[News] Losing Latin America - What Will the Obama Doctrine Be Like?
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Tue Jun 10 11:14:54 EDT 2008
Losing Latin America
What Will the Obama Doctrine Be Like?
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/17881
June 10, 2008 By Greg Grandin
Source: <http://www.tomdipatch.com>TomDispatch
Google "neglect," "Washington," and "Latin
America," and you will be led to thousands of
hand-wringing calls from politicians and pundits
for Washington to "pay more attention" to the
region. True, Richard Nixon once said that
"people don't give one shit" about the place. And
his National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger
quipped that Latin America is a "dagger pointed
at the heart of Antarctica." But Kissinger also
made that same joke about Chile, Argentina, and
New Zealand -- and, of the three countries, only
the latter didn't suffer widespread political
murder as a result of his policies, a high price
to pay for such a reportedly inconsequential place.
Latin America, in fact, has been indispensable in
the evolution of U.S. diplomacy. The region is
often referred to as America's "backyard," but a
better metaphor might be Washington's "strategic
reserve," the place where ascendant
foreign-policy coalitions regroup and redraw the
outlines of U.S. power, following moments of global crisis.
When the Great Depression had the U.S. on the
ropes, for example, it was in Latin America that
New Deal diplomats worked out the foundations of
liberal multilateralism, a diplomatic framework
that Washington would put into place with much
success elsewhere after World War II.
In the 1980s, the first generation of neocons
turned to Latin America to play out their
"rollback" fantasies -- not just against
Communism, but against a tottering
multilateralist foreign-policy. It was largely in
a Central America roiled by left-wing
insurgencies that the New Right first worked out
the foundational principles of what, after 9/11,
came to be known as the Bush Doctrine: the right
to wage war unilaterally in highly moralistic terms.
We are once again at a historic crossroads. An
ebbing of U.S. power -- this time caused, in
part, by military overreach -- faces a mobilized
Latin America; and, on the eve of regime change
at home, with George W. Bush's neoconservative
coalition in ruins after eight years of
disastrous rule, would-be foreign policy makers are once again looking south.
Goodbye to All That
"The era of the United States as the dominant
influence in Latin America is over," says the
Council on Foreign Relations, in a new
<http://www.cfr.org/publication/16279/>report
filled with sober policy suggestions for ways the
U.S. can recoup its waning influence in a region
it has long claimed as its own.
Latin America is now mostly
<http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060501/grandin>governed
by left or center-left governments that differ in
policy and style -- from the populism of Hugo
Chávez in Venezuela to the reformism of Luiz
Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil and Michelle
Bachelet in Chile. Yet all share a common goal:
asserting greater autonomy from the United States.
Latin Americans are now courting investment from
China, opening markets in Europe, dissenting from
Bush's War on Terror, stalling the Free Trade
Agreement of the Americas, and sidelining the
International Monetary Fund which, over the last
couple of decades, has served as a stalking horse
for Wall Street and the Treasury Department.
And they are electing presidents like Ecuador's
Rafael Correa, who recently announced that his
government would not renew the soon-to-expire
lease on Manta Air Field, the most prominent U.S.
military base in South America. Correa had
previously suggested that, if Ecuador could set
up its own base in Florida, he would consider
extending the lease. When Washington balked, he
offered Manta to a Chinese concession, suggesting
that the airfield be turned into
<http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009268582>"China's
gateway to Latin America."
In the past, such cheek would have been taken as
a clear violation of the Monroe Doctrine,
proclaimed in 1823 by President James Monroe, who
declared that Washington would not permit Europe
to recolonize any part of the Americas. In 1904,
Theodore Roosevelt updated the doctrine to
justify a series of Caribbean invasions and
occupations. And Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and
Ronald Reagan invoked it to validate Cold War
CIA-orchestrated coups and other covert operations.
But things have changed. "Latin America is not
Washington's to lose," the Council on Foreign
Relations report says, "nor is it Washington's to
save." The Monroe Doctrine, it declares, is "obsolete."
