Washington's Sad History in Latin America

Barack Obama has quite a presidential legacy to deal with as he plots his course in Latin America. His first test is the coup in Honduras and he has passed it well, so far. Obama has rightly denounced the ouster of the democratically elected leader and is now seeking the re-establishment of democracy in the country

But nonetheless he still has to overcome a sad and addled history of U.S. interventionism in the region. Up until Franklin Roosevelt's presidency, the U.S. had, under the Monroe Doctrine, exercised a free hand throughout Central America and the Caribbean. It intervened in Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Panama, among others, sometimes to protect U.S. citizens from violence, sometimes to collect debts, sometimes to install friendly regimes. A Democratic President, however, fortunately upended this egregious record.

FDR introduced the "Good Neighbor" policy in which America agreed to forgo the Monroe Doctrine and acknowledge the independence of Latin nations, treat Latin leaders with respect, and refrain from heavy-handed meddling in the internal affairs of the hemispheric states. But the Eisenhower Administration soon repudiated that policy by using the CIA to overthrow a democratically-elected government in Guatemala, claiming it was Marxist-influenced.

Our next president, JFK, however, tried to return to the FDR notion of sovereign equality with his "Alliance for Progress" initiative -- but nonetheless permitted US intrusion into Cuba, Guyana and Brazil. Lyndon Johnson, following JFK, sent US marines into the Dominican Republic to crush a so-called "Communist" uprising. His successor, Richard Nixon, supported a coup against the democratically elected president of Chile, Allende. Gerald Ford mercifully had little to do with Latin lands. Providentially, the next chief executive, Jimmy Carter, returned to the FDR path and pushed a "human rights" agenda which forced military regimes like those in Argentina and Uruguay to spare the lives of many imprisoned "subversives." But our subsequent leader, Ronald Reagan unleashed the CIA in Central America once again, supporting the Contras against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and next invaded Grenada to toss out a Marxist regime.

Thereafter, George H.W. Bush invaded Panama to oust the dictator, Noriega. Bill Clinton, though, re-established the FDR approach by treating Latin lands with respect and reinforced the trend toward democracy in Central and South America. But George W. Bush, in his turn, though he neglected Latin America, did briefly support a coup attempt against Chavez in Venezuela, thereby helping to besmirch America's reputation once more throughout the hemisphere. Obama has, as we know, returned firmly to the FDR/Carter/Clinton multilateral approach. Let's hope our country stays on that course.

Comments

[johnashman]

How do you figure he has passed the Honduras test? The same way he passed the "I don't have all the facts, but police acted stupidly" test. "Wait, did I say that outloud? Oops." The correct answer would have been "We take no position on this internal action by the Honduran supreme court, but we will be watching to make sure that currently scheduled elections occur in November".

[Alabama John]

If Obama did not start the coup -- why is he acting so guilty?

Obama refused at first to call it a coup, refuses even now to cut off all aid to the coup, wants a compromise that would only reward the coup and encourage many another coup, refuses to withdraw his ambassador from Honduras, refuses to close down our air base in Honduras, no talk of a trade embargo on Honduras -- is Obama in love with the coup leaders in Honduras?

[Alabama John]

Reason for coup -- Direct confrontation with President Chavez

First our hero Chavez took cheep oil away from rich U.S. corporations and gave it to his people. And then he proceeds to unify Latin America by giving cheep sometimes free oil to nations that need it the most. Comes now those rich U.S. corporations to order their paid actor Obama to conduct another one of their inflames coups. A must if Latin America is to be terrorized back into submission.

For U.S. imperialists, super rich corporations actually, have a monopoly on the use of force and violence in our hemisphere, but only so long as death, destruction and blood continue to flow. For their is not a president in the Americas that does not get a cold chill down his spine just thinking about defying the will of those who control the world's largest killing machine.

But then hero Chavez is on a high roller, doing right and gaining the awesome power of unifying in support of a cause that could send a chill down the spine of those gutless wonder multinationals, who kill in secret so they may glory in excessive wealth before the public.

[hoosier96]

Actually, the biggest example of the U.S.'s hand in Latin America would be the Panama Canal. In order to take control of it, the U.S. helped foment a revolution in Panama so that it could split from Columbia.

[fbr79]

So when Zelaya asks Hillary to intervene in Honduras, that will be ok?

