Bush and Latin America

As the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center covered the pages of every U.S. newspaper with solemn remembrances, Latin American papers also marked the event but often in very different terms. In countries throughout the region, the date brought the requisite mourning of innocent lives lost. But there were also many reflections on the patent failure of the response of the Bush government and on the adverse repercussions that the self-proclaimed “War on Terrorism” has had on countries far removed from the frontline of terror.

Most Latin American media has been tough in its evaluations of the war. The left-leaning Mexican daily La Jornada editorialized: “The world today is a much more violent, uncertain, unjust, and arbitrary place than it was five years ago. This is a great triumph for the U.S. Republicans and a bitter defeat for people of peace, understanding, and good will.” Argentina’s Página 12 noted the way President Bush “wants to again use the issue of insecurity to improve his popularity” in the advent of difficult mid-term elections for his party.

Clearly, what Bush called in his speech “the decisive ideological struggle of the twenty-first century” has found little echo south of the border. Latin American nations nearly unanimously disapproved of the invasion of Iraq. Diplomatic and economic pressures to join what many view as Washington’s war,’ attempts by SouthCom to establish greater military presence in the hemisphere, and the formula of equating free trade agreements with security have not been viewed as part of a common battle but rather as violations of national sovereignty.

The problem is that in many parts of the world, and notably in Latin America, the war on terrorism as defined by the Bush administration is now seen more as a cynical attempt to pack the global agenda with objectives that have been on the back burner of the U.S. right.

Tragically, what could have been a global effort to disarm terrorist cells and renounce violence as a means of resolving ideological differences has become associated both with the militarization of society and with the human rights violations characteristic of the past. For a region that well remembers that past, and that still lives with its scars and its ghosts, the squandering of U.S. moral authority following 9/11 and the detour to an agenda of global hegemony over the past five years have left the United States with a tarnished image.

In fact, half a decade since the attacks, the strategy of the architects of Bush foreign policy to use the war on terrorism for its own geopolitical objectives has failed. The attempt to define the world based on a “struggle for civilization” (Bush’s phrase) is questioned in a region that is actively seeking its own definitions.

For most of Latin America, the pressing battles today take place on the globalized home front, against enemies like poverty, injustice, and crime. These stem not from an “Islamo-fascist” conspiracy but from fundamental inequities. Haiti, the half-island whose claim to fame is that it consistently ranks at the bottom of all social indices in the hemisphere, is a classic case. Since its independence, the nation was saddled with a crushing debt to France and the result has been cycles of violence and instability, fuelled by an economy that has never been able to get on its feet. Correcting that inequity of the past could save millions of dollars in stop-gap aid in the future.

The current Chilean miner strike provides a contemporary example of struggles for fairness, one that presages more battles to come. Miners at the world’s largest copper mine have asked a simple question: Who should benefit from the enormous profits generated by our nation’s natural resources? Although the company in this case is Anglo-Australian, the protest”along with recent student demonstrations in defense of quality public education”constitutes one of the first and most important indications that even in the region’s “successful” case of economic integration, growing inequities are producing a popular call for regulation and reform.

Faced with the ultimatum from Washington of “you’re with us or against freedom”, Latin America is responding by tracing its own paths and learning from its own experience. While the United Status seeks to impose a Pax Americana based on “free trade” agreements that generate greater inequality and “freedom” that restricts individual liberties and international law, social movements and progressive governments in Latin American countries are building their own alternatives that erode the overwhelming influence of their neighbor in the North.

Washington generally views all these measures of independence and inconformity as a threat to U.S. dominance. But an enlightened foreign policy would welcome them as evidence of a region coming of age and striving to resolve its own problems in its own ways. This is a good thing for U.S. citizens as well. A relationship of mutual respect between equals creates a stronger, more stable neighborhood for everyone.

LAURA CARLSEN directs IRC’s Americas Program, www.americaspolicy.org, from Mexico City, where she has worked as a political analyst for two decades.


The Latin America Working Group, a partner organization of the IRC Americas Program, has done an excellent study on the U.S. image in Latin America. See Haugaard, Lisa, “Tarnished Image: Latin America Perceives the United States



More articles by:

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

Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
Lawrence Ware
All Hell Broke Out in Oklahoma
Franklin Lamb
Tehran’s Syria: Lebanon Colonization Project is Collapsing
Donny Swanson
Janus v. AFSCME: What’s It All About?
Will Podmore
Brexit and the Windrush Britons
Brian Saady
Boehner’s Marijuana Lobbying is Symptomatic of Special-Interest Problem
Julian Vigo
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
Patrick Walker
Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
Fred Gardner
Medical Board to MDs: Emphasize Dangers of Marijuana
Rob Seimetz
We Must Stand In Solidarity With Eric Reid
Missy Comley Beattie
Remembering Barbara Bush
Wim Laven
Teaching Peace in a Time of Hate
Thomas Knapp
Freedom is Winning in the Encryption Arms Race
Mir Alikhan
There Won’t be Peace in Afghanistan Until There’s Peace in Kashmir
Robert Koehler
Playing War in Syria
Tamara Pearson
US Shootings: Gun Industry Killing More People Overseas
John Feffer
Trump’s Trade War is About Trump Not China
Morris Pearl
Why the Census Shouldn’t Ask About Citizenship
Ralph Nader
Bill Curry on the Move against Public Corruption
Josh Hoxie
Five Tax Myths Debunked
Leslie Mullin
Democratic Space in Adverse Times: Milestone at Haiti’s University of the Aristide Foundation
Louis Proyect
Syria and Neo-McCarthyism
Dean Baker
Finance 202 Meets Economics 101
Abel Cohen
Forget Gun Control, Try Bullet Control
Robert Fantina
“Damascus Time:” An Iranian Movie
David Yearsley
Bach and Taxes