Bush in South America: Guatemala
U.S. President George W. Bush is – of course – still in South America in an attempt to improve America’s image, to (potentially) help South American governments and to limit the influence of certain hostile leaders / countries (like Chavez).
Two interesting articles were published in the Washington Post recently, one today about Bush’s visit to Guatemala and one on March 9, by Marcela Sanchez, and about Bush’s “other half” – the one addressing poverty, helping people and regions develop (economically), etc., instead of the one that’s, in Steven Hadley’s words, “counter-terror, trade and counter-narcotics.”
Sanchez touches on an important subject, namely: (the causes and potential remedy for) anti-Americanism in South America. As people who visited South America and / or those who simply try to keep track of developments there, know, as the commenter who sent me the links to these two articles Christine Stanley, pointed out, anti-Americanism is very strong and growing in most, if not all, South American countries.
How to counter anti-Americanism in S.A.? How to improve America’s image? Bush initial attitude / policy was the tough one the world soon got used to seeing: very confrontational, advocating free trade, globalization, capitalism, etc. The problem: many South Americans blamed capitalism, free trade, etc… and the U.S., for its problems, most importantly for, in Sanchez’s words, ‘the “scandal” of persistent poverty and inequality.’
The U.S. “has not been disengaged from Latin America”, but “its engagement has taken the wrong approach.” It is time for Bush to change his approach and… he has. He seems to be “borrowing a page from the Clinton years to counter anti-Americanism abroad.” Sanchez explains in that regard that ‘back in the late 1990s when globalization had generated so much bitterness toward the United States that McDonald’s restaurants were being attacked in France, Felix G. Rohatyn, the U.S. ambassador at the time, sent diplomats out from the embassy in Paris to make themselves available to the French people. The initial goal wasn’t to change minds, Rohatyn told me recently, but “to have an exchange of views” and to articulate the logic behind U.S. policy.’
So, ‘the State Department will soon be opening six American Presence Posts in Latin America as part of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s efforts to get “more Americans onto the diplomatic front lines of the 21st century.” Like Rohatyn’s diplomats, they will be living and working outside the embassy and will counter animosity through more direct communication.’ The goal, quite clearly, is to improve America’s image by returning to “true diplomacy”, which is a victory “for those in the administration who know that empathetic engagement will be a more fruitful tactic.”
Bush put the new approach into practice in Guatemala, Brazil, Colombia and Uruguay:
His stops Monday include a U.S. military program to provide medical services and an agricultural cooperative for indigenous farmers whose irrigation system was built with U.S. said.
[...]
“It’s very important for the people of South America and Central America to know that the United States cares deeply about the human condition and that much of our aid is aimed at helping people realize their God-given potential,” Bush told reporters in Bogota, Colombia, before flying to Guatemala on Sunday night. “And so we’ll talk about programs all aimed at giving people a chance to realize their dreams.”
[...]
His first stop Monday morning was a school in Santa Cruz Balanya, a town of 10,000 where the U.S. Southern Command is conducting a medical readiness and training exercise. In such exercises, U.S. military doctors team up with local physicians for several days to provide medical, dental, surgical and optometric services for underserved rural areas. About 83,100 patients have been served this way in Guatemala over the past six years, according to U.S. officials.Accompanied by first lady Laura Bush, the president also will visit Labradores Mayas, an agriculture association for 66 local farmers. A loan and technical assistance from the U.S. Agency for International Development in 1986 built an irrigation system that today has made it possible for such associations to sell products to supermarket chains, including Wal-Mart Central America, U.S. officials said.
I have argued in the past (at The Moderate Voice) that the U.S. should invest big-time in Latin America if it wants to prevent Chavez and his buddies from taking over there. Socialists like Chavez will cuddle up to America’s enemies, like Iran and China. Whether Americans like it or not, America has to invest in South America – if it does not, big problems will arise in the coming years: anti-Americanism will increase, anti-American politicans will take over and China and Iran will increase their influence dramatically in the region…
The place to go for all things foreign is the great website Watching America. The people from Watching America translate foreign articles that appeared in foreign newspapers, written in a foreign language. Two articles I would like to highlight:
This article that originally appeared in Diario Decuyo (Argentina). It perfectly highlights the anti-Americanism and rhetoric of Hugo Chavez. Some excerpts:
Of Bush he said, “No to the imperialist presence in the heroic lands of our America!” affirmed Chavez, who considers the United States President a “true political cadaver that not only smells of sulfur but has the scent of a dead politician who will soon be transformed into cosmic dust and disappear from the scene.”
