The Backyard

Self-Doubt & Self-Deception in 9/11 & 11/4

2008-09-11T00:00:00.000-07:00

Self-Doubt & Self-Deception in 9/11 & 11/4

Yesterday, on the eve of the 7th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, I taught separate undergraduate classes on anti-Americanism and the presidential election campaign. An antipathy towards those Americans who continue to believe in ideals that these diverse students considered as limited was a clear theme that ran through both classes. Americans observed at their party conventions and preparing for the remembrance of 9/11 were identified as Other that irrationally clung to a faith in a false exceptional identity grounded in absolutes of God and History. Questions were asked of those Americans who continued to perceive the world that they could plainly recognise as a constructed “reality”. But as Slavoj Žižek urges, maybe is it not wise to transform an American Other into a ‘subject supposed to believe.’ What if constant confrontations with the void in this constructed “reality” continue to sow doubts in many of these seemingly ardent believers? Are the patriotic outbursts at symbolic events of party conventions and 9/11 memorials simply used as means to settle these doubts by externally asserting belief? Witnessing signs of an ‘unbearable truth’ that disrupt the American Dream are repressed through the performative act of reasserting the splendour of that very dream. Emersion in a presidential campaign or the rhetoric of the War on Terror contains the uncomfortable uncertainty of their own identity.

But are those of us in comfortable ‘Western’ lifestyles in a position to immediately denounce those betraying their own interests and the ideals of universal liberation through accepting the functioning of an unfeasible democracy and submitting to the materialist pleasures of an exploitative capitalist system? Is it enough to continue our participation in a “worthless reality” by cancelling it out through the clinging to an idea that we can withdraw to the inner knowledge of the way things “really” are? Has the naive view of the world that is rejected for a more “realistic” understanding already become a part of us? As the Indian scholar, Pratap Bhanu Mehta suggested shortly after 9/11 – maybe the antipathy towards America for many is derived more from the knowledge that its way of life has been invited in and cannot be escaped. Can anti-Americanism simply sustain an appearance that allows continued enjoyment of the good life? How many are actually willing to fully embrace the fetishised path to political manumission that enables the conviction that we are not “really” living in this “reality”? Courage is not just in questioning in the attitude of those Americans we study, but more in questioning our own positions. This is a call for reflection rather than relativist demand to accept the wrongness of any belief. Half an hour before lessons began yesterday, scientists at the European Organisation of for Nuclear Research successfully completed their initial tests of the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva. It has been refreshing to read about those retaining a readiness to continually reconsider the theories that guide the journey into the complex and unknown.

New Orleans and the Other Convention Centre

2008-09-02T07:00:00.000-07:00

New Orleans & the Other Convention Centre

New Orleans and the Gulf Coast appears to have escaped the devastating death toll that Hurricane Gustav inflicted in the Caribbean, but John McCain also seems to have been rescued from political disaster in Minneapolis. He has been saved from the prospects of Bush and Cheney addressing the Republican National Convention and he has successfully managed to gloss over his weak oratory and appeal directly instead to his campaign slogan of Country First. ‘It was one of those moments in history,’ McCain insisted of the looming crisis, ‘where you have to put America first.’ But it is important to raise questions of this approach. The use of Hurricane Gustav to demonstrate his credentials as the nation’s natural leader in the face of crisis needs to be highlighted for its cynical politicking. McCain’s visit to a disaster relief centre was swiftly touted as evidence of his ‘ability to lead from day one.’ At the same time, it reinforced the key campaign message of the inexperience of Barack Obama. The early stages of the Republican Convention have also sought to utilise the situation for another campaign tactic (taken from the Hillary Clinton campaign) to promote McCain as the “American” candidate. McCain was not alone in asserting that it is ‘time to take off our Republican hats and put on our American hats.’ Previous efforts to construct a discourse that portrays Obama as somehow un-American in his opposition to the projected image of McCain as embodiment and protector of “America” has already been documented and the endeavours look set to continue.

The political struggle to define “American” values is no new phenomenon to U.S. elections, but the Republican Convention has also used the opportunity to try to exorcise the spectre of the Bush administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina. McCain may hope to recapture the image of leadership projected by Bush at Ground Zero, but this was a construct that waned during the intervention in Iraq and was irreversibly damaged after Katrina. In facing the crisis as an American, rather than Republican, McCain hopes to distance himself from the image of Bush’s belated flyover of the devastation in New Orleans. Both Obama and Biden have stressed their hope that