Losing Latin America

What Will the Obama Doctrine Be Like?

June, 10 2008

By Greg Grandin
Source: TomDispatch

Greg Grandin's ZSpace Page

Google "neglect," "Washington," and "Latin America," and you will be led to
thousands of hand-wringing calls from politicians and pundits for Washington to
"pay more attention" to the region. True, Richard Nixon once said that "people don't
give one shit" about the place. And his National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger
quipped that Latin America is a "dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica." But
Kissinger also made that same joke about Chile, Argentina, and New Zealand -- and,
of the three countries, only the latter didn't suffer widespread political murder as a
result of his policies, a high price to pay for such a reportedly inconsequential place.

Latin America, in fact, has been indispensable in the evolution of U.S. diplomacy.
The region is often referred to as America's "backyard," but a better metaphor
might be Washington's "strategic reserve," the place where ascendant foreign-policy
coalitions regroup and redraw the outlines of U.S. power, following moments of
global crisis.

When the Great Depression had the U.S. on the ropes, for example, it was in Latin
America that New Deal diplomats worked out the foundations of liberal
multilateralism, a diplomatic framework that Washington would put into place with
much success elsewhere after World War II.

In the 1980s, the first generation of neocons turned to Latin America to play out
their "rollback" fantasies -- not just against Communism, but against a tottering
multilateralist foreign-policy. It was largely in a Central America roiled by left-wing
insurgencies that the New Right first worked out the foundational principles of what,
after 9/11, came to be known as the Bush Doctrine: the right to wage war
unilaterally in highly moralistic terms.

We are once again at a historic crossroads. An ebbing of U.S. power -- this time
caused, in part, by military overreach -- faces a mobilized Latin America; and, on the
eve of regime change at home, with George W. Bush's neoconservative coalition in
ruins after eight years of disastrous rule, would-be foreign policy makers are once
again looking south.

1
Goodbye to All That

"The era of the United States as the dominant influence in Latin America is over,"
says the Council on Foreign Relations, in a new report filled with sober policy
suggestions for ways the U.S. can recoup its waning influence in a region it has long
claimed as its own.

Latin America is now mostly governed by left or center-left governments that differ
in policy and style -- from the populism of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela to the
reformism of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil and Michelle Bachelet in Chile. Yet all
share a common goal: asserting greater autonomy from the United States.

Latin Americans are now courting investment from China, opening markets in
Europe, dissenting from Bush's War on Terror, stalling the Free Trade Agreement of
the Americas, and sidelining the International Monetary Fund which, over the last
couple of decades, has served as a stalking horse for Wall Street and the Treasury
Department.

And they are electing presidents like Ecuador's Rafael Correa, who recently
announced that his government would not renew the soon-to-expire lease on Manta
Air Field, the most prominent U.S. military base in South America. Correa had
previously suggested that, if Ecuador could set up its own base in Florida, he would
consider extending the lease. When Washington balked, he offered Manta to a
Chinese concession, suggesting that the airfield be turned into "China's gateway to
Latin America."

In the past, such cheek would have been taken as a clear violation of the Monroe
Doctrine, proclaimed in 1823 by President James Monroe, who declared that
Washington would not permit Europe to recolonize any part of the Americas. In
1904, Theodore Roosevelt updated the doctrine to justify a series of Caribbean
invasions and occupations. And Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan
invoked it to validate Cold War CIA-orchestrated coups and other covert operations.

But things have changed. "Latin America is not Washington's to lose," the Council
on Foreign Relations report says, "nor is it Washington's to save." The Monroe
Doctrine, it declares, is "obsolete."

Good news for Latin America, one would think. But the last time someone from the
Council on Foreign Relations, which since its founding in 1921 has represented

2
mainstream foreign-policy opinion, declared the Monroe Doctrine defunct, the result
was genocide.

Enter the Liberal Establishment

That would be Sol Linowitz who, in 1975, as chair of the Commission on United
States-Latin American Relations, said that the Monroe Doctrine was "inappropriate
and irrelevant to the changed realities and trends of the future."

