Obama Should Make a Clean Break With the Past on Latin America
President-elect Obama's historic triumph was welcomed in Latin America by left-of-center governments who saw it as a continuation of their own electoral victories. Even before the election President Lula da Silva of Brazil said: "Just as Brazil elected a metal worker, Bolivia elected an Indian, Venezuela elected Chavez and Paraguay a bishop, I think that it would be an extraordinary thing if, in the largest economy in the world, a black man were elected president of the United States."
Obama has an opportunity to forge a new relationship with the region after his predecessor drove U.S.-Latin American relations into a ditch. But it will require a major change in Washington's attitude toward our southern neighbors.
Most importantly, as the Brookings Institution recently noted, the Obama administration will have to abandon Bush's efforts to divide the left-of-center governments into a "good left" and "bad left," rewarding the former and punishing the latter. Most recently, the Bush Administration decided to punish Bolivia by suspending their trade preferences and threatening tens of thousands of jobs there -- allegedly for not co-operating in the "war on drugs."
Bolivia's President Evo Morales was in Washington this month and met with Senator Richard Lugar. Senator Lugar is the most influential Republican on foreign policy issues and is very close to President-elect Obama -- who, according to rumors here, offered him the position of Secretary of State. Lugar issued a very positive press statement on the meeting with Evo: "The United States regrets any perception that it has been disrespectful, insensitive, or engaged in any improper activities that would disregard the legitimacy of the current Bolivian government or its sovereignty," he said. "We hope to renew our relationship with Bolivia, and to develop a rapport grounded on respect and transparency."
Although Evo Morales handed this statement to the Washington Post, neither the meeting with Lugar nor Lugar's statement made it into the print edition of the Post's article on Evo's visit. This indicates that the Obama administration will have to confront not only the State Department but also some of the major media if it wants to change relations with Latin America.
Bolivia expelled the U.S. Ambassador in September because of Washington's support for opposition groups there. The US State Department spent $89 million in Bolivia last year. Some of it went to opposition groups; we don't know exactly how much because our government does not provide full disclosure. Washington is also supplying millions of dollars to undisclosed organizations in Venezuela, where it supported a military coup in 2002. Imagine if China or Russia were pumping $100 billion (the equivalent here) into in the United States, and some billions went to undisclosed groups. We would not allow that.
The consensus in Washington is that we have the right to do all kinds of things in Latin American countries that we would never permit here. The new governments there do not agree. They also think they have the right to an independent foreign policy. Brazil's foreign minister went to Iran this month, where he publicly defended Iran's right to enrich uranium, and announced that expanding commercial and other ties to Iran were "a foreign policy priority" for Brazil. The State Department and U.S. media ignored these statements because they came from Brazil, but when Venezuela does the same thing it is considered impermissible.
These are the kinds of double standards that the Obama administration will have to abandon if it wants a new relationship with Latin America. The left governments of Latin America have all reached out to our new President-elect with great hopes and expectations. It will now be up to our new government to break with the past, and respect the sovereignty and dignity of our neighbors to the south. That's all they are asking for.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
23 Comments so far
Show All"The consensus in Washington is that we have the right to do all kinds of things in Latin American countries that we would never permit here."
It's also this same pattern of failed thinking in Washington that has brought us to the brink of economic destruction. We can thank these alleged representatives of the people for selling out our country, looting our tax dollars and abolishing our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
As long as the American electorate is hooked on to gas guzzlers, there won't be any clean break from Latin America until their oil wells dry up for good. And if you think going to war in Iraq for oil was bad enough, wait until the Electric Cars go mainstream. We'll then be fighting wars in Congo for Lithium and don't get me started on China !
How about make a clean break with the Middle East, South Asia and Indochina as well ?
Why stop with Latin America, why not break with the past on the Middle East and Africa also?
The left, like liberals, welfare and pot, has been so effectively demonized for so many years that the majority would probably cringe at the notion. This is made worse by a loud religious conservative and wealthy Latin American anti-communist expatriate community that bribes politicians and forgets the US owes its ass to communist China.
Obama like Clinton, seems to be going along to get along. Maybe the best we can hope for is that as Latin America progresses and America regresses, Obama will be pushed to deal fairly with it.
He should, but he's Barack Obama. He won't do anything significant to alter the fundamental effort the U.S. always employs in countries south of us: domination.
Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.