[mjc]

American foreign policy in Latin America is indeed sad. Under the influence of corporations and business concerns Latin American countries are viewed by the State Department as our "natural" market, a place for us to sell our goods to these poor, undeveloped countries. God forbid that any of the nations in the region should want to develop their own suppliers, or be a market to any other nation. Schlesinger outlines the history of the foreign policy in that region. The idea that these South American nations should really develop their own form of democracy, perhaps more socialistic than is preferred by the conservative Americans, is denounced as Marxist or communist, whichever suits the demonic attributions of the day. The situation in Honduras is very interesting. If Obama is truly trying to return Zelaya to power there, he joins with Venezuela's President Chavez and other more leftist leaders. Chavez is of course the current anathema to the US.

[apduncan1]

It all started with President Monroe and the drive of the Southern States to extend enslavement to the tropical latitudes.

The Monroe Doctrine was nothing more than an obstacle to non-slave based economic countries (read: England) getting a foothold in the Caribbean and other regions of the Americas.

[DrHopeful]

I think the case can be put a bit stronger. In almost every Latin American war, coup, and political confrontation in the last 150 years the United States has been on the wrong side, consistently supporting dictators and thugs. Early on we sent the marines, more recently the CIA, weapons, and cash! Obama's public support of a leftist, democratically elected Latin American president is BIG news.

[Billy Hell]

Yeah, what gets to me is why peaceful friendly means of trade and diplomacy aren't followed. Somewhere along the line the pattern of invasion and brutality resulting in negativity towards the US must be broken.

If one did the maths, one would probably find that the cost of a brutal and bloody invasion and installing a "friendly" dictator is way less than the costs of more conventional access to resources.

Guess who benefits! It's the corporations who effectively control every domestic and foreign policy of the US. Corporations have a responsibility only to their shareholders so they don't give a rattlesnakes teet for any moral, social and ethics questions.

[Billy Hell]

The battle between Zelaya and his opponents pits a reform president who is supported by labor unions and social organizations against a mafia-like, drug-ridden, corrupt political elite who is accustomed to choosing not only the Supreme Court and the Congress, but also the president. It is a recurrent story in Latin America, and the United States has almost always sided with the elites. In this case, Washington has a very close relationship with the Honduran military, which goes back decades. During the 1980’s, the U.S. used bases in Honduras to train and arm the Contras, Nicaraguan paramilitaries who became known for their atrocities in their war against the Sandinista government in neighboring Nicaragua.

The hemisphere has changed substantially since the Venezuelan coup in April of 2002, with 11 more left governments having been elected. A whole set of norms, institutions, and power relations between South and North in the hemisphere have been altered.

The Obama administration today faces neighbors that are much more united and much less willing to compromise on fundamental questions of democracy.

Source: Mark Weisbrot co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/latin-america-drags-a-reluctant-washington-into-supporting-democracy-in-honduras/

[fbr79]

So somehow, the people elected Zelaya, but not the Hondurean Congress? Get real...

Not all Left governments in Latin America are the same. You cannot compare the power grabbing, methods of production controlling government of Chavez to the Lula presidency in Brazil. I grew up in Brazil during the period when we transitioned between military dictatorship and Democracy. It took a lot of hard work, and a few Presidents (we impeached the first one Fernando Collor, due to widespread corruption) for us to get the system right right. I don't agree with everything Lula does and he has had his share of scandals, but he is definetly not Chavez, nor Morales, nor Zelaya. These guys are paternalists constantly trying to increase their powers; willing to push their constitutions and discredit the other branches of government in their own country.

But, Americans like yourself love to throw everything in one big bag and claim that the US is responsible for everything and everyone. I guess Latinos will never be considered grown-up to some of you.

The 1960s are long over, the US did not side with the "elites", it sided with anyone who was against the USSR, usually the military. BOTH superpowers played a big game of "Risk" with developing nations around the globe. It was a dark chapter, filled with violence, which we must overcome so we can deal with the rest of the world as nations, as opposed to Banana Republics.

[RightWingMarine]

How can we go wrong siding with such champions of human rights like the Castro brothers, Ortega and Chavez?

