FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

What Europe Could Learn From Latin America’s Independence

by MARK WEISBROT

With a few exceptions, most of Europe hasn’t had an independent foreign policy for the past 70 years, and the U.K. stands out as a prime example of this.   I remember discussing British foreign policy with a U.K. Member of Parliament a few years ago, and he said to me, “Do you want to know what the Foreign Office is going to do?  Just ask the (U.S.) State Department.”

The British government proved its first loyalty once again by detaining Glenn Greenwald’s Brazilian partner, David Miranda, under the U.K.’s Terrorism Act 2000 as he passed through London’s Heathrow airport on Sunday.  He was interrogated for the maximum of 9 hours and his laptop, cell phone, and other stores of digital information were seized.  It is clear that Miranda was not suspected of any connection to terrorism.  To detain and rob Miranda on this pretext is no more legal than to have done so on trumped up allegations that he was transporting cocaine.  The White House has admitted that Washington had advance knowledge of the crime, and so we can infer approval – if not active collaboration.

It is interesting, too, because the U.K. government had previously kept a relatively low public profile on the Snowden case, despite the fact that Snowden had leaked files from its own intelligence gathering and not just the NSA’s.  Until Sunday it looked as though the British authorities had learned at least a little bit about public relations after their international embarrassment last year, when they threatened to invade Ecuador’s embassy in order to capture Julian Assange.  Although they are still keeping Assange trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, illegally, and presumably at the behest of you know who.  And the editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, now reveals that the U.K. government, at the highest levels, has been very seriously threatening and harassing his newspaper in an attempt to silence it.

At the other end of the spectrum of national sovereignty are the independent nations of Latin America, three of whom have officially offered Snowden asylum, and others who would never turn him over to the United States if he were to land on their territory (or in their embassies).  These governments  have played a significant role in the Snowden affair and NSA spying scandal because they  have achieved a “second independence” over the past 15 years that enables them to pursue an autonomous foreign policy.  The exercise of this new independence is largely ignored or, more often, denigrated in the major media as populist demagoguery.  But it is easy to see that the “problem” is much deeper than that.

Brazilian foreign minister Antonio Patriota demanded answers from U.K. foreign secretary William Hague over the detention of David Miranda.  Last week, at a news conference with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Brazil, Patriota spoke of a “shadow of distrust” caused by Snowden and Greenwald’s revelations that Brazilian citizens were a major target of NSA surveillance. He called for the Obama administration to “stop practices that violate sovereignty.”   Patriota was previously Brazil’s ambassador to Washington and nobody can accuse him of holding a grudge against the United States.

Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff had also expressed her “indignation” over what Bolivia described as the “kidnapping” of President Evo Morales by the European governments who forced down his plane last month on the basis of false allegations that he was transporting Edward Snowden.  “We believe this constitutes not only the humiliation of a sister nation but of all South America,” said Argentine president Cristina Kirchner, and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) also issued a strong denunciation.

Brazil is the main target of Washington’s most recent charm offensive, with President Dilma Rouseff scheduled for an official state visit in October — the first by a Brazilian president in nearly two decades. The U.S. does not even have ambassadorial relations with Bolivia or Venezuela.  But the U.S. attempt to improve relations with Brazil is not going any better than its “diplomatic efforts” with the other left governments of the region. This is not because these governments wouldn’t want better relations – they all, including Venezuela, have significant trade and commercial relations with the U.S. and would like to expand these.

The problem is that Washington has still not accepted Latin America’s second independence, and expects its southern neighbors to behave in the same embarrassingly obedient way as Europe.  And U.S. officials still don’t understand that they are dealing with a team – they can’t be hostile or aggressive towards one country and expect the others to give them a big hug.  So we cannot expect better relations between Washington and its southern neighbors any time soon.

On the positive side, Latin America has done quite well over the past decade, since its people became free enough to elect left governments, which have subsequently led the fight for independence and transformed regional relations.  Regional povertydropped from 41.5 to 29.6 percent from 2003-2009, after showing no significant improvement for more than 20 years.  Income per person has grown by more than 2 percent annually over the past decade, as opposed to just 0.3 percent over the prior 20 years, when Washington’s influence over economic policy in Latin America was enormous.  The left governments’ detractors attribute these improvements to a “commodities boom,” but this is just a fraction of the story.  The region would never have seen such improvements in employment and poverty reduction if the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were still calling the shots.

As for Europe’s leaders, well, they have nothing to lose but their national dignity, which they don’t seem to value very highly.  But the world will be a better and safer place when Europe, like most of Latin America, declares its independence from Washington.

Mark Weisbrot is an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: the Phony Crisis.

This essay originally appeared in The Guardian

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. and president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also the author of  Failed: What the “Experts” Got Wrong About the Global Economy (Oxford University Press, 2015).

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
March 24, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Michael Hudson
Trump is Obama’s Legacy: Will this Break up the Democratic Party?
Eric Draitser
Donald Trump and the Triumph of White Identity Politics
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Nothing Was Delivered
Andrew Levine
Ryan’s Choice
Joshua Frank
Global Coal in Freefall, Tar Sands Development Drying Up (Bad News for Keystone XL)
Anthony DiMaggio
Ditching the “Deep State”: The Rise of a New Conspiracy Theory in American Politics
Rob Urie
Boris and Natasha Visit Fantasy Island
John Wight
London and the Dreary Ritual of Terrorist Attacks
Paul Buhle
The CIA and the Intellectuals…Again
David Rosen
Why Did Trump Target Transgender Youth?
Vijay Prashad
Inventing Enemies
Ben Debney
Outrage From the Imperial Playbook
M. Shadee Malaklou
An Open Letter to Duke University’s Class of 2007, About Your Open Letter to Stephen Miller
Michael J. Sainato
Bernie Sanders’ Economic Advisor Shreds Trumponomics
Lawrence Davidson
Moral Failure at the UN
Pete Dolack
World Bank Declares Itself Above the Law
Nicola Perugini - Neve Gordon
Israel’s Human Rights Spies
Patrick Cockburn
From Paris to London: Another City, Another Attack
Ralph Nader
Reason and Justice Address Realities
Ramzy Baroud
‘Decolonizing the Mind’: Using Hollywood Celebrities to Validate Islam
Colin Todhunter
Monsanto in India: The Sacred and the Profane
Louisa Willcox
Grizzlies Under the Endangered Species Act: How Have They Fared?
Norman Pollack
Militarization of American Fascism: Trump the Usurper
Pepe Escobar
North Korea: The Real Serious Options on the Table
Brian Cloughley
“These Things Are Done”: Eavesdropping on Trump
Sheldon Richman
You Can’t Blame Trump’s Military Budget on NATO
Carol Wolman
Trump vs the People: a Psychiatrist’s Analysis
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Marines to Kill Desert Tortoises
Stanley L. Cohen
The White House . . . Denial and Cover-ups
Farhang Jahanpour
America’s Woes, Europe’s Responsibilities
Joseph Natoli
March Madness Outside the Basketball Court
Bill Willers
Volunteerism; Charisma; the Ivy League Stranglehold: a Very Brief Trilogy
Bruce Mastron
Slaughtered Arabs Don’t Count
Pauline Murphy
Unburied Truth: Exposing the Church’s Iron Chains on Ireland
Ayesha Khan
The Headscarf is Not an Islamic Compulsion
Ron Jacobs
Music is Love, Music is Politics
Christopher Brauchli
Prisoners as Captive Customers
Robert Koehler
The Mosque That Disappeared
Franklin Lamb
Update from Madaya
Dan Bacher
Federal Scientists Find Delta Tunnels Plan Will Devastate Salmon
Barbara Nimri Aziz
The Gig Economy: Which Side Are You On?
Louis Proyect
What Caused the Holodomor?
Max Mastellone
Seeking Left Unity Through a Definition of Progressivism
Charles R. Larson
Review: David Bellos’s “Novel of the Century: the Extraordinary Adventure of Les Misérables”
David Yearsley
Ear of Darkness: the Soundtracks of Steve Bannon’s Films
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail