Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIs President Obama Serious about a New Relationship with the Americas?
President Obama's stance at the Summit of the Americas signals that we may, finally, be stepping into a new era in our relationship with our neighbors.
This is very good news, especially after eight years in which the U.S. president was either ignored as irrelevant or repudiated in much of Latin America. But to be successful, Obama will have to look for advice beyond his secretary of state, whose husband advocated NAFTA and other trade policies now rejected by much of the region.
The Summit of the Americas gave the leaders of Latin America a chance to get to know the new U.S. president. More importantly, it gave Obama a chance to hear, first-hand, the fears and hopes of a continent that has been subjected to repeated U.S. interventions since the Monroe Doctrine declared our country's right to call the shots throughout the hemisphere.
Partners: for real this time? Obama signaled his hopes for a fresh start when he said in his opening remarks that he wanted to form an "equal partnership" among the nations of the hemisphere:
"There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations; there is simply engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and shared values."U.S. leaders have said this before, but Obama made some gestures toward implementing a more pragmatic and respectful relationship. Shortly before the summit, the U.S. eased restrictions on Cuban-Americans who want to travel or transfer money to Cuba.
Obama acknowledged the damage caused to Mexico by the drug wars and pledged to take action to reduce the flow of U.S. weapons and cash across the border and to reduce the U.S. market for illegal drugs.
And he announced a micro-credit loan fund to get loans to small business and entrepreneurs. "We're ... committed to combating inequality and creating prosperity from the bottom up," he said.
All these are promising signs that we may be preparing to let go of our dangerous role as the world's sole superpower, at least in Latin America.
What Obama Took Away This was Obama's first trip to Latin America, and it appears he took some important insights home with him. He learned, for example, the same thing I found during a study trip in Latin America at the end of 2006 -- that in many of the poorest regions, Cuban doctors are treating people who ordinarily have little or no access to health care, and that ongoing act of goodwill is generating goodwill in return towards Cuba. Here's what Obama said at his wrap-up news conference:
"One thing that I thought was interesting [was] hearing from these leaders who, when they spoke about Cuba, talked very specifically about the thousands of doctors from Cuba that are dispersed all throughout the region, and upon which many of these countries heavily depend."The statement shows Cuba's efforts are having the effect Dr. Juan Ceballos, adviser to the Cuban vice minister of public health, hoped for. I interviewed Ceballos when I was in Havana in December 2006 about why Cuba was carrying out these medical missions and training people from the poorest communities in Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa to be doctors.
At first Ceballos emphasized the "big hearts" of the Cuban people, and their pride in helping the world's poor. But when I pressed him on what Cuba hoped to gain for their aid, he said "All we ask for in return is solidarity." What good is "solidarity?"
"It's infinitely better to invest in peace than to invest in war," he told me.
Clearly it's worked. Many of the leaders at the summit raised, repeatedly, the issue of Cuba's exclusion from the summit. Obama got the message. Referencing the role Cuban doctors are playing in the region, he said:
"It's a reminder for us in the United States that if our only interaction with many of these countries is drug interdiction, if our only interaction is military, then we may not be developing the connections that can, over time, increase our influence and have -- have a beneficial effect when we need to try to move policies that are of concern to us forward in the region."The End of Intervention? The U.S. president also, evidently, got an earful about the past U.S. role in the region. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, who experienced U.S. engagement first hand when U.S.-backed Contras waged war for years against his government, accused President Obama of being the "president of an empire." And Bolivian President Evo Morales charged that the U.S. Embassy might have been involved in a recent attempt on his life.
Obama acknowledged that the U.S. has a history in the region that has "not always appreciated from the perspective of some," but he added:
"I just want to make absolutely clear that I am absolutely opposed and condemn any efforts at violent overthrows of democratically elected governments, wherever it happens in the hemisphere. That is not the policy of our government. That is not how the American people expect their government to conduct themselves."If he means it, this is very good news for a region that has, in the 186 years since the passage of the Monroe Doctrine, seen U.S.-backed military coups, guerrilla warfare, and outright invasions.
New Economic Policy Obama also acknowledged that the neoliberal trade policies, like NAFTA, that have been pressed on the region are deeply unpopular. But he said many related issues were dealt with at the G20 summit.
"We talked about the need to create a reformed international financial -- set of international financial institutions that provide additional flexibility, provide more voice and vote to developing countries."This may be among the most critical turning points. These economic policies are blamed by many scholars, in Latin America and elsewhere, for the poverty and economic stagnation the region suffered in recent decades. I witnessed the outcome in country after country, where the best lands and resources were turned over to big corporations or their local partners to use for export production, while the locals work for a pittance, or can't work at all for lack of access to land.
