Keeping our Hemisphere in Line

President Bush made a week long trip to Latin America last week, visiting Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico. According to Tom Shannon, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, the express purpose of the trip was: "...meeting with our counterparts and discussing how we can work together to strengthen democracy and address important social issues such as poverty, inequality, and social exclusion." A complete transcript of the comments and questions/answers is available here. Does this sound reasonable at all? Let's look at the situation there. The United States has used Latin America as a source of cheap labor for many years. CAFTA(ratified in 2003) is the latest in a series of "agreements" between US interests and local leadership. Many of these agreements, including CAFTA, do not have the support of the Latin American people. Also, in December 2006, 2 significant things happened in South America. 1. The death of Pinochet in Chile This ended a US-supported, totalitarian regime which was friendly to US economic interests. This eliminates one of the strongholds of capitalism in South America, as there is a strong possibility that a Socialist government may come to power in Chile. My post Economics or Human Rights discusses this in more detail. 2. THE COCHABAMBA DECLARATION - December 8-9, 2006 The Cochabamba Declaration had it's second Summit of Heads of State December 8, 2006. The purpose of the Declaration is to create a South American Community of Nations (similar to the European Union). The pre-amble to the session is as follows: At two years from the Cuzco Declaration in which we decided to establish the South American Community of Nations, and one year since the approval of the priority agenda in Brasilia, and after a very constructive process of strategic reflection, today, in Cochabamba, the Presidents of the South American Nations facing our peoples, agree to place the cornerstone of this process of South American Integration. It also contains statements like this one: Sovereignty, respect for territorial integrity and self determination of people according to principles and goals of the United Nations, that ensures the prerogative of States to decide on their development strategies and their relations at the international level, without external interference in their internal affairs. Where might that "external interference" originate? More information is available here. It is also interesting to look at South America, and to see the countries that the President chose not to visit. Taken from The Nation: It is obvious that Bush avoided the one country he should have rated most important to include in a South American tour-Venezuela. Venezuela provides the United States with one-sixth of its oil imports. It is also a country with enormous oil reserves-about 350 billion barrels if all the heavy and light crude are counted. A US Energy Department expert believes Venezuela holds 90% of the world's super-heavy tar oil reserves-an estimated total of 1.36 trillion barrels from which light oil can be extracted, at a higher but viable cost. Sounds like Venezuela is a country with whom we should be friendlier, considering it could be the most important source of our future oil supply. But instead of taking that approach, the Bush Administration has made several attempts, some of them not so covert, to get rid of Chavez. No luck so far. The references to Chavez are supported in articles like this one as well. Venezuela has been meeting with traditional US enemies like Cuba and Iran, talking about the sale of oil. China has also been mentioned in some circles. This, coupled with the possible Socialist government in Chile and a unified South American economy, must scare US businesses, and therefore the US government. Bush indirectly responded to Chavez's criticism here before leaving on his South American trip. Quoting from the article: Bush leaves late Thursday for a week of meetings with the leaders of Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico aimed at promoting democracy, free trade and cooperation with the United States and convincing them to turn away from what his administration calls the "false promises" of leaders, such as Chavez, who advocate an alternative vision. "I strongly believe that government-run industry is inefficient and will lead to more poverty," Bush replied to a question on Chavez's economic model, which includes nationalizations and muscular state intervention. "So the United States brings a message of open markets and open government to the region," he said. Regarding the Cuban Government: The US president expressed hope that the Cuban communist system erected under almost five decades of rule by Fidel Castro, 80, would not persist after the ailing leader's death, if that is what Cuban voters wanted. "I don't know how long he's going to live -- but, nevertheless, I do believe that the system of government that he's imposed upon the people ought not live if that's what the people decide," Bush said. "We believe it ought to be up to the people, the long-suffering people of that island, to decide their fate, not the fate -- not to be decided because somebody is somebody's brother," he said. ... or son. This sounds much more like political commentary than humanitarian commentary, doesn't it? In the case of Cuba, the South American Union language of self-determination would leave the "fate" of the Cuban people in their own hands, just like Bush says he believes it should be. If the purpose of Bush's trip was regarding social affairs, however, improvements would look significantly different. Taken from the CAFTA article in The Nation: Costa Rica's human development index is 0.838, occupying 47th place worldwide. The poverty level has remained around 20% for the last 15 years, without decreasing but also without significant increases. Illiteracy is scarcely 7.4%, open unemployment hovers around 6%, and health insurance covers approximately 82% of the population. A full 75.7% of the population has access to drinking water, and 98.3% to electricity. This has been possible thanks to a Constitutional Social state, based on constitutional obligations to guarantee that certain strategic services be provided by the government in the logic of solidarity and ample coverage-independently of the buying power of families. Socialists have helped improve life in Costa Rica? Our government tells us that Socialists are evil. It seems, however, that they are very interested in helping the populace, whereas the US government is focused on politics and economics. So, it seems that there are 2 possible explanations for the President's trip to South America: 1. To address important social issues such as poverty, inequality, and social exclusion - just like Tom Shannon says. 2. United States companies, afraid of the implication to their labor rates and corporate profits, have influenced the government to get involved. Does the President really think that most people, upon reviewing the two possibilities above, would choose #1? Chomsky weighs in here. The impending South American Union, the rise of Socialist governments in the region, and the intervention of traditional US adversaries does, and should, scare US capitalistic corporations, who rely on the exploitation of South American resources to bolster their financial performance. We know that Socialist governments, such as Cuba and China, are not sympathetic to this approach. These governments are gaining popular support in South America, based largely on the success of regional Socialist governments, such as Costa Rica's. This creates the situation where the President of the United States spends an entire week in South America, trying to convince them that we are their friends. Corporate CEO's are hoping that he is successful. I'm not so sure he will be.