The little-remembered Linowitz Commission was made up of respected scholars and

businessmen from what was then called the "liberal establishment." It was but one
part of a broader attempt by America's foreign-policy elite to respond to the
cascading crises of the 1970s -- defeat in Vietnam, rising third-world nationalism,
Asian and European competition, skyrocketing energy prices, a falling dollar, the
Watergate scandal, and domestic dissent. Confronted with a precipitous collapse of
America's global legitimacy, the Council on Foreign Relations, along with other
mainline think tanks like the Brookings Institute and the newly formed Trilateral
Commission, offered a series of proposals that might help the U.S. stabilize its
authority, while allowing for "a smooth and peaceful evolution of the global system."

There was widespread consensus among the intellectuals and corporate leaders
affiliated with these institutions that the kind of anticommunist zeal that had
marched the U.S. into the disaster in Vietnam needed to be tamped down, and that
"new forms of common management" between Washington, Europe, and Japan had
to be worked out. Advocates for a calmer world order came from the same
corporate bloc that underwrote the Democratic Party and the Rockefeller-wing of the
Republican Party.

They hoped that a normalization of global politics would halt, if not reverse, the
erosion of the U.S. economic position. Military de-escalation would free up public
revenue for productive investment, while containing inflationary pressures (which
scared the bond managers of multinational banks). Improved relations with the
Communist bloc would open the USSR, Eastern Europe, and China to trade and
investment. There was also general agreement that Washington should stop viewing
Third World socialism through the prism of the Cold War conflict with the Soviet
Union.

At that moment throughout Latin America, leftists and nationalists were -- as they
are now -- demanding a more equitable distribution of global wealth. Lest
radicalization spread, the Trilateral Commission's executive director Zbignew
Brzezinski, soon to be President Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, argued
that it would be "wise for the United States to make an explicit move to abandon

3
the Monroe Doctrine." The Linowitz Commission agreed and offered a series of
recommendations to that effect -- including the return of the Panama Canal to
Panama and a decrease in U.S. military aid to the region -- that would largely define
Carter's Latin American policy.

Exit the Liberal Establishment

Of course, it was not corporate liberalism but rather a resurgent and revanchist
militarism from the Right that turned out to offer the most cohesive and, for a time,
successful solution to the crises of the 1970s.

Uniting a gathering coalition of old-school law-and-order anticommunists, first

generation neoconservatives, and newly empowered evangelicals, the New Right
organized an ever metastasizing set of committees, foundations, institutes, and
magazines that focused on specific issues -- the SALT II nuclear disarmament
negotiations, the Panama Canal Treaty, and the proposed MX missile system, as well
as U.S. policy in Cuba, South Africa, Rhodesia, Israel, Taiwan, Afghanistan, and
Central America. All of them were broadly committed to avenging defeat in Vietnam
(and the "stab in the back" by the liberal media and the public at home). They were
also intent on restoring righteous purpose to American diplomacy.

As had corporate liberals, so, now, neoconservative intellectuals looked to Latin

America to hone their ideas. President Ronald Reagan's ambassador to the UN,
Jeane Kirkpatrick, for instance, focused mainly on Latin America in laying out the
foundational principles of modern neoconservative thought. She was particularly
hard on Linowitz, who, she said, represented the "disinterested internationalist
spirit" of "appeasement" -- a word back with us again. His report, she insisted,
meant "abandoning the strategic perspective which has shaped U.S. policy from the
Monroe Doctrine down to the eve of the Carter administration, at the center of
which was a conception of the national interest and a belief in the moral legitimacy
of its defense."

At first, Brookings, the Council on Foreign Affairs, and the Trilateral Commission, as
well as the Business Roundtable, founded in 1972 by the crème de la CEO crème,
opposed the push to remilitarize American society; but, by the late 1970s, it was
clear that "normalization" had failed to solve the global economic crisis. Europe and
Japan were not cooperating in stabilizing the dollar, and the economies of Eastern
Europe, the USSR, and China were too anemic to absorb sufficient amounts of U.S.
capital or serve as profitable trading partners. Throughout the 1970s, financial
houses like the Rockefellers' Chase Manhattan Bank had become engorged with
petrodollars deposited by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, and other oil-exporting
nations. They needed to do something with all that money, yet the U.S. economy
remained sluggish, and much of the Third World off limits.

4
So, after Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential victory, mainstream policymakers and
intellectuals, many of them self-described liberals, increasingly came to back the
Reagan Revolution's domestic and foreign agenda: gutting the welfare state,
ramping up defense spending, opening up the Third World to U.S. capital, and
jumpstarting the Cold War.