There is a very simple way that Obama, Clinton, and Gates could signal a break with the past and that would be to scrap plans to reactivate the 4th fleet. It would be symbolic, it would save money, and it would be a tangible way that the Obama Adminstration could signal that they are not merely Bush-Lite.
Poet
That would not be enough, poet.
The bottom line, whether gringos like it or not, is just that: the bottom line.
And in this case, since Latin America has the highest concentration of natural resources--the corraling of which is the name of the game in this century--most of us just don't care whether the gringos try to cosy up to us or not. We are more concerned with getting a fair price for our products and not having our sovereignty violated by barbarians.
You sure like the word "gringo", which I find odd because I believe you carry a US Passport. That makes you one of us, my fine fellow Gringa.
Native Americans are not gringos.
Gringo refers to white folks from the US.
I am most definitely NOT one of YOU.
Unless and until you renounce that little blue book that says "United States Passport" on it, you most certainly ARE one of us, my fellow American.
I am not white, therefore I couldn't be a gringo if I wanted to.
Besides, it is none of your business what passport I have or anything else about my life.
You are just a cracker trolling this site.
Hmm, so you are using "gringo" as a racial classifier? Sound kind of racist to me, my fellow American. Ignorant too, since if you would pay attention to Mexican usages of the language, you would know that MEXICANS use "gringo" to refer to Americans. All of us. If you ever went further south, you would find Brazilians and Argentines using the term to describe Europeans, as well as Americans.
But, don't worry, my fellow gringa. If you get in trouble, that little blue passport will probably still work for you, too.
Mexicans do not refer to Native Americans nor blacks from the US as gringos.
Nothing racist about it.
Just the way it is.
Canadians are not gringos either.
I am a specialist in linguistics, so you are barking up the wrong tree, liberty. And I do not get "in trouble", ever.
This "conversation" is over.
Don't go away angry, please. Just go away, my fellow gringa. And put away your linguistics books and go out and actually TALK to a few Mexicans to see who they are referring to when they use the word gringo.
I LIVE in a house with 7 Mexicans! This is a small village with NO gringos, ever. Which is why I live here.
Can't bear infantile gringos. Who think they know everything and are so woefully ignorant they can barely find their OWN country on a world map. Robert Fisk's piece posted today sums them up nicely.
Actually, it is a small village with ONE gringa in it. You.
Serena, I both understand and agree with your point. My suggtestion was not meant to be the one and only solution to a policy that extends over 150 years of beligerant meddling in the region. However, as a symbolic measure intended to reassure the governments in Central and South America as well as the Carribean it is a start.
Three superb examples of what I say are Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Fidel was able to hold on to power over the Cuban people not so much because of him or his government's effectiveness, but, rather, because the only thing that Cubans detested worse than Fidel's long-winded polemimcs was US meddling. Had we just left Cuba alone, Fidel would have given way to some other nationalist leader capable of actually adminstering an effective government for the Cuban people.
Same with Nicauragua. Daniel Ortega's Sandinista government was sabotauged by American trained and supported death squads and many of the most effective leaders of the Sandinsitas were either martyred of driven into hiding. Since retaking the government through Democrativc elections Ortega has shown himself for the inept leader he is with many former Sandinista party members spliting off to form another party in opposition to their former alliance. By keeping out of the way, the US gives Ortega the chance to fail on his own accord.
Venezuela reacted the same way when the US tried to overthrow Chavez in a coup. By letting Hugo alone, he gets to either suceed or fail on his own. One thing for sure, most of the eruptions of his machismo big mouth will have no reason to continue with the retirement of Boy George Bush. Then he will have to accept the verdict of the Venezuelan people on his Bolivarian Revolution.
Lugo in Paraguay, Christina Kirshner in Argentina, Rafeal Correa in Equador, and Evo Morales in Bolivia are either the trend of the future or just a reaction to US imperialism. If the Us is smart, it will let the peoples of the region render their judgement and work with the result.
Poet
machismo big mouth?
machismo is a noun.
Before everybody gets too hopeful about this desired "clean break," might want to check out an item on Narco News today about H. Clinton as Secretary of State and the (un)likelihood that any of these breaks would occur except over her dead body (and why would Obama appoint her to his cabinet to do that?) http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/welcome-secretary-clinton-obamas-promises-be-kept
In view of Obama's security team appointments and nominations to date, I will be surprised if his administration improves relations with Latin America.
Mark, don't worry, the Latins are doing it for Obama already. More power to them!
The analysis is right on target.
The US has a LOT to answer for here in Latin America.