Good news for Latin America, one would think. But
the last time someone from the Council on Foreign
Relations, which since its founding in 1921 has
represented mainstream foreign-policy opinion,
declared the Monroe Doctrine defunct, the result was genocide.
Enter the Liberal Establishment
That would be Sol
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48682-2005Mar18.html>Linowitz
who, in 1975, as chair of the Commission on
United States-Latin American Relations, said that
the Monroe Doctrine was "inappropriate and
irrelevant to the changed realities and trends of the future."
The little-remembered Linowitz Commission was
made up of respected scholars and businessmen
from what was then called the "liberal
establishment." It was but one part of a broader
attempt by America's foreign-policy elite to
respond to the cascading crises of the 1970s --
defeat in Vietnam, rising third-world
nationalism, Asian and European competition,
skyrocketing energy prices, a falling dollar, the
Watergate scandal, and domestic dissent.
Confronted with a precipitous collapse of
America's global legitimacy, the Council on
Foreign Relations, along with other mainline
think tanks like the Brookings Institute and the
newly formed Trilateral Commission, offered a
series of proposals that might help the U.S.
stabilize its authority, while allowing for "a
smooth and peaceful evolution of the global system."
There was widespread consensus among the
intellectuals and corporate leaders affiliated
with these institutions that the kind of
anticommunist zeal that had marched the U.S. into
the disaster in Vietnam needed to be tamped down,
and that "new forms of common management" between
Washington, Europe, and Japan had to be worked
out. Advocates for a calmer world order came from
the same corporate bloc that underwrote the
Democratic Party and the Rockefeller-wing of the Republican Party.
They hoped that a normalization of global
politics would halt, if not reverse, the erosion
of the U.S. economic position. Military
de-escalation would free up public revenue for
productive investment, while containing
inflationary pressures (which scared the bond
managers of multinational banks). Improved
relations with the Communist bloc would open the
USSR, Eastern Europe, and China to trade and
investment. There was also general agreement that
Washington should stop viewing Third World
socialism through the prism of the Cold War conflict with the Soviet Union.
At that moment throughout Latin America, leftists
and nationalists were -- as they are now --
demanding a more equitable distribution of global
wealth. Lest radicalization spread, the
Trilateral Commission's executive director
Zbignew Brzezinski, soon to be President Jimmy
Carter's national security advisor, argued that
it would be "wise for the United States to make
an explicit move to abandon the Monroe Doctrine."
The Linowitz Commission agreed and offered a
series of recommendations to that effect --
including the
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/books/review/Lewis-t.html>return
of the Panama Canal to Panama and a decrease in
U.S. military aid to the region -- that would
largely define Carter's Latin American policy.
Exit the Liberal Establishment
Of course, it was not corporate liberalism but
rather a resurgent and revanchist militarism from
the Right that turned out to offer the most
cohesive and, for a time, successful solution to the crises of the 1970s.
Uniting a gathering coalition of old-school
law-and-order anticommunists, first generation
neoconservatives, and newly empowered
evangelicals, the New Right organized an ever
metastasizing set of committees, foundations,
institutes, and magazines that focused on
specific issues -- the SALT II nuclear
disarmament negotiations, the Panama Canal
Treaty, and the proposed MX missile system, as
well as U.S. policy in Cuba, South Africa,
Rhodesia, Israel, Taiwan, Afghanistan, and
Central America. All of them were broadly
committed to avenging defeat in Vietnam (and the
"stab in the back" by the liberal media and the
public at home). They were also intent on
restoring righteous purpose to American diplomacy.