Chavez laid claim to the slogan of Eva Perón : “The country will be free or the flag will burn amongst its ruins. To live free or die is our slogan,” he added. “We don’t have a choice in Latin America today: live free or die.”
[...]
“Union was the word used by our founding fathers Simón Bolivar and José de San MartÃn ,” while integration, he said was a term, “the messengers of the North brought from Washington to accentuate imperialist control and to subjugate 19th and 20th century governments.”“Kirchner and I are products of the same historical crisis: of the reaction of the people against the domination of native elites who delivered [Latin America] to the empire.”
After Guatamala Bush will visit Mexico before going back to the U.S. again.
[...]
“North America for the North Americans and South America for the South Americans. This is our America.”
The second article, that originally appeared in El Tiempo (Colombia), emphasized the need for open dialogue and for understanding. In essence: Colombians don’t understand the U.S., and Americans don’t understand Colombian ‘Latin Americans’.
This post has been cross-posted at my own blog.
P.S.
To Christine, who requested this post: I hope you’re satisfied.
19 Responses to “Bush in South America: Guatemala”
LOL, yes, thanks. I’m sorry I missed some of your earlier posts on the topic and just generally feel that SA and LA don’t get enough coverage.
It should come as no surprise that South America dislikes the United States. We’ve done nothing but bully them for over a hundred years.
Agreed, Chris, but the question is what should be done about it now.
Exactly. My view is quite simple: invest. Both financially and ‘morally’ (by which I mean listen to them, communicate, let them know that you care, etc.).
Ughh, Chavez, what a nasty little man (well, strike that, he’s hardly little). Spain’s current president cozied up to him recently. For some mystifying reason our president seems to enjoy the company of third world “leaders” more than our real brethren in the EU. I guess it makes him feel more “cool”.
C. Stanley, what is the difference between Latin America and South America beyond the fact that Latin America includes both South AND Central America?
Finally, a photo that came out today in one of Spans leading web news pages:
http://www.20minutos.es/galeria/2190/0/0/
Now does that look like two leaders of populous nations or two buffoon cops in a bad comedy movie?
Err, obviously that should read one of SPAIN’S leading newspapers. This is what I get for spell checking but not proofreading.
Yes, indeed, the US should invest in SA and Africa and Asia.
Words alone won’t do it. Some of the local media commentary about Bush’s speeches was very antagonistic.
Big projects won’t do it, because they can’t put a ‘made in the USA’ sign on dams. It needs a hands-on approach, IMO, as in the cited cooperation for direct medical care.
So bravo to our State Dept for seeing the light.
One question: why is there one policy for SA and another for our own citizens? There are areas here with lousy medical care. But Americans get lectures about individual responsibility instead of help with clinics.
We are not learning the lesson that the scenes of angry crowds in SA are trying to teach us.
I’m not sure why but I always equate LA with CA, but I’m probably wrong and your point is most likely correct that CA+SA=LA. I stand corrected!
> CA+SA=LA
Yes. Plus Mexico, which is in North America. (There is no question there.)
The interesting thing is (not here in the USA but elsewhere), Central America is included in North America in some places by some people. (An example I have is in Quebec.)
The culturally-oriented organizations outside the USA might argue Mexico is in Central America. It is not. Almost all of it. You can reasonably argue that part of Mexico, the Yucatan Peninsula, is in Central America. (Tehuantepec separates North from Central America, roughly speaking. For more precision, examine the terrain and even the geology.)
“To Christine, who requested this post: I hope you’re satisfied. ”
“LOL, yes, thanks.”
Wow, Mike, you sure know how to please the ladies!
> Ughh, Chavez, what a nasty little man (well, strike that, he’s hardly little).
> Spain’s current president cozied up to him recently.
Birds of a feather — leftists engaged in post-modern pathology
Will Dr. Z be palsies with Ahmedinnerjacket next?
> My view is quite simple: invest. Both financially and ‘morally’
The USA has done that for ages. We’ve hardly treated everyone like Arbenz or Allenda (who were no angels, incidentally).
> SA and LA don’t get enough coverage
Most in the USA are ignorant of it. Only Africa and parts of Asia probably are “treated” worse.
This leftist movement in Latin America (for now, mainly in South America), which the Usual Suspects blame on the USA (the USA is in fact the straw man in that part of the world to foment agitation by the ignorant, as is true here in the USA itself) would have probably been entertaining not only to Arbenz and more importantly here, Allende, but also of course to the nose-pickers’ and campus PC brown-shirts’ time-honored favorite tee-shirt and cap character, none other than Che Guevara. (Has Chavez given Che’ an honorary medal and “Bolivarian Republic” citizenship yet? *chuckle*)
Chris: It should come as no surprise that South America dislikes the United States. We’ve done nothing but bully them for over a hundred years.