A decade after the Linowitz Commission proclaimed the Monroe Doctrine no longer
viable, Ronald Reagan invoked it to justify his administration's patronage of
murderous anti-communists in Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador. A few years
after Jimmy Carter announced that the U.S. had broken "free of that inordinate fear
of communism," Reagan quoted John F. Kennedy saying, "Communist domination in
this hemisphere can never be negotiated."

Reagan's illegal patronage of the Contras -- those murderers he hailed as the "moral
equivalent of America's founding fathers" and deployed to destabilize Nicaragua's
Sandinista government -- and his administration's funding of death squads in El
Salvador and Guatemala brought together, for the first time, the New Right's two
main constituencies. Neoconservatives provided Reagan's revival of the imperial
presidency with legal and intellectual justification, while the religious Right backed
up the new militarism with grassroots energy.

This partnership was first built -- just as it has more recently been continued in Iraq
-- on a mountain of mutilated corpses: 40,000 Nicaraguans and 70,000 El
Salvadorans killed by U.S. allies; 200,000 Guatemalans, many of them Mayan
peasants, victimized in a scorched-earth campaign the UN would rule to be
genocidal.

The End of the Neocon Holiday from History

The recent Council on Foreign Relations report on Latin America, arriving as it does
in another moment of imperial decline, seems once again to signal a new emerging
consensus, one similar in tone to that of the post-Vietnam 1970s. In every
dimension other than military, Newsweek editor Fareed Zacharia argues in his new
book, The Post-American World, "the distribution of power is shifting, moving away
from American dominance." (Never mind that, just five years ago, on the eve of the
invasion of Iraq, he was insisting on the exact opposite -- that we now lived in a
"unipolar world" where America's position was, and would be, "unprecedented.")

To borrow a phrase from their own lexicon, the neocons' "holiday from history" is
over. The fiasco in Iraq, the fall in the value of the dollar, the rise of India and China

5
 as new industrial and commercial powerhouses, and of Russia as an energy
superpower, the failure to secure the Middle East, soaring oil and gas prices (as well
as skyrocketing prices for other key raw materials and basic foodstuffs), and the
consolidation of a prosperous Europe have all brought their dreams of global
supremacy crashing down.

Barack Obama is obviously the candidate best positioned to walk the U.S. back from
the edge of irrelevance. Though no one hoping for a job in his White House would
put it in such defeatist terms, the historic task of the next president will not be to
win this president's Global War on Terror, but to negotiate America's reentry into a
community of nations.

Parag Khanna, an Obama advisor, recently argued that, by maximizing its cultural
and technological advantage, the U.S. can, with a little luck, perhaps secure a
position as third partner in a new tripartite global order in which Europe and Asia
would have equal shares, a distinct echo of the trilateralist position of the 1970s.
(Forget those Munich analogies, if the U.S. electorate were more historically literate,
Republicans would get better mileage out of branding Obama not Neville
Chamberlain, but Spain's Fernando VII or Britain's Clement Richard Attlee, each of
whom presided over his country's imperial decline.)

So it has to be asked: If Obama wins in November and tries to implement a more

rational, less ideologically incandescent deployment of American power -- perhaps
using Latin America as a staging ground for a new policy -- would it once again
provoke the kind of nationalist backlash that purged Rockefellerism from the
Republican Party, swept Jimmy Carter out of the White House, and armed the death
squads in Central America?

Certainly, there are already plenty of feverish conservative think tanks, from the
Hudson Institute to the Heritage Foundation, that would double down on Bush's
crusades as a way out of the current mess. But in the 1970s, the New Right was in
ascendance; today, it is visibly decomposing. Then, it could lay responsibility for the
deep and prolonged crisis that gripped the United States at the feet of the
"establishment," while offering solutions -- an arms build-up, a renewed push into
the Third World, and free-market fundamentalism -- that drew much of that
establishment into its orbit.

Today, the Right wholly owns the current crisis, along with its most immediate
cause, the Iraq War. Even if John McCain were able to squeak out a win in November,
he would be the functional equivalent not of Reagan, who embodied a movement on
the march, but of Jimmy Carter, trying desperately to hold a fraying coalition
together.