If our President can "temporarily bypass" the Constitution in unilaterally ratifiying treaties with Russia, then it only seems fair that Zaleya should be able to bypass the Honduran Constitution by convening his own referendum and becoming President for life.

[RoloTomassi]

So you we did so much better by supporting Pinochet? By your comments I can only assume that you feel the greater good is only served by supporting RIGHTWING tyrants.

Please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting that your rightwing "leaders" only cared about promoting democracy and only supported regimes that upheld human rights.

And then there's the issue that--when it comes to the latin leaders you list above--you have nothing of substance to back your case, but simply rely on rightwing pr.op.aga.nda that you cannot confirm.

[FloresdelaHoz]

The Castro brothers are murderer who rule Cuba with an Iron grip similar to Stalin's USSR and Mao's China.

Castro has been an economic disaster for the Cuban people. 50 years and not one election. Chavez has destroyed the opposition media and turned Caracas into the murder capital of Latin America.

Ortega just got into power a year ago. Let's see what he does.

[Dunque]

Right on! Don't we know Zeleya by the company he keeps?

[RoloTomassi]

Yes, and I know you by who you agree with....

Isn't that assertion as fair as yours?

[PR one]

By the votes he received, I would dare to say. The majority of the Honduran people.

[PR one]

In response to "RightWing". We should set up a civil right commission with people like Batista,Fr­anco,Cerez­o,Cordova,­Duvalier,P­inochet,So­moza, Stroesner Trujillo and headed by RightWingMarine.

[ErnestineBass]

GUFFAW!

Well done, PR one! Fanned!

[Billy Hell]

Oh please! The United States gave up the right to champion human rights well before Castro, Ortega and Chavez were even a glint in their daddy's eyes.

President Obama has unilaterally ratified treaties with Russia and bypassed the constitution? Holy skirt....that's grounds for impeachment! Wait....you've been listening to Rush again haven't ya soldier!

[RightWingMarine]

so because the US has sided with a despot in the past means that we can never denounce any?

ABC news is citing a Senior White House official as their source for the "temporarily bypass" comment and if he does attempt to bypass the Senate I don't know if that would be an impeachable offense since that is the reason the Senate is there, as a check and balance on the President's power. But it would portend his intentions.

It's pronounced "Marine."

[poetagainstwar]

In the last century alone the USA invaded Latin American countries more than one hundred times, with devastating consequences. The coup leaders in Honduras are products of the infamous School of the Americas, a training ground for many of the most evil dictatorships imaginable, overthrowing democratically elected governments and torturing and murdering and "disappearing" countless thousands and thousands of innocent people. Anyone wanting background should read Eduardo Galeano's great Open Veins of Latin America.

Google Gen. Smedley Butler, a US Marine twice awarded the Medal of Honor for his "service" in early twentieth century Latin American invasions. He compares his work to Al Capone and scoffs that Capone was a mere amateur compared to what he had done "for the bankers" of the USA.

It is a truly shameful history.

[Rule Of Law]

Butler--truly one of the last American heroes!

[FloresdelaHoz]

Obama has been brilliant in the geo-political chess game unfolding in LatAm. On one side, is the greatest geo-political chess player of LatAm (Castro) and on the other side, a brilliant young president who understands the third world. Obama's measured response in immediately condemning the coup took the wind out Castro and Chavez's sail.

I've been to LatAm 70 times in the past 14 years. Castro and Chavez are heros among the poor. The Oligarchies do exist as they do here in the US. The US is runned by 400 families. LatAm probably has another 400 families. There has been much intermarriage with wealthy American and European families. So the Leftist gains in the region is not just a rich LatAm problem. The World Bank and the IMF also contributed to this problem with their awful austerity policies that generated much suffering among the masses. Some rogue foreign multi-nationals have not helped the cause of capitalism in the region by turning a blind eye by covering up internal "Enron style" shenanigans that have exploited loop holes in local law with the help of local advisors. At the end of the day, the poor want change.

But the answer to LatAm poverty is clean Capitalism not communism. Castro destroyed Cuba, so Cuba cannot be the model. LatAm poor masses want clean water, food, education, health care and Liberty. Hopefully, Obama can lead them there without them resorting to communism.

[whoa20]

sorry that America stopped communism from growing in our own backyards.

[apduncan1]

Huh?

And have you seen capitalism flourish?