C Stanley: Agreed, Chris, but the question is what should be done about it now.
This answer is that we should stop bullying them!. In order to find our country’s War on (some) Drugs, we continue to funnel taxpayer dollars to governments in South American so that they can shoot down the planes of suspected narcoterrorists and dump poisons on the crops of peaceful coca farmers.
In places like Peru and Boliva, people have been growing the coca leaf for hundreds of years, dating back to the time of the Inca Empire. But Americans can’t control their addiction to blow, so that somehow justifies our using taxpayer money to destroy their crops.
And we wonder why they hate us.
nic,
But the current scenario is just one part of the story. The past US policies (which were also bullying) were connected with Cold war mentality, to build our sphere of influence in our hemisphere. And in Guatemala, a lot of it also had to do with corporate interests (like United Fruit Company in the 50′s; they clearly opposed Arbenz’s land reform program and their own undervaluation of their land holdings (to avoid taxation) led to them losing a lot of money when the Arbenz govt forced the selling of land at the price declared by the company for taxation. And wasn’t it convenient that UFC had the ear of the Eisenhower administration, which then backed the coup to oust Arbenz?
I’m certainly no leftist (DLS: please believe me that I do not own a Che T-shirt! LOL) nor do I think that the problems of LA are all the fault of the US. But I clearly saw in Guatemala that the history of US relations has been detrimental and that the narrative of US as scapegoat is widely accepted by the populace. I also saw that there was some reason for that.
It’s really the same story the world over. I see LA just as in the Middle East, that the locals have not solved their own internal problems but because the US has interfered in ways that exacerbate problems, the people have a convenient scapegoat. That narrative isn’t all true or all false, it’s partly both.
And nic, while I agree with you that the answer is that we should now stop bullying, I also know that if the schoolyard bully stops beating up kids he is still going to be feared. It will take a long time before other countries stop reacting to us as though we are a bully even if we stop acting that way, so the solution isn’t that simple.
CS-
The end times are near!
I agree with you completely!
(Ha Ha)
Especially important is your observation that it will be a long time before we can expect any major results. This is long term investment of money and smart politics. I just hope we retain the lessons learned for the long term, so that we can cash in some time down the road.
> so that they can shoot down the planes of suspected narcoterrorists
or US missionaries
domajot,
So that’s what that sound of hoofbeats was!
Obviously this is an issue on which I’m quite a bit more to the left than I am on other issues. There are several areas where this is true, though some readers here seem to fail to notice that.
C. Stanley said:
> I’m certainly no leftist (DLS: please believe me that I do not own a
> Che T-shirt! LOL)
It’s a Mao T-shirt? Fidel looks more cool with the beard and the cigar, you know.
> nor do I think that the problems of LA are all the fault of the US.
B-b-b-but that’s not what the Usual Suspects are saying.
> But I clearly saw in Guatemala that the history of US relations has been
> detrimental and that the narrative of US as scapegoat is widely accepted
> by the populace. I also saw that there was some reason for that.
With the West it’s not colonialism (hasn’t been for centuries) but economic exploitation does happen (joined by those in power, who are not only authoritarian
but corrupt, in Latin America). That’s even accounting for Latin America’s own problems that are self-made (and I am no cultural determinist — but culture is highly important).
It can be said to go all the way back to the Monroe Doctrine, though I’d quibble and say it really started with Manifest Destiny. (A few were 100% “pole-to-pole” eager expansionists.)
How did Panama materialize conveniently for us to dig the Panama Canal afterward?
Interestingly, a friend (self-professed radical) sent me a book on the post-revolution goings-on against Castro as a Christmas present and I’ve enjoyed it. In there is the short story of Arbenz and how we arranged for that government to be replaced by a more friendly (to the USA) government. It’s not so much that United Fruit Company was some huge, dark, evil creature (a book by a cultural determinist I have written even took the somewhat radical position, in government, academic, and media [liberal] circles, that United Fruit Company was one of the best things that ever happened to Latin America).
No, this book points out more straightforward facts about United Fruit and the land reform program that would impoverish it. You see, some US government officials at topmost levels affecting foreign policy happened to be stockholders in the company or have other connections to it. Hindsight says it’s inevitable something would be done about a threat to it.
As far as other interventions or intrusions — probably the best source on that as to why it was done was Nixon’s “The Real War.”
As a side issue, that book (which discusses the need sometimes to deal with really bad people and governments) may be applicable to Iran and Syria if those two nations one day could start engaging in some reforms, at least in Iraq.