And, as we reported in the YES! special issue on Latin America, popular movements throughout the hemisphere oppose these policies, and insist that the land and resources of the people of Latin America be used for their benefit, not to enrich large corporations.
The willingness of the U.S. to impose its will via the military or via harsh economic policies has been at least partly responsible for the popularity of presidents Morales, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Néstor Carlos Kirchner of Argentina, and other leftist leaders. And it's been responsible for the decline in U.S. reputation and influence in the region.
Will President Obama rebuild our relationship with the south on a foundation of genuine respect for democracy and sovereignty? Or will it be more of the same superpower policies, this time cloaked in more collaborative and intelligent rhetoric?
The spirit of partnership Obama brought with him to the summit, plus his willingness to listen directly to his counterparts, are hopeful signs that real change could be in the works.
17 Comments so far
Show All"Live and let live"...something that the US would do well to learn and remember. The "American way of life" is proving to be a major fiasco and as for "leadership"...moral and ethical standards are way below acceptable.
The Congress of which President Obama and Secretary Clinton were members seem to have gotten almost all their international news from either the Bush administration or the major media who got their information also from the Bush people. Since the administration lied for eight years (and were echoed by the major corporate media who called Latin American leaders "dictators" who wanted to "rule for life"), the Congress does not know that, while we may not have invaded any South American countries, we DID support with State Dept. "democracy building" funds the monied/corporate elites who have tried to overthrow Chavez several times and, more recently, to undermine Morales and Correa. These funds were apparently funneled through the International Republican Institute that is chaired by John McCain.
Rather than (or perhaps in addition to) some kind of investigative commission, I'd like to see people like the author of this article plus Mark Weisbrot, Eva Golinger and many others who DO understand our treatment of Latin American leaders and economies conduct educational sessions with both Congress and the administration.
The broad mix of views on this page is an indication of the challenges facing President Barack Obama and the rest of the American leaders. Some are not realistic at all; expecting Obama to steamroll over the other branches of government in this country, and to do it yesterday!
Personally, I am gratified by the opening of a window to the rest of the Americas and letting a breath of fresh air in. Keep up the struggle for the rights of all of the people in the Americas, I say, but realize that what we have are hungry people, and sick people, and people who need jobs. Bottom line, take care of the people first, and then we can see who is sincere.
If one were honest, we would all admit to human rights abuses, and assasination attempts, and other forms of skullduggery. I only heard Obama admit wrongs committed against other governments in the Americas, but I did not hear that the others were prepared to admit their own.
Of course, trust takes time, but it would behoove the rest of the Americas to have the hope that their people have never lost, and try yet again to be on an equal footing with the U.S., rather than blame Obama for the chicanery of those who came before him.
Raulmax
Puerto Rico has the right to be an independent nation.
Saludos desde Mayaguez, Puerto Rico
US colony in the Caribbean.
Sarah van Gelder said in her article that the Summit of the Americas was the first time President Obama visited Latin America. No true. He visited Puerto Rico and like it or not this colony is a Latin American nation. We are a part of this region even though it would seem that the US and North Americans want to ignore this.
She also made reference to President Daniel Ortega's speech but only mentioned the fact that Ortega castigated the Summit because of Cuba's absence. Again only half of the story Ortega also castigated the Summit for the absence of Puerto Rico.
Neither President Obama nor Ms. van Gelder seem to want to acknowledge the fact that Puerto Rico is a colony of the US. Until the US and North Americans start facing some basic truths there will be only a cosmetic change of policy in the region. President Obama is not the only one who needs to read Eduardo Galeano's "Open Vains of Latin America."
I am Puerto Rican not North American. The problems of my nation are not the same as the problems which face the US. Our interests are not the same. I do not want my culture and my language and my history to be submerged and to eventually disappear as would happen with statehood. Puerto Rico has the right to be an independent nation.
I'd like to see a Commission formed to openly discuss the reason why the U.S. continues to hold on to Puerto Rico, denying the people their independence, and another formal Commission in Puerto Rico to discuss the differing views of the people themselves. Puerto Rico Libre!
What do most Puerto Ricans want?
We must do away with Nafta for beginers. Bring back Ross Perot who warned us
about his scheme years ago. WE might have to dig up Father Couglin to scare
the hell out of these phony liberals that we have sent to represent us..
What is left of the press is still controlled by Corporate America.
"Obama acknowledged the damage caused to Mexico by the drug wars and pledged to take action to reduce the flow of U.S. weapons and cash across the border and to reduce the U.S. market for illegal drugs."
Who are the drug warriors in the government. We need a list to see who we will not vote for.
