Me doing Argentina things (On the right is the University of Buenos Aires Law School)

By Andrew Melton

            Before leaving for Argentina I assumed the world’s universities all followed the same model: midterms, papers, readings, quizzes, finals, and your GPA. Now, as I approach the end of my semester abroad, I can say that there are many similarities, however there are even more differences.

            The first difference to pop out at me was the strange schedule. The majority of classes meet only once per week for at least a three hour class. An exception to this is my six-credit course that meets twice per week for two and a half hours each.  On top of that, classes only meet in the early morning or at night. My classes go from 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM on Mondays and Wednesdays and 8:30 PM to 11:00 PM on Thursdays. Why would classes meet at such strange hours, you ask? The concept of being a professional student is very rare here. The vast majority of students have jobs that would make daytime classes impossible.  

            The grading and examination system is also considerably different. The grading scale ranges from one to ten with ten being the highest grade. Strangely, you only need a four to pass an exam or class. Other students have told me that a four is equal to a “C,” but the quality of work required to earn a four doesn’t seem to match up with that which is required to earn a “C.” Most classes have two exams, a midterm and a final. However, the midterm exam doesn’t actually factor into your final course grade. You need to pass the midterm in order to have the “right” to take the final exam. That means that your final course grade is completely dependent on your final exam grade. Most final exams are oral with the professor asking the student his or her question, followed by a five-minute preparatory phase, and finally the answer. I’ll admit I’m pretty nervous about my semester coming down to a one question oral exam in a foreign language, but hey, I only need a four.

            Some might ask, ‘Andrew, why would you settle for a four; don’t you want that ten?’ Most programs here are degree focused rather than GPA focused (I don’t think they have GPA’s down here). Unless you’re planning on doing a Masters program, how well you did doesn’t matter as long as you get the degree. It’s a very structured process. While US universities and colleges will have general education requirements and a few requisite courses depending on your school, many majors here are nearly 100% preplanned. This fact hit home when my political economy course ended, and I noticed no one was getting up to leave. I asked a student why, and she explained that everyone in the class also had the following class in the same room.

            I have learned a lot this semester from my courses, both about the material and the manner in which it is taught. The Argentine system seems more efficient, allowing for students to work and study simultaneously due to flexible schedules and concentrated examination policies. That being said, I prefer the US system. Though not as efficient, it gives students much more freedom to explore subjects and discover their true interests. I am currently studying Political Science and Economics, but I started off studying Biochemistry. That kind of transition would be near impossible down here, and I’m thankful I was in a system that allowed me find my real passions.

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

AFP

By Andrew Melton

Last week, thousands of Honduran families and farmers moved and occupied 30,000 acres of land throughout the Central American country. This marks a large escalation in a land conflict that has been raging for years. Honduran law states that farmers have the right to grow crops on public lands, however private farm companies have been purchasing public lands with great frequency as of late. Small family farmers see this as an encroachment on the law allowing them to tend these public lands. Former President Manuel Zelaya came out to protest in support of the land occupation, and current President Porfirio Lobo has yet to release a firm opinion on the matter.

Obviously, the move by the farmers received harsh criticism from the landowners and farm companies. Some are trying to illustrate the occupation as nothing more than robbery on a national scale. Others believe the move is based in politics and not an agricultural issue as the farmers claim.  It is nothing more than a political stunt aimed at destabilizing the current Lobo regime. Why else would the former deposed President Zelaya support the occupiers?

It is an entirely different story from the point of view of the rural farmers. It is not an act aimed at supporting or opposing current President Lobos, but rather, an act meant to bring attention to rural land reform. They do not want the past to repeat itself with large farming companies consolidating their hold on the highest quality land (United Fruit Company, anyone?). What good is a law permitting farming on public lands if those public lands no longer exist? 

The truth here, as is often the case, is that both sides are probably right. Technically, the landowners purchased these lands legally. That being said, I feel the rural farmers’ position should be respected much more than that of the landowners. Latin America has a long history of the ordinary rural people being taken advantage of in the name of corporate interests. The large farm companies and landowners do not need others to advocate for their rights; they can already do that on their own just fine. When considering the history of business activities in the region paired with the dismal socioeconomic status of rural farmers, I fully support the current land occupation. Even if the farmers are eventually evicted, the move brings light to an important and escalating conflict.

Where things go from here is uncertain. Rafael Alegria, leader of a land rights group, stated that he expects to meet with current President Lobo sometime this week. Seeing as Lobo possesses the most power at the moment, the future of the land conflict depends on with which side he eventually stands. 

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

Author, Daniel Curiel, in Brazil

 By Daniel Curiel, Guest Author

The anniversary of Brazil’s 1964 coup d’etat was on March 31st, this past Saturday. Ironic, because the rough draft of my History capstone paper was due only the day before. I decided to write on the topic since I constantly claim to love everything Brazilian, from bossa nova to bikinis. However, I knew very little about the event that set Brazil up for 21 years of rule under a military dictatorship. Throughout my research, the most salient thing I came across was the heavy involvement of the American government. The 1964 coup was largely influenced by, if not dependent, on support from the United States. Support mainly provided in a clandestine manner. 