6
The Right's decay as an intellectual force is nowhere more evident than in the fits it
throws in the face of the Left's -- or China's -- advances in Latin America. The self-
confidant vitality with which Jeane Kirkpatrick used Latin America to skewer the
Carter administration has been replaced with the tinny, desperate shrill of despair.
"Who lost Latin America?" asks the Center for Security Policy's Frank Gaffney -- of
pretty much everyone he meets. The region, he says, is now a "magnet for Islamist
terrorists and a breeding ground for hostile political movements... The key leader is
Chávez, the billionaire dictator of Venezuela who has declared a Latino jihad against
the United States."

Scare-Quote Diplomacy

But just because the Right is unlikely to unfurl its banner over Latin America again
soon doesn't mean that U.S. hemispheric diplomacy will be demilitarized. After all, it
was Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush, who, at the behest of Lockheed Martin in 1997,
reversed a Carter administration ban (based on Linowitz report recommendations)
on the sale of high-tech weaponry to Latin America. That, in turn, kicked off a
reckless and wasteful Southern Cone arms race. And it was Clinton, not Bush, who
dramatically increased military aid to the murderous Colombian government and to
corporate mercenaries like Blackwater and Dyncorp, further escalating the
misguided U.S. "war on drugs" in Latin America.

In fact, a quick comparison between the Linowitz report and the new Council on
Foreign Relations study on Latin America provides a sobering way of measuring just
how far right the "liberal establishment" has shifted over the last three decades.
The Council does admirably advise Washington to normalize relations with Cuba and
engage with Venezuela, while downplaying the possibility of "Islamic terrorists"
using the area as a staging ground -- a longstanding fantasy of the neocons.
(Douglas Feith, former Pentagon undersecretary, suggested that, after 9/11, the U.S.
hold off invading Afghanistan and instead bomb Paraguay, which has a large Shi'ite
community, just to "surprise" the Sunni al-Qaeda.)

Yet, where the Linowitz report provoked the ire of the likes of Jeane Kirkpatrick by
writing that the U.S. should not try to "define the limits of ideological diversity for
other nations" and that Latin Americans "can and will assess for themselves the
merits and disadvantages of the Cuban approach," the Council is much less open-
minded. It insists on presenting Venezuela as a problem the U.S. needs to address --
even though the government in Caracas is recognized as legitimate by all and is
considered an ally, even a close one, by most Latin American countries. Latin
Americans may "know what is best for themselves," as the new report concedes,
yet Washington still knows better, and so should back "social justice" issues as a
means to win Venezuelans and other Latin Americans away from Chávez.

7
That the Council report regularly places "social justice" between scare quotes
suggests that the phrase is used more as a marketing ploy -- kind of like "New Coke"
-- than to signal that U.S. banks and corporations are willing to make substantive
concessions to Latin American nationalists. Seven decades ago, Franklin Roosevelt
supported the right of Latin American countries to nationalize U.S. interests,
including Standard Oil holdings in Bolivia and Mexico, saying it was time for others
in the hemisphere to get their "fair share." Three decades ago, the Linowitz
Commission recommended the establishment of a "code of conduct" defining the
responsibilities of foreign corporations in the region and recognizing the right of
governments to nationalize industries and resources.

The Council, in contrast, sneers at Chávez's far milder efforts to create joint
ventures with oil multinationals, while offering nothing but pablum in its place. Its
centerpiece recommendation -- aimed at cultivating Brazil as a potential anchor of a
post-Bush, post-Chávez hemispheric order -- urges the abolition of subsidies and
tariffs protecting U.S. agro-industry in order to advance a "Biofuel Partnership" with
Brazil's own behemoth agricultural sector. This would be an environmental disaster,
pushing large, mechanized plantations ever deeper into the Amazon basin, while
doing nothing to generate decent jobs or distribute wealth more fairly.

Dominated by representatives from the finance sector of the U.S. economy, the
Council recommends little beyond continuing the failed corporate "free trade"
policies of the last twenty years -- and, in this case, those scare quotes are justified
because what they're advocating is about as free as corporate "social justice" is
just.

An Obama Doctrine?

So far, Barack Obama promises little better. A few weeks ago, he traveled to Miami
and gave a major address on Latin America to the Cuban American National
Foundation. It was hardly an auspicious venue for a speech that promised to
"engage the people of the region with the respect owed to a partner."

Surely, the priorities for humane engagement would have been different had he
been addressing not wealthy right-wing Cuban exiles but an audience, say, of the
kinds of Latino migrants in Los Angeles who have revitalized the U.S. labor
movement, or of Central American families in Postville, Iowa, where immigration
and Justice Department authorities recently staged a massive raid on a
meatpacking plant, arresting as many as 700 undocumented workers. Obama did
call for comprehensive immigration reform and promised to fulfill Franklin
Roosevelt's 68 year-old Four Freedoms agenda, including the social-democratic
"freedom from want." Yet he spent much of his speech throwing red meat to his
Cuban audience.

8
Ignoring the not-exactly-radical advice of the Council on Foreign Relations, the
candidate pledged to maintain the embargo on Cuba. And then he went further.
Sounding a bit like Frank Gaffney, he all but accused the Bush administration of
"losing Latin America" and allowing China, Europe, and "demagogues like Hugo
Chávez" to step "into the vacuum." He even raised the specter of Iranian influence
in the region, pointing out that "just the other day Tehran and Caracas launched a
joint bank with their windfall oil profits."

Whatever one's opinion on Hugo Chávez, any diplomacy that claims to take Latin
American opinion seriously has to acknowledge one thing: Most of the region's
leaders not only don't see him as a "problem," but have joined him on major
economic and political initiatives like the Bank of the South, an alternative to the
International Monetary Fund and the Union of South American Nations, modeled on
the European Union, established just two weeks ago. And any U.S. president who is
sincere in wanting to help Latin Americans liberate themselves from "want" will
have to work with the Latin American left -- in all its varieties.

But more ominous than Obama's posturing on Venezuela is his position on

Colombia. Critics have long pointed out that the billions of dollars in military aid
provided to the Colombian security forces to defeat the FARC insurgency and curtail
cocaine production would discourage a negotiated end to the civil war in that
country and potentially provoke its escalation into neighboring Andean lands. That's
exactly what happened last March, when Colombia's president Alvaro Uribe ordered
the bombing of a rebel camp located in Ecuador (possibly with U.S. logistical
support supplied from Manta Air Force Base, which gives you an idea of why Correa
wants to give it to China). To justify the raid, Uribe explicitly invoked the Bush
Doctrine's right of preemptive, unilateral action. In response, Ecuador and
Venezuela began to mobilize troops along their border with Colombia, bringing the
region to the precipice of war.

Most interestingly, in that conflict, an overwhelming majority of Latin American and

Caribbean countries sided with Venezuela and Ecuador, categorically condemning
the Colombian raid and reaffirming the sovereignty of individual nations recognized
by Franklin Roosevelt long ago. Not Obama, however. He essentially endorsed the
Bush administration's drive to transform Colombia's relations with its Andean
neighbors into the one Israel has with most of the Middle East. In his Miami speech,
he swore that he would "support Colombia's right to strike terrorists who seek safe-
havens across its borders."

Equally troublesome has been Obama's endorsement of the controversial Merida

Initiative, which human rights groups like Amnesty International have condemned
as an application of the "Colombian solution" to Mexico and Central America,
providing their militaries and police with a massive infusion of money to combat
drugs and gangs. Crime is indeed a serious problem in these countries, and

9
deserves considered attention. It's chilling, however, to have Colombia -- where
death-squads now have infiltrated every level of government, and where union and
other political activists are executed on a regular basis -- held up as a model for
other parts of Latin America.

Obama, however, not only supports the initiative, but wants to expand it beyond
Mexico and Central America. "We must press further south as well," he said in
Miami.

It seems that once again that, as in the 1970s, reports of the death of the Monroe
Doctrine are greatly exaggerated.

Greg Grandin teaches history at New York University. He is the author of Empire's
Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism
and The Last Colonial Massacre: Latin America in the Cold War.

[This article first appeared on Tomdispatch.com, a weblog of the Nation Institute,

which offers a steady flow of alternate sources, news, and opinion from Tom
Engelhardt, long time editor in publishing, co-founder of the American Empire
Project, author of The End of Victory Culture (University of Massachusetts Press),
thoroughly updated in a newly issued edition covering Iraq, and editor and
contributor to the first best of Tomdispatch book, The World According to
Tomdispatch: America in the New Age of Empire (Verso).]

From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives

URL: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/17881

10