As had corporate liberals, so, now,
neoconservative intellectuals looked to Latin
America to hone their ideas. President Ronald
Reagan's ambassador to the UN, Jeane Kirkpatrick,
for instance, focused mainly on Latin America in
laying out the foundational principles of modern
neoconservative thought. She was particularly
hard on Linowitz, who, she said, represented the
"disinterested internationalist spirit" of
"appeasement" -- a word
<http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0839956720080515>back
with us again. His report, she insisted, meant
"abandoning the strategic perspective which has
shaped U.S. policy from the Monroe Doctrine down
to the eve of the Carter administration, at the
center of which was a conception of the national
interest and a belief in the moral legitimacy of its defense."
At first, Brookings, the Council on Foreign
Affairs, and the Trilateral Commission, as well
as the Business Roundtable, founded in 1972 by
the crème de la CEO crème, opposed the push to
remilitarize American society; but, by the late
1970s, it was clear that "normalization" had
failed to solve the global economic crisis.
Europe and Japan were not cooperating in
stabilizing the dollar, and the economies of
Eastern Europe, the USSR, and China were too
anemic to absorb sufficient amounts of U.S.
capital or serve as profitable trading partners.
Throughout the 1970s, financial houses like the
Rockefellers' Chase Manhattan Bank had become
engorged with petrodollars deposited by Saudi
Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, and other oil-exporting
nations. They needed to do something with all
that money, yet the U.S. economy remained
sluggish, and much of the Third World off limits.
So, after Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential
victory, mainstream policymakers and
intellectuals, many of them self-described
liberals, increasingly came to back the Reagan
Revolution's domestic and foreign agenda: gutting
the welfare state, ramping up defense spending,
opening up the Third World to U.S. capital, and jumpstarting the Cold War.
A decade after the Linowitz Commission proclaimed
the Monroe Doctrine no longer viable, Ronald
Reagan invoked it to justify his administration's
patronage of murderous anti-communists in
Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador. A few
years after Jimmy Carter announced that the U.S.
had broken "free of that inordinate fear of
communism," Reagan quoted John F. Kennedy saying,
"Communist domination in this hemisphere can never be negotiated."
Reagan's illegal patronage of the Contras --
those murderers he hailed as the "moral
equivalent of America's founding fathers" and
deployed to destabilize Nicaragua's Sandinista
government -- and his administration's funding of
death squads in El Salvador and Guatemala brought
together, for the first time, the New Right's two
main constituencies. Neoconservatives provided
Reagan's revival of the imperial presidency with
legal and intellectual justification, while the
religious Right backed up the new militarism with grassroots energy.
This partnership was first built -- just as it
has more recently been continued in Iraq -- on a
mountain of mutilated corpses: 40,000 Nicaraguans
and 70,000 El Salvadorans killed by U.S. allies;
200,000 Guatemalans, many of them Mayan peasants,
victimized in a scorched-earth campaign the UN
would
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E3D9173CF935A15751C0A96F958260>rule
to be genocidal.
The End of the Neocon Holiday from History
The recent Council on Foreign Relations report on
Latin America, arriving as it does in another
moment of imperial decline, seems once again to
signal a new emerging consensus, one similar in
tone to that of the post-Vietnam 1970s. In every
dimension other than military, Newsweek editor
Fareed Zacharia argues in his new book, The
Post-American World, "the distribution of power
is shifting, moving away from American
dominance." (Never mind that, just five years
ago, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, he was
insisting on the exact opposite -- that we now
lived in a "unipolar world" where America's
position was, and would be, "unprecedented.")
To borrow a
<http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/235>phrase
from their own lexicon, the neocons' "holiday
from history" is over. The fiasco in Iraq, the
fall in the value of the dollar, the rise of
India and China as new industrial and commercial
powerhouses, and of
<http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174929>Russia as
an energy superpower, the failure to secure the
Middle East, soaring oil and gas prices (as well
as skyrocketing prices for other key raw
materials and basic foodstuffs), and the
consolidation of a prosperous Europe have all
brought their dreams of global supremacy crashing down.