"President Daniel Ortega, who experienced U.S. engagement first hand when U.S.-backed Contras waged war for years against his government, accused President Obama of being the "president of an empire."
Since when is telling the truth an accusation?
"Bolivian President Evo Morales charged that the U.S. Embassy might have been involved in a recent attempt on his life."
We want an investigation into this attempted assassination of a head of state by our government. We want names.
"I just want to make absolutely clear that I am absolutely opposed and condemn any efforts at violent overthrows of democratically elected governments, wherever it happens in the hemisphere. That is not the policy of our government. That is not how the American people expect their government to conduct themselves."
Prove it by looking into attempts on Evo Morales' life. You might look into our attempts to kill Chavez, Castro, etc., while at it.
"We talked about the need to create a reformed international financial -- set of international financial institutions that provide additional flexibility, provide more voice and vote to developing countries.
This may be among the most critical turning points. These economic policies are blamed by many scholars, in Latin America and elsewhere, for the poverty and economic stagnation the region suffered in recent decades. I witnessed the outcome in country after country, where the best lands and resources were turned over to big corporations or their local partners to use for export production, while the locals work for a pittance, or can't work at all for lack of access to land."
Then why are you now giving the IMF hundreds of billions when they and the World Bank have caused so much misery in Latin America?
"The willingness of the U.S. to impose its will via the military or via harsh economic policies has been at least partly responsible for the popularity of presidents Morales, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Néstor Carlos Kirchner of Argentina, and other leftist leaders. And it's been responsible for the decline in U.S. reputation and influence in the region."
Thank you President Bush, the Republican Congress and all conservatives everywhere.
Its worse to look like fool than it is to be one. Our President looked foolish in dealing with a few unimportant leaders.
Latin America needs us far more than we need them. Like it or not, thats the truth.
That's kind of a shallow reply. The U.s. needs markets. Markets need to be kept poor places or else they will want to have their own markets. The U.s, according to that fraud Obama's performance at last weekend's summit, wants everyone that is not being attacked by them right now to forget having been attacked before. The U.s., being run and supported by about the stupidest class in society, wants everyone to think they've changed but they brought absolutely nothing to the summit of the americas to indicate that they were in fact changing.
To this article, I can only repeat exactly the same comment I made yesterday (1;21 pm 4/23/09) to William Grieder's piece on "testicular politics" raising the question whether Obama is "tough enough" to stand up to the financial titans of Wall Street:
"Considering Mr. Greider's article and much else I have heard and seen of the Obama presidency, I'm ready to declare a new title for it, from the prospective of many progressives, as The Subjunctive Presidency. How many places per square bit of cyber-space contain the mood of "if," "perhaps," "he could," "if he would only," it's possible," etc.? "
Well "there you go again Ms. van Gelder." Still another in the series of pieces by Obama "fans" who "hope" that Obama will be all we would have him be---and which his own promises have portended. But everything is up in the air---will he go this way or that? What he says and does is not what Jeffrey Davidow says and does. He (sort of) supports NAFTA re-negotiation but the bete noir of the primary campaign, Hillary Clinton, does not support it, and she's now his Secretary of State. As I suggested in my earlier post, all this studied ambiguity may be designed to keep us guessing about the outcome of an administration that could end in inconceivable disaster or unimaginable glory. Of course as with so much of this "Progressives for Obama," writing, it comes down to "us," the progressive base to push him in the "right" (left) direction. So much rides on "our" shoulders, I almost think about sitting down to rest for a couple of minutes
Obama's violence in the Middle East belies his soft words, in Latin America as elsewhere. But most Latin American leaders -- over 50%! -- have lived through US violence in their own countries, all of which has always been accompanied by the familiar cheap shills about freedom and prosperity. Hopefully they can take advantage of an affability that owes everything to a sinking economy without imagining that it involves good will.
Can hot air change anything? Nope.
What a misread. Must get all their "feeds" from the "White" House.
Fidel Castro, who will be eighty-three in the middle of August, is still as sharp as he was when he was a young man, and much wiser. He writes a prolific column called "Reflexiones de Fidel Castro" which everyone in the southern hemisphere, even the heads of states, reads so they can keep abreast of current events. No one can analyze politics better than Fidel.
After Obama's disastrous performance in Port of Spain, Fidel called Obama "superficial". Fidel has more stature in the world than any other leader and you can be absolutely positive that in Latin America his analysis of the state of affairs is going to influence more people than any other source.
The Cuban websites give their readers a real sense of what is going on in the world and no one can be on top of the geopolitical scene if they don't read them. Conversely, no one can have an understanding of world affairs if they only read the U.s., and their sycophants, media because their whole agenda is to confuse.