they sought also carried major risks of the negotiations breaking down. “With equally high probability,” Brzezinski counsels, “there will be rioting in Panama, which will spill over into the Zone. The Canal would be jeopardized and relations with Panama and all of Latin America and the developing world would be seriously, perhaps irreparably, harmed.” As Carter prepares for a meeting with General Torrijos’ emissaries, Brzezinski suggests he “convey directly to them and indirectly to Torrijos your strong commitment to a new treaty and your equally strong feelings about what the United States can do economically to help Panama and more importantly what the U.S. cannot do.” 24 Document 24 State Department, Memorandum from Secretary Vance to President Carter, “Your Meeting with Panamanian Representatives, July 29 at 9:30 a.m.,” with attached draft of letter from Carter to Torrijos, Secret, ca. July 28,1977 Jul 28, 1977 Source Jimmy Carter Presidential Library To seal the deal on the Canal treaties, President Carter agrees to meet with two emissaries of General Omar Torrijos to explain his administration’s final proposals after more than a decade of negotiations on the future of the Canal Zone. In preparation for that meeting, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance provides Carter with this briefing memorandum on the remaining issues to be resolved. Vance also provides a draft of a letter for Carter to give to the emissaries for General Torrijos. In his letter, Carter advised Torrijos that U.S. negotiators would soon return to Panama with final proposals on annual payments to Panama that “we truly believe to be fair and just,” even if they were “less than you had expected or wished.” Carter asked Torrijos to understand the political pressures and widespread opposition the treaties faced in Washington that threatened ratification by the U.S. Senate. “With understanding and patience,” Carter concludes, “I believe we can move quickly forward and achieve the goal that has eluded past governments and leaders in both our countries.” 25 Document 25 White House, Memorandum for President Carter, “Status of Canal Negotiations,” Secret, August 6, 1977 Aug 6, 1977 Source Jimmy Carter Presidential Library U.S. negotiators Ellsworth Bunker and Sol Linowitz report on a five-hour negotiating session on final points of contention on the treaty. At issue is the language that would prevent Panama from drawing on third countries to help it construct a second Canal—a provision the U.S. opposes—and restrictions on the U.S. from building a second canal through another Central American nation. Despite disagreement on this issue, Bunker and Linowitz predict that “barring quite unforeseen problems, we will be able to reach conceptual agreement early next week” and “final texts will be ready before long.” 26 Document 26 White House, Telcon, “Panama Canal Treaty: Telephone Call from President Carter to General Omar Torrijos,” August 24, 1977 Aug 24, 1977 Source Jimmy Carter Presidential Library Just two weeks before the formal signing of the canal treaties in Washington, President Carter places a call to General Torrijos to discuss final arrangements for the ceremony. The discussion focuses mostly on how invitations will be made to all the heads of state in Latin America. Torrijos suggests inviting Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. It was only with great moral courage that our ends could be achieved,” Torrijos tells Carter at the end of the conversation. “I am proud of the progress we have made,” Carter responds. 27 Document 27 White House, Memorandum of Conversation, “President Carter/General Omar Torrijos Bilateral,” Confidential, September 6, 1977 Sep 6, 1977 Source Jimmy Carter Presidential Library One day before the treaty-signing ceremony, President Carter holds a bilateral meeting with General Torrijos at the White House to discuss coordinating statements during the campaign in both countries to obtain ratification of the new accords and to evaluate the importance of this international accomplishment. Torrijos, according to the memorandum of conversation of their meeting, expressed “profound admiration for the President's honesty and political valor.” He compared Carter’s “act of valor” to bring a decade of negotiations to fruition to “jumping from an airplane without a parachute to take on this battle.” For his part, President Carter called the treaty “the right, fair and decent thing to do” and predicted “it would eventually prove to be a popular accomplishment for him and his Administration.” Carter said “the climate would improve as the American people came to understand the terms of the treaty and to realize the unfairness of the past.” According to Carter, “the treaty opened the way to a new era of mutual respect, equality and friendship between our peoples.”