Barack Obama is obviously the candidate best
positioned to walk the U.S. back from the edge of
irrelevance. Though no one hoping for a job in
his White House would put it in such defeatist
terms, the historic task of the next president
will not be to win this president's Global War on
Terror, but to negotiate America's reentry into a community of nations.
Parag Khanna, an Obama advisor, recently
<http://www.paragkhanna.com/2008/01/waving_goodbye_to_hegemony.html>argued
that, by maximizing its cultural and
technological advantage, the U.S. can, with a
little luck, perhaps secure a position as third
partner in a new tripartite global order in which
Europe and Asia would have equal shares, a
distinct echo of the trilateralist position of
the 1970s. (Forget those Munich analogies, if the
U.S. electorate were more historically literate,
Republicans would get better mileage out of
branding Obama not Neville Chamberlain, but
Spain's Fernando VII or Britain's Clement Richard
Attlee, each of whom presided over his country's imperial decline.)
So it has to be asked: If Obama wins in November
and tries to implement a more rational, less
ideologically incandescent deployment of American
power -- perhaps using Latin America as a staging
ground for a new policy -- would it once again
provoke the kind of nationalist backlash that
purged Rockefellerism from the Republican Party,
swept Jimmy Carter out of the White House, and
armed the death squads in Central America?
Certainly, there are already plenty of feverish
conservative think tanks, from the Hudson
Institute to the Heritage Foundation, that would
double down on Bush's crusades as a way out of
the current mess. But in the 1970s, the New Right
was in ascendance; today, it is visibly
decomposing. Then, it could lay responsibility
for the deep and prolonged crisis that gripped
the United States at the feet of the
"establishment," while offering solutions -- an
arms build-up, a renewed push into the Third
World, and free-market fundamentalism -- that
drew much of that establishment into its orbit.
Today, the Right wholly owns the current crisis,
along with its most immediate cause, the Iraq
War. Even if John McCain were able to squeak out
a win in November, he would be the functional
equivalent not of Reagan, who embodied a movement
on the march, but of Jimmy Carter, trying
desperately to hold a fraying coalition together.
The Right's decay as an intellectual force is
nowhere more evident than in the fits it throws
in the face of the Left's -- or China's --
advances in Latin America. The self-confidant
vitality with which Jeane Kirkpatrick used Latin
America to skewer the Carter administration has
been replaced with the tinny, desperate shrill of
despair. "Who lost Latin America?"
<http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=42783012-BC3A-442C-95DB-87A751958BAD>asks
the Center for Security Policy's Frank Gaffney --
of pretty much everyone he meets. The region, he
<http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20060522_127060_127060&source=srch>says,
is now a "magnet for Islamist terrorists and a
breeding ground for hostile political
movements... The key leader is Chávez, the
billionaire dictator of Venezuela who has
declared a Latino jihad against the United States."
Scare-Quote Diplomacy
But just because the Right is unlikely to unfurl
its banner over Latin America again soon doesn't
mean that U.S. hemispheric diplomacy will be
demilitarized. After all, it was Bill Clinton,
not George W. Bush, who, at the behest of
Lockheed Martin in 1997, reversed a Carter
administration ban (based on Linowitz report
recommendations) on the sale of high-tech
weaponry to Latin America. That, in turn, kicked
off a reckless and wasteful Southern Cone arms
race. And it was Clinton, not Bush, who
dramatically increased military aid to the
murderous Colombian government and to corporate
mercenaries like Blackwater and Dyncorp, further
escalating the misguided U.S. "war on drugs" in Latin America.
In fact, a quick comparison between the Linowitz
report and the new Council on Foreign Relations
study on Latin America provides a sobering way of
measuring just how far right the "liberal
establishment" has shifted over the last three
decades. The Council does admirably advise
Washington to normalize relations with Cuba and
engage with Venezuela, while downplaying the
possibility of "Islamic terrorists" using the
area as a staging ground -- a
<http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/82089/grandin_on_rumsfeld_s_latin_american_wild_west_show>longstanding
fantasy of the neocons. (Douglas Feith, former
Pentagon undersecretary,
<http://www.newsweek.com/id/54775>suggested that,
after 9/11, the U.S. hold off invading
Afghanistan and instead bomb Paraguay, which has
a large Shi'ite community, just to "surprise" the Sunni al-Qaeda.)