Regime change is an integral part of covert foreign relations. It reached its pinnacle during the Cold War as the two superpowers utilized the strategy to place favorable governments in power in valuable regions. Our past leaders believed a communist Brazil had the potential to spur a so-called “domino effect” throughout Latin America. The American ambassador to Brazil at the time, Lincoln Gordon, would later regard the “revolution” (the coup), as one of the most important historical happenings of the twentieth century, rating it with the Marshall Plan and the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis. If this history is so important, then why does it go largely ignored? Perhaps the answer lies in the privy nature of it all. Many government files remain classified to this day. Though, despite this, historians have been somewhat successful in gauging the extent of the United States’ participation.

In the early 1900s Brazil, like the rest of Latin American, had an economy based on the export of a few primary sector goods – mostly coffee, rubber and oil. From this surfaced a landowning elite and a Brazilian economy dependent on the externalities of developed markets. The American Great Depression wreaked havoc on the Brazilian export economy and sparked a nationalist movement as an urban working class called for more autonomous development. Beginning in the 1930s, a wave of nationalist presidents came to power and remained there until the 1964 coup. These leaders placed heavy emphasis on import substitution industrialization and neutrality in the Cold War. They supported labor rights and sought to incorporate descendants of slaves into a market-oriented economy.  Thus, unionization became very important to the presidency of João Gouart, making him an instant enemy of the land owning elite, conservative factions of the military and the United States. 

João Goulart threatened the status of the traditional elite in Brazil, so they colluded with the United States to depose him. Two main groups led the union movement: the Catholic Church and the Communists. To offset the appeal of the Communist leagues, the US funneled money to church groups. NGOs led by the CIA, ROTTA and Food for Peace, served instrumental in weakening communist driven labor unionization. Ambassador Gordon asked for funds from Washington to support pro-democracy street rallies only days before the coup.

Brazil during the 1950s and 1960s was the largest single recipient of the US Military Assistance in Latin America. Brazil’s high level of dependence on US military aid gave the United States substantial leverage to influence the behavior of the Brazilian military. Although most of the U.S.’s tangible support came in a secret navy tanker filled with motor gasoline, aviation fuel, and arms, the government was as disposable to act in an overt manner if the struggle got out of the control for the anti-Goulart forces. Fortunately for them, Goulart fled for exile only a day later, on April 1, 1964, effectively putting the military in control. 

Without the support of the United States, it is dubious whether the Brazilian military would have had the confidence to oust Goulart. I decided to ask one of my more politically minded Brazilian friends if his countrymen still held any rancor towards the United States. He told me, “Not really, most people are apathetic or have simply forgotten.” Not a surprising response since Brazil is going through a period of unprecedented growth and is slowly becoming, if not already is, a world power. When I studied abroad there, I witnessed massive lines outside a local McDonalds where a Brazilian middle class eagerly waited to pay upwards to 16 American dollars for a Big Mac meal (no, it wasn’t super sized). A bright future would have any nation looking forward rather than looking back at a grim past.

This post reflects the author’s personal opinions, not the opinions of Arizona Model United Nations.

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

Guatemalan President Perez Molin

By Andrew Melton

The Americas have a drug problem. The ethics surrounding drug consumption are debatable, however what is not debatable is the atrocious level of violence that accompanies the drug trade.  Tens of thousands have lost their lives as a result of drug trafficking in just the past few years. With the United States’ War on Drugs entering its fifth decade and progress painfully elusive, many are demanding a change in strategy.

The president of Guatemala, Otto Perez Molina, recently proposed the idea of drug decriminalization as a means of curbing drug related violence. This proposed course of action is as old as the War on Drugs itself. Many argue that drug legalization would bring the trade out in the open, reducing the need for violence committed by organized crime groups. The outcome would be similar to that following the repeal of prohibition in the United States.

On the other hand, Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega has come out in opposition to such a radical change in strategy. He told journalists, “Depenalization is like saying we’ve lost. It would be legalizing crime, because promoting drug consumption, facilitating drug consumption, is a criminal act.” The El Salvadoran president agreed with President Ortega in his desire to maintain the current policy, however he also feels President Molina’s proposed strategy is healthy for debate.

When Saturday’s drug summit in Guatemala finally arrived, only three heads of state were in attendance. The presidents of Panama and Costa Rica met with President Molina, however Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador all chose to send representatives in order to communicate their disapproval of Molina’s proposed strategy.

Personally, I believe legalizing marijuana and regulating it similarly to the alcohol industry would be helpful in the fight against drug violence in Latin America. If the United States were allowed to increase its domestic supply, it would reduce the demand for marijuana coming from Mexico and Central America. Hopefully, this move would cripple the marijuana trade and the violence surrounding it.

However, I would stop there. No one should truly expect a government to legalize the more addictive and dangerous drugs such as cocaine and heroine. The United States has learned much in regards to identifying and dismantling international criminal networks as a result of its decade long War on Terror. I believe that in the coming decade, as its focus and resources move away from Afghanistan, the United States in partnership with Latin American governments will be better able to apply the knowledge and means required to destroy the organizations trafficking these hard drugs.

It should not be a black or white choice between legalization and use of force. As is almost always the case, the best strategy is a balanced approach. Legalize and regulate marijuana, and the Latin American governments in partnership with the United States will be able to use the addition of available resources to more aggressively pursue the organizations trafficking hard drugs. Though I may not fully agree with President Molina, I do believe it healthy to discuss all possible courses of action.

This post reflects the author’s personal opinions, not the opinions of Arizona Model United Nations.

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.