[Rule Of Law]

What he doesn't get, and most people don't, is that there never was a communist country. Ever. Communism outside of a book has never existed. Socialism in tribal societies has been practiced, and communal living in agrarian or hunter gatherer groups has been seen. But Marxist Communism--never.

The cold war was a construct of USSR and USA to fee the MIC! Period. And the USSR all those years was nothing more than a 3rd world dictatorship supported by--you guessed it--American corporations, just as Hitler was before that.

A dictator is a dictator and Castro and all the guys we supported from Pinochet to Marco were just our paid thugs. Communism...
It's something Stephen King uses to scare his kids at night.

[joebiz]

6) This brings us to Obama. It's too early to know what his Administration and its policy will be towards Latin America. This is what he faces:

A) A rising of socialist and leftist leaders in the region like Hugo Chávez, Lula in Brazil, Néstor Kirchner in Argentina, Tabaré Vázquez in Uruguay, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Michelle Bachelet in Chile, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, and most recently Fernando Lugo in Paraguay.
B) The integration of economic and free trade regions.
C) The ALBA or the counter to the ALCA, the "leftist" Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas.
D) Latin American troops in Iraq and the Triple Canopy Group (private army).
E) Nationalization and expropriation of foreign assets.
F) Triple Frontera (Triple Frontier, the area around the common borders of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil). The overt reason for the increasing presence of U.S. troops and joint exercises, mainly with Paraguay, is to monitor the large Arab population which resides in the area.
G) Drug flows and narco terrorists.
H) The financial meltdown has hit the latin American countries much harder because their economies are less diverse.

And, many more. let's hope Obama is different than his presidential predecessors.

[apduncan1]

Comments:

A) All of them elected democratically.
B) So what?
C) So what?
D) What Latin American troops in Iraq? Triple Canopy Group?
E) Name one.
F) Is being Arab a crime?
G) All that so you can snort cocaine. Cut the demand and the production will die out.
H) No, the financial meltdown is affecting client states like Mexico. Public transportation rules in LatAm therefore high oil prices do not have the same effect as in the USA.

[joebiz]

5) We know what screwups Reagan and Bush I were in Latin America. But, Clinton was no slouch in the exploitation of the region. Except he did it through a more insidious method, through economics and financial exploitation. To wit: On the economic plane, Mexico and Latin America had to shift to export-oriented industrialization, which was encouraged by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

While globalization was making its effects felt in the whole world, the 1990s were dominated by the Washington Consensus, which imposed a series of neo-liberal economic reforms in Latin America. The First Summit of the Americas, held in Miami in 1994, resolved to establish a Free Trade Area of the Americas by 2005. The ALCA was supposed to be the generalization of the North American Free Trade Agreement between Canada, the US and Mexico, which came into force in 1994. Opposition to both NAFTA and ALCA was symbolized during this time by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation insurrection, headed by Subcomandante Marcos, which became active on the day that NAFTA went into force (January 1, 1994) and declared itself to be in explicit opposition to the ideology of globalization or neoliberalism, which NAFTA symbolized. The shift open the US to an increase in the exportation, among other things, of narcotics. thus, creating the situations we have today with the narco-terrorists.

[joebiz]

3) Under Johnson, the US enfoced an more repressive policy. In March 1964 the US approved a military coup in Brazil, overthrowing left-wing president João Goulart, and was prepared to help if called upon under Operation Brother Sam.The next year, the US dispatched 24,000 troops to the Dominican Republic to stop a possible left-wing take over under Operation Power Pack.

Through the Office of Public Safety (OPS), an organization dependent of the USAID and close to the CIA, the US assisted Latin American security forces, training them in interrogation methods, riot control, and sending them equipment. Dan Mitrione, in Uruguay, became infamous for his systemic use of torture.

4) Transitioning through Carter, militaries also took power in Argentina in 1976, and then supported the 1980 "Cocaine Coup" of Luis García Meza Tejada in Bolivia, before training the Contras in Nicaragua where the Sandinista National Liberation Front, headed by Daniel Ortega, had taken power in 1979, as well as militaries in Guatemala and in El Salvador. In the frame of Operation Charly, supported by the US, the Argentine military exported state terror tactics to Central America, where the "dirty war" was waged until well in the 1990s, making hundreds of thousands "disappeared."