Yet, where the Linowitz report provoked the ire
of the likes of Jeane Kirkpatrick by writing that
the U.S. should not try to "define the limits of
ideological diversity for other nations" and that
Latin Americans "can and will assess for
themselves the merits and disadvantages of the
Cuban approach," the Council is much less
open-minded. It insists on presenting Venezuela
as a problem the U.S. needs to address -- even
though the government in Caracas is recognized as
legitimate by all and is considered an ally, even
a close one, by most Latin American countries.
Latin Americans may "know what is best for
themselves," as the new report concedes, yet
Washington still knows better, and so should back
"social justice" issues as a means to win
Venezuelans and other Latin Americans away from Chávez.
That the Council report regularly places "social
justice" between scare quotes suggests that the
phrase is used more as a marketing ploy -- kind
of like "New Coke" -- than to signal that U.S.
banks and corporations are willing to make
substantive concessions to Latin American
nationalists. Seven decades ago, Franklin
Roosevelt supported the right of Latin American
countries to nationalize U.S. interests,
including Standard Oil holdings in Bolivia and
Mexico, saying it was time for others in the
hemisphere to get their "fair share." Three
decades ago, the Linowitz Commission recommended
the establishment of a "code of conduct" defining
the responsibilities of foreign corporations in
the region and recognizing the right of
governments to nationalize industries and resources.
The Council, in contrast, sneers at Chávez's far
milder efforts to create joint ventures with oil
multinationals, while offering nothing but pablum
in its place. Its centerpiece recommendation --
aimed at cultivating Brazil as a potential anchor
of a post-Bush, post-Chávez hemispheric order --
urges the abolition of subsidies and tariffs
protecting U.S. agro-industry in order to advance
a "Biofuel Partnership" with Brazil's own
behemoth agricultural sector. This would be an
environmental
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/worldbusiness/30food.html>disaster,
pushing large, mechanized plantations ever deeper
into the
<http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18825265.400>Amazon
basin, while doing nothing to generate decent
jobs or distribute wealth more fairly.
Dominated by representatives from the finance
sector of the U.S. economy, the Council
recommends little beyond continuing the failed
corporate "free trade" policies of the last
twenty years -- and, in this case, those scare
quotes are justified because what they're
advocating is about as free as corporate "social justice" is just.
An Obama Doctrine?
So far, Barack Obama promises little better. A
few weeks ago, he traveled to Miami and
<http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/obama_latin_america_speech_in.html>gave
a major address on Latin America to the Cuban
American National Foundation. It was hardly an
auspicious venue for a speech that promised to
"engage the people of the region with the respect owed to a partner."
Surely, the priorities for humane engagement
would have been different had he been addressing
not wealthy right-wing Cuban exiles but an
audience, say, of the kinds of Latino migrants in
Los Angeles who have revitalized the U.S. labor
movement, or of Central American families in
Postville, Iowa, where immigration and Justice
Department authorities recently staged a massive
<http://www.alternet.org/rights/85934/>raid on a
meatpacking plant, arresting as many as 700
undocumented workers. Obama did call for
comprehensive immigration reform and promised to
fulfill Franklin Roosevelt's 68 year-old Four
Freedoms agenda, including the social-democratic
"freedom from want." Yet he spent much of his
speech throwing red meat to his Cuban audience.
Ignoring the not-exactly-radical advice of the
Council on Foreign Relations, the candidate
pledged to maintain the embargo on Cuba. And then
he went further. Sounding a bit like Frank
Gaffney, he all but accused the Bush
administration of "losing Latin America" and
allowing China, Europe, and "demagogues like Hugo
Chávez" to step "into the vacuum." He even raised
the specter of Iranian influence in the region,
pointing out that "just the other day Tehran and
Caracas launched a joint bank with their windfall oil profits."
