FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Can the United States Ever be a Good Neighbor?

Much of the debate on the U.S. presidential elections in Latin American countries does not center on who would be better for the region, Bush or Kerry, but on whether it makes any difference at all.

Interviews with analysts and citizens reveal a deep skepticism as to the U.S.’s potential, under either of the major political parties, to return in these modern times to anything like the Rooseveltian “good neighbor” policy of the 1930s. Since the invasion of Iraq, criticism of U.S. foreign policy has surged and fed into rising protests against deeper economic ties with the United States as well.

The skepticism has a solid foundation. Documents released under freedom-of-information law, and truth commissions in nations still emerging from military rule have provided hard evidence of U.S. involvement in everything from dirty tricks to assassination attempts. Allegations have been made for years, but now Washington’s shady role in the region has become part of the historical record.

Scars of intervention still run deep: 50 years after the Arbenz government was overthrown by a CIA-backed coup, Guatemala still struggles to rebuild democratic institutions and alleviate deep inequities. The bloody Operation Condor, coordinated in the Southern Cone by military dictatorships with the encouragement of the U.S. government, has left families sundered and whole nations traumatized. The same can be said of El Salvador, where the U.S. fuelled the bitter civil war, and Nicaragua, which now looks on as the architects of the Iran-Contra scandal serve in high-level Bush administration posts.

Even a cursory review of John Kerry’s proposals shows little difference on the major issues of concern to Latin Americans. Old- guard leftists argue that the Bush-Kerry showdown is just the latest redux of the same-old Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum elections in the United States . Miguel D’Escoto, former Sandinista Minister of Foreign Affairs, states the case: “It would be a serious mistake to conclude that the current conduct of the United States represents something temporary that will change when George Bush Jr. leaves the presidency. The United States has never in its history stepped backwards in its drive toward universal domination, and has never corrected its behavior, which has only gone from bad to worse from the point of view of the rights of the rest of humanity.” Many analysts second his views, either due to their structural political analyses or because they’ve simply grown weary of expecting anything else from the United States .

But most citizens seem to make some distinction. Polls show that Latin Americans much prefer Kerry; a recent Globescan/University of Maryland canvass shows 19% for Bush and 42.5% for Kerry.

Government spokespersons have been diplomatically circumspect about expressing an opinion. Indicative of the deep divisions within the Lula government, the Brazilian foreign ministry has reportedly stated it is “closer to the Democrats than to Bush,” but members of the economic cabinet have openly warned of “a wave of protectionism” under a Kerry government. Argentina’s president Kirchner, on tenterhooks over upcoming debt negotiations with the IMF that could be affected by U.S. political developments, recognized that “Argentina is not a priority for the U.S.”

Much also depends on the specific political agenda of Latin American leaders. Hugo Chávez, never one to mince words concerning his opinion of George W. Bush, maintains hope for relief despite John Kerry’s recent rail against “political persecution” in Venezuela. Mexico’s Vicente Fox has undoubtedly crossed his fingers for a Bush victory that would enable him to push through blocked pro-business reforms and save face with a limited immigration pact. Other nations are nervously waiting on the sidelines.

Oddly enough, the Cuban government, which has suffered under the economic embargo imposed by every U.S. administration since 1961, is among those who insist on making a clear distinction between the two candidates. While fundamental policy has not changed under Democrats or Republicans, nuances in U.S. policies affect the island directly. Bush administration efforts to enforce the embargo far beyond any previous measures have angered even anti-Castro Cubans in Florida. The tightened travel ban, reduction of allowable remittances, and sanctions against foreign companies doing business in Cuba represent a marked increase in hostilities and greater hardships for the island. Cuban Minster of Foreign Relations, Felipe Pérez Roque noted this week when the UN General Assembly voted for the 13 th time to condemn the U.S. embargo: “We gather here just five days before the elections in this country, which we all await with a secret hope. It’s true that these past four years have been terrible for the world.”

Although not everyone is convinced of the real possibilities for change, there has rarely been a U.S. presidential election as hotly discussed beyond its borders. Latin America and the rest of the world are actively debating what’s at stake for them. The combination of the geopolitical context of the undisputed hegemony of the United States, and the new political context of the Bush administration’s unilateralist and interventionist foreign policy doctrine has created a globally volatile mixture.

Some fear that a second Bush administration would interpret its victory as a ratification of its radical, neoconservative views, thus pushing imperial hubris to previously unimagined levels.

Another fear is that respect for the sovereignty of other nations–particularly resource-rich, developing countries–could become a concept of the past under a revived neocon government. The crudely orchestrated “resignation” of Aristide in Haiti, criticized by Kerry, may be a mild taste of things to come under a second Bush administration. Although hampered by military over-extension in Iraq and Afghanistan , administration members and advisers are already making noises about other nations, which according to them, are ripe for regime change.

