[Peace-discuss] Obama on the Americas - analysis

[C. G. Estabrook]

   Should Obama, If Elected, Make a Clean Break With Bush’s Latin America Policy?
   By Mark Weisbrot

In the last decade political change has swept across most of Latin America. Much
of the region – including the majority of South America – is now run by left
governments. These governments have also become much more independent of the
United States – in their foreign policy they are more independent than Europe
is. Washington’s dream of a hemispheric “Free Trade Area of the Americas” is now
dead and buried. The attempt to replace this with bilateral “free trade”
agreements is losing steam every day.

Much of this is a result of the democratic choices of the Latin American
electorate.  In country after country – Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador,
Nicaragua, Paraguay, Uruguay, Venezuela – voters rejected the “Washington
Consensus” economic policies after more than two decades of unprecedented
economic failure. Similarly, by popular demand, the government of Ecuador has
announced that the Washington’s most prominent military base in the region will
close when its lease expires in 2009.

The Administration’s reaction to this new Latin American reality has been
characterized by denial and hostility. It supported military coups in Venezuela
(2002) and Haiti (2004). It has funded opposition groups in countries such as
Bolivia and Venezuela, provoking further friction. The United States has clearly
been a destabilizing force in the region, undermining democracy.

The Bush Administration has tried to divide the left-of-center democracies into
“good left” (Brazil and Chile) versus “bad left” (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador,
and sometimes Argentina). The goal has been to isolate the “bad left,”
especially Venezuela. But this is a fantasy-based foreign policy.

Brazil’s President Lula da Silva, for example, of the “good left” has
consistently defended Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez against Washington’s
attacks, and joined with Venezuela in its major initiatives such as the Bank of
the South. Brazil has also recently stepped up its commitment to Cuba, a country
with which Lula’s Worker’s Party has long had ties – more deeply rooted
historically, in fact, than Chavez of Venezuela. Cuba is another example of
failed U.S. policy toward Latin America. Washington has maintained an economic
embargo and other hostilities against Cuba for nearly half a century. This has
succeeded only in winning condemnation from the rest of the world, expressed in
many overwhelming votes in the United Nations, and sowing more distrust in Latin
America.

The “divide and conquer,” Cold War strategy in Latin America has only succeeded
in further reducing Washington’s standing in the region, which is now lower than
it has ever been.

Obama would have a chance to make a fresh start. But would he? So far there has
been little indication that he would.

He has adopted some of the same hostile rhetoric toward Venezuela, pledged to
maintain the embargo on Cuba, and even showed support for Colombia’s March 1
raid into Ecuador. This was a violation of sovereignty and a dangerous
regionalization of Colombia’s conflict – supported by the Bush Administration --
that was publicly rejected by nearly every government in the hemisphere.

Against these statements, Obama’s expressed willingness to possibly meet with
Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro do not offer much cause for optimism, and indeed
there is not much hope for change among Latin American diplomats here in Washington.

Of course, Latin American governments are sophisticated enough to know that U.S.
presidential campaign rhetoric is oriented to right-wing Cuban Americans in
South Florida. Indeed, if there were 800,000 American voters who believed that
Elvis Presley were still alive, and they were concentrated in one swing state
with 27 electoral votes, we might expect to hear some campaign speeches
accommodating these eccentric views.

So maybe Obama is just kidding when he adopts the Bush Administration’s rhetoric
and policy stances on Latin America. For now, at least, that is the best hope we
can hold on to.

[Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in
Washington, D.C. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of
Michigan. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: The Phony Crisis
(University of Chicago Press, 2000), and has written numerous research papers on
economic policy. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy
(www.justforeignpolicy.org).]

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/-should-obama,
-if-elected,-make-a-clean-break-with-bushs-latin-america-policy/


Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> Thanks for posting this, Ricky. Very long, but very reassuring. --Jenifer
> 
> --- On *Tue, 8/26/08, Ricky Baldwin /<baldwinricky at yahoo.com>/* wrote:
> 
> From: Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Obama
> on the Americas - analysis To: "peace discuss"
> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2008, 10:07 AM
> 
> I thought folks would appreciate a thorough analysis of Obama's  Americas 
> policy from a worthwhile source.  This is from the website of NACLA (North 
> American Congress on Latin America), an excellent source of information and 
> thought about the Americas that has received high praise from the likes of 
> Chomsky, Naomi Klein and others).  Whether you agree with every aspect or not
>  (we rarely do, and why should we?),  I think you'll find this insightful
> .... -Ricky
> 
> 
> https://nacla.org/node/4928 Would There Be Change in Obama's Americas Policy?
> 
> 
> Aug 22 2008 Laura Carlsen ...