Whatever one's opinion on Hugo Chávez, any
diplomacy that claims to take Latin American
opinion seriously has to acknowledge one thing:
Most of the region's leaders not only don't see
him as a "problem," but have joined him on major
economic and political initiatives like the Bank
of the South, an alternative to the International
Monetary Fund and the Union of South American
Nations, modeled on the European Union,
<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abWOMOeJUK7Y&refer=home>established
just two weeks ago. And any U.S. president who is
sincere in wanting to help Latin Americans
liberate themselves from "want" will have to work
with the Latin American left -- in all its varieties.
But more ominous than Obama's posturing on
Venezuela is his position on Colombia. Critics
have long pointed out that the billions of
dollars in military aid provided to the Colombian
security forces to defeat the FARC insurgency and
curtail cocaine production would discourage a
negotiated end to the civil war in that country
and potentially provoke its escalation into
neighboring Andean lands. That's exactly what
happened last March, when Colombia's president
Alvaro Uribe ordered the bombing of a rebel camp
located in Ecuador
(<http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1191/68/>possibly
with U.S. logistical support supplied from Manta
Air Force Base, which gives you an idea of why
Correa wants to give it to China). To justify the
raid, Uribe explicitly invoked the Bush
Doctrine's right of preemptive, unilateral
action. In response, Ecuador and Venezuela began
to mobilize troops along their border with
Colombia, bringing the region to the precipice of war.
Most interestingly, in that conflict, an
overwhelming majority of Latin American and
Caribbean countries sided with Venezuela and
Ecuador, categorically condemning the Colombian
raid and reaffirming the sovereignty of
individual nations recognized by Franklin
Roosevelt long ago. Not Obama, however. He
essentially endorsed the Bush administration's
drive to transform Colombia's relations with its
Andean neighbors into the one Israel has with
most of the Middle East. In his Miami speech, he
swore that he would "support Colombia's right to
strike terrorists who seek safe-havens across its borders."
Equally troublesome has been Obama's endorsement
of the controversial Merida Initiative, which
human rights groups like Amnesty International
have
<http://www.lagunajournal.com/amnesty_international_joins_oppo.htm>condemned
as an application of the "Colombian solution" to
Mexico and Central America, providing their
militaries and police with a massive infusion of
money to combat drugs and gangs. Crime is indeed
a serious problem in these countries, and
deserves considered attention. It's chilling,
however, to have Colombia -- where death-squads
now have infiltrated every level of government,
and where union and other political activists are
executed on a regular basis -- held up as a model
for other parts of Latin America.
Obama, however, not only supports the initiative,
but wants to expand it beyond Mexico and Central
America. "We must press further south as well," he said in Miami.
It seems that once again that, as in the 1970s,
reports of the death of the Monroe Doctrine are greatly exaggerated.
Greg Grandin teaches history at New York
University. He is the author of
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805083235/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20>Empire's
Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and
the Rise of the New Imperialism and
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/0226305724/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20>The
Last Colonial Massacre: Latin America in the Cold War.
[This article first appeared on
<http://www.tomdispatch.com/>Tomdispatch.com, a
weblog of the Nation Institute, which offers a
steady flow of alternate sources, news, and
opinion from Tom Engelhardt, long time editor in
publishing, co-founder of
<http://www.americanempireproject.com/>the
American Empire Project, author of
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/155849586X/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20>The
End of Victory Culture (University of
Massachusetts Press), thoroughly updated in a
newly issued edition covering Iraq, and editor
and contributor to the first best of Tomdispatch
book,
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1844672573/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20>The
World According to Tomdispatch: America in the New Age of Empire (Verso).]
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863-9977
www.Freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20080610/4f4eb689/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list