In this context, John Kerry’s proposals for Latin American policy would represent little positive change. Although he has proposed a “community of the Americas,” he heartily endorses continued internal meddling through agencies like the National Endowment for Democracy, and Kerry has failed to oppose the wars on drugs and terrorism that have led to militarization and human rights violations throughout the continent.

But throughout the world, the U.S. elections–beyond obvious similarities in policy proposals–reflect a clash of worldviews that has turned many skeptics into, at the least, passionate onlookers. If questioned further, it’s a safe bet that Latin Americans who opted for Kerry in the opinion polls would not cite lofty expectations but rather a simple desire to keep things from getting worse.

Most recognize that for the United States to develop a real good neighbor policy, based on respect for self-determination, political solutions to conflict, and decreasing inequities, is probably a bit much to ask for now. But if the high-level of interest in this year’s elections forces both U.S. citizens and Latin Americans to reflect on the U.S. role in the region, and if it succeeds in detaining this particularly blatant form of imperialism, it could be a step in the right direction.

LAURA CARLSEN is Director of the Americas Program for Interhemispheric Resource Center. She holds a BA in Social Thought and Institutions (1980) from Stanford University and an MA in Latin American Studies (1986) from Stanford. She received a Fulbright Scholarship to study the impact of the Mexican economic crisis on women in 1986 and has since lived in Mexico City. She can be reached at: laura@irc-online.org

 

 

More articles by:

Laura Carlsen is the director of the Americas Program in Mexico City and advisor to Just Associates (JASS) .

September 19, 2018
Bruce E. Levine
When Bernie Sold Out His Hero, Anti-Authoritarians Paid
Lawrence Davidson
Political Fragmentation on the Homefront
George Ochenski
How’s That “Chinese Hoax” Treating You, Mr. President?
Cesar Chelala
The Afghan Morass
Chris Wright
Three Cheers for the Decline of the Middle Class
Howard Lisnoff
The Beat Goes On Against Protest in Saudi Arabia
Nomi Prins 
The Donald in Wonderland: Down the Financial Rabbit Hole With Trump
Jack Rasmus
On the 10th Anniversary of Lehman Brothers 2008: Can ‘IT’ Happen Again?
Richard Schuberth
Make Them Suffer Too
Geoff Beckman
Kavanaugh in Extremis
Jonathan Engel
Rather Than Mining in Irreplaceable Wilderness, Why Can’t We Mine Landfills?
Binoy Kampmark
Needled Strawberries: Food Terrorism Down Under
Michael McCaffrey
A Curious Case of Mysterious Attacks, Microwave Weapons and Media Manipulation
Elliot Sperber
Eating the Constitution
September 18, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Britain: the Anti-Semitism Debate
Tamara Pearson
Why Mexico’s Next President is No Friend of Migrants
Richard Moser
Both the Commune and Revolution
Nick Pemberton
Serena 15, Tennis Love
Binoy Kampmark
Inconvenient Realities: Climate Change and the South Pacific
Martin Billheimer
La Grand’Route: Waiting for the Bus
John Kendall Hawkins
Seymour Hersh: a Life of Adversarial Democracy at Work
Faisal Khan
Is Israel a Democracy?
John Feffer
The GOP Wants Trumpism…Without Trump
Kim Ives
The Roots of Haiti’s Movement for PetroCaribe Transparency
Dave Lindorff
We Already Have a Fake Billionaire President; Why Would We want a Real One Running in 2020?
Gerry Brown
Is China Springing Debt Traps or Throwing a Lifeline to Countries in Distress?
Pete Tucker
The Washington Post Really Wants to Stop Ben Jealous
Dean Baker
Getting It Wrong Again: Consumer Spending and the Great Recession
September 17, 2018
Melvin Goodman
What is to be Done?
Rob Urie
American Fascism
Patrick Cockburn
The Adults in the White House Trying to Save the US From Trump Are Just as Dangerous as He Is
Jeffrey St. Clair - Alexander Cockburn
The Long Fall of Bob Woodward: From Nixon’s Nemesis to Cheney’s Savior
Mairead Maguire
Demonization of Russia in a New Cold War Era
Dean Baker
The Bank Bailout of 2008 was Unnecessary
Wim Laven
Hurricane Trump, Season 2
Yves Engler
Smearing Dimitri Lascaris
Ron Jacobs
From ROTC to Revolution and Beyond
Clark T. Scott
The Cannibals of Horsepower
Binoy Kampmark
A Traditional Right: Jimmie Åkesson and the Sweden Democrats
Laura Flanders
History Markers
Weekend Edition
September 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Carl Boggs
Obama’s Imperial Presidency
Joshua Frank
From CO2 to Methane, Trump’s Hurricane of Destruction
Jeffrey St. Clair
Maria’s Missing Dead
Andrew Levine
A Bulwark Against the Idiocy of Conservatives Like Brett Kavanaugh
T.J. Coles
Neil deGrasse Tyson: A Celebrity Salesman for the Military-Industrial-Complex
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail