The Monroe What?
It's no secret that the US has been so obsessed with the Iraq War that it has totally ignored the rest of the world, especially Africa and Latin America. The only visits to Central and South America that the President has made have been in connection with trade initiatives that would extend NAFTA southward. Apparently the current administration's policies are geared only towards how much money can be wrung out of the region under the guise of free trade.
In a sense, this has been fortunate for Latin America insofar as those countries have had a chance to evaluate their relations with the US and then to act on those evaluations via elections. A recent op-ed piece in Novosti, the Russian News & Information Agency, by Pyotr Romanov examined the recent elections in the region and provides a rather interesting analysis.
As I write these words, the final results of the Ecuador elections have yet to be published, but judging by all the polls it will be a convincing victory for left-wing candidate Rafael Correa.
His rival is Alvaro Noboa, a banana tycoon and one of that country's wealthiest men. Noboa, who won the first round, is demanding a recount, but the gap is wide, and another victory for the left appears inevitable.
The elections were interesting, perhaps for two main reasons. First, the voters had to choose between the two extremes. The left candidate advocated the complete rupture of trade relations with the United States, and reorienting the economy toward Latin American countries on the left of the political spectrum, primarily Cuba and Venezuela. His right-wing opponent called for stronger ties with the U.S.A., and promised to break diplomatic relations with Hugo Chavez and Caracas. (Incidentally, Venezuela is also soon to hold presidential elections [Dec. 1] but practically no one doubts that Chavez will keep his post and continue to scold the "great northern neighbor" from every rostra. Recent polls show that Chavez enjoys the support of around 60 percent of the electorate).
The second reason? Every election in Latin America, and Ecuador in particular, poses the following question. How many centers of influence will Washington have left in what has been proclaimed its area of vital interest under the moth-eaten Monroe doctrine? Cuba, Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua (after Daniel Ortega's victory), and now Ecuador have joined the left-wing ranks. To these we cannot add Peru, where a left-wing candidate failed to win. The situation in Mexico is not much better for the U.S. The recent elections produced two presidents at once - after a dubious vote count, the election committee officially named one president. The other candidate took offense and independently had himself declared president. Legally just an impostor, he enjoys the support of millions in his country. So all of this forces us to ask a question: Is the South American continent swimming gradually away from North America, breaking off where the U.S. is now building a wall along its border with Mexico?
...New times require new priorities. With all this going on, Washington almost relegated Latin America to second place. And as Washington's interest waned, a considerable part of Latin America switched to the language of Bolivar.
...Certainly, the main economic partner remains the U.S. This is only natural, taking into account economic and geographical considerations. The problem is that Washington uses these considerations - as well as its political and military might - exclusively for its own and not Latin America's interests. Latin American nations have grown sick and tired of the unequal and unfair partnership, which has prevented the people in many Latin American countries from being able to compete. [Emphasis added]
The result of inattention to Africa has resulted in horrific problems getting worse in the Sudan (see Ruth's post) and in all of sub-Saharan Africa with respect to AIDS and other diseases, and those results will haunt the US and the world for a long time as the death toll continues to mount.
The results in Latin America are far less horrific, and may in the long run make for a more prosperous region if the Bolivaran Revolution promised by the leftists who have been swept into office does in fact produce more economic equality.
Whether US corporate interests will tolerate such a state of affairs is another question, but right now the White House is too busy elsewhere to tend to those interests.
In a sense, this has been fortunate for Latin America insofar as those countries have had a chance to evaluate their relations with the US and then to act on those evaluations via elections. A recent op-ed piece in Novosti, the Russian News & Information Agency, by Pyotr Romanov examined the recent elections in the region and provides a rather interesting analysis.
As I write these words, the final results of the Ecuador elections have yet to be published, but judging by all the polls it will be a convincing victory for left-wing candidate Rafael Correa.
His rival is Alvaro Noboa, a banana tycoon and one of that country's wealthiest men. Noboa, who won the first round, is demanding a recount, but the gap is wide, and another victory for the left appears inevitable.
The elections were interesting, perhaps for two main reasons. First, the voters had to choose between the two extremes. The left candidate advocated the complete rupture of trade relations with the United States, and reorienting the economy toward Latin American countries on the left of the political spectrum, primarily Cuba and Venezuela. His right-wing opponent called for stronger ties with the U.S.A., and promised to break diplomatic relations with Hugo Chavez and Caracas. (Incidentally, Venezuela is also soon to hold presidential elections [Dec. 1] but practically no one doubts that Chavez will keep his post and continue to scold the "great northern neighbor" from every rostra. Recent polls show that Chavez enjoys the support of around 60 percent of the electorate).
The second reason? Every election in Latin America, and Ecuador in particular, poses the following question. How many centers of influence will Washington have left in what has been proclaimed its area of vital interest under the moth-eaten Monroe doctrine? Cuba, Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua (after Daniel Ortega's victory), and now Ecuador have joined the left-wing ranks. To these we cannot add Peru, where a left-wing candidate failed to win. The situation in Mexico is not much better for the U.S. The recent elections produced two presidents at once - after a dubious vote count, the election committee officially named one president. The other candidate took offense and independently had himself declared president. Legally just an impostor, he enjoys the support of millions in his country. So all of this forces us to ask a question: Is the South American continent swimming gradually away from North America, breaking off where the U.S. is now building a wall along its border with Mexico?
...New times require new priorities. With all this going on, Washington almost relegated Latin America to second place. And as Washington's interest waned, a considerable part of Latin America switched to the language of Bolivar.
...Certainly, the main economic partner remains the U.S. This is only natural, taking into account economic and geographical considerations. The problem is that Washington uses these considerations - as well as its political and military might - exclusively for its own and not Latin America's interests. Latin American nations have grown sick and tired of the unequal and unfair partnership, which has prevented the people in many Latin American countries from being able to compete. [Emphasis added]
The result of inattention to Africa has resulted in horrific problems getting worse in the Sudan (see Ruth's post) and in all of sub-Saharan Africa with respect to AIDS and other diseases, and those results will haunt the US and the world for a long time as the death toll continues to mount.
The results in Latin America are far less horrific, and may in the long run make for a more prosperous region if the Bolivaran Revolution promised by the leftists who have been swept into office does in fact produce more economic equality.
Whether US corporate interests will tolerate such a state of affairs is another question, but right now the White House is too busy elsewhere to tend to those interests.
Labels: Free Markets, Latin America
posted by Diane at 4:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home