The centuries-old Monroe doctrine has little relevance to US policy in the region today. No wonder there have been no partiestheguardian.com,
'The steep human cost of drug enforcement in Latin America was not even acknowledged by John
Kerry, nor was migration mentioned.' Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty
Images
This week, John Kerry gave a major speech at the Organization of American States, stressing the United States' desire to re-engage with the region.
He stated: "The era of the Monroe doctrine is over," presenting what
sounded like a major paradigm shift: the overcoming of the paternalism
involved in the Monroe doctrine and its canonical statement "America for
the Americans". And yet, from a Latin American perspective, it didn't
sound like a major shift at all. The speech did not generate any
official response in Latin America, nor was it considered more than
merely rhetorical by most Latin American interpreters, from Sao Paolo to
Buenos Aires and Mexico City. Two centuries ago, President Monroe
had presented his doctrine as the obligation for Americans to prevent
new colonisation attempts by European powers in the western hemisphere.
For generations, most Latin Americans simply interpreted the doctrine as
meaning that the Americas would informally, and sometimes formally,
live under the control of the United States. The latter view was,
in fact, a very perceptive reading of the record of the United States in
the region. In the 19th century, the United States acted as "protector"
of so-called smaller nations in the Caribbean, Central America and
beyond. In this role it went along with other European nations (France,
England and Germany), with the difference that it generally stressed
indirect rule rather that outright occupation. The Mexican war and the
brief occupations of Cuba and Nicaragua in the early 20th century were
exceptions to this pattern, although they had important effects for the
overall perception of US policy in the region. According to the
historian John Coatsworth, the United States brought down 41 Latin
American governments between 1898 and 1994. The most famous cases
include Panama (the US was a key promoter of Panama's secession from
Colombia and its creation as a country), Cuba, the Dominican Republic,
Nicaragua and Bolivia. All of these cases of regime change happened
before 1944. Later, the US shifted from an anti-fascist policy
with Franklin D Roosevelt to anti-communist support for authoritarian
rule in the region. This political interference was generally on the
side of criminal dictatorships, from Chile and Argentina to Guatemala
and Brazil. In the 1990s, the US actively supported highly contested
neoliberal regimes as part of the so-called Washington consensus. More
recently, the constant harassing of Latin American immigrants and the
nativist overtones of the immigration debate in the US do not boost its
image in the region. There is a need for the United States to care about
Latin American positions, searching for true democratic integration
rather than simply promoting military-anti-drug related alliances,
cyber-security and industrial espionage while showing sporadic episodes
of interest. Given the long list of acts of intervention in Latin
American politics during the 20th century – none of them justified by
the actual threat of a European invasion – Kerry's announcement on the
end of the Monroe doctrine should be celebrated. But the real issues
that separate US policies from Latin American interests today are no
longer found in overt political and military intervention. And the
real concerns of US policy in the region were all but ignored in the
speech. There was merely a passing mention to drugs in Colombia, when
billions of dollars and active collaboration with armed forces in the
region support US prohibitionism against increasing opposition from
Latin American societies and even politicians. The steep human cost of
drug enforcement in Latin America, all for the benefit of US public
health, was not even acknowledged. Nor was migration mentioned by Kerry,
maintaining the fiction that immigration policies that harass and,
during the Obama administration, deport record numbers of Latin
Americans back to their countries of origin are not also a matter of
foreign policy. Perhaps the fiction is necessary considering the human
rights cost of prolonged detention, expulsion and the separation of
families that those policies entail. And Kerry also failed to mention
the elephant in the room: the growing interactions of the region's most
dynamic economies with China, a customer for raw materials but also an
investor that competes with US companies in several sectors. The Monroe
doctrine, after all, only referred to European influence. It is not
surprising that such a short-sighted, predictable speech has not
elicited any reactions.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Be for real! Love La Raza Cosmca! Venceremos!