Has the United States under George W. Bush given TOO MUCH aid to Latin America, thus delaying efforts to get the region to stand on its own?
Alvaro Vargas Llosa writes for Spain’s Diario Exterior:
“Obama is right to say that Latin Americans are primarily responsible for their own tribulations, but wrong to believe that an increase in foreign aid will improve the economy of the region and prevent the emergence of populists like Hugo Chavez. That was the philosophy of the Good Neighbor Policy, which was designed to undermine the influence of the Axis powers in the 1930s, and of the Alliance for Progress which was aimed at curbing the spread of communism in the 1960s. Indeed, populism was Lord and King in Latin America from the end of the 1920s until the early 1990s. Its current resurgence confirms that foreign aid will do little to preclude populism: Under George W. Bush, aid to Latin America has doubled to $1.6 billion – the largest increase since World War II.”
As far as what Obama should actually do, Llosa writes in part:
“U.S. policy toward Latin America should be an exercise in atmospherics – high on photo ops and very friendly rhetoric, and low on detailed policies. Detailed policies inevitably lead to interventionism or condescension, and Latin Americans need to continue to move toward self-reliance.”
By Alvaro Vargas Llosa
Translated By Miguel Gutierrez
July 4, 2008
Spain – Diario Exterior – Original Article (Spanish)
WASHINGTON: Barack Obama recently gave a major speech on Latin America in which he sought to contrast his ideas for the region with President Bush’s record. Saying that Washington has “stuck to tired blueprints on drugs and trade, on democracy and development,” Obama proposed talking to adversaries, increasing foreign aid, being more picky when it comes to trade deals, boosting the Peace Corps and setting up partnerships to reduce oil dependency.
Throughout the 20th century, U.S. policy toward Latin America oscillated between interventionism-military or political – and condescension, best exemplified by the Good Neighbor Policy and the Alliance for Progress . After that, a form of neglect set in, except on the drug war. Occasionally, the neglect was interrupted by efforts to sort out a financial or political crisis in the region or the signing of a trade deal.
A pinch of foreign policy neglect may not be a bad thing with regard to neighbors who in some cases harbor old resentments and believe that development is something derived from global altruism. In any case, U.S. influence over the region’s governments is no longer enormous. Chile and Mexico, two of Washington’s closest allies, resisted pressure to support the invasion of Iraq in the U.N. Security Council, and Washington’s preferred candidate to lead the Organization of American States was defeated by a socialist candidate. The International Monetary Fund, through which the U.S. is able to exert a measure of pressure on Latin American governments, is today fully focused on Africa, since Brazil and Argentina have settled their debts with that agency and an export-led boom has boosted earnings for most governments in much the region.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. election.
Founder and Managing Editor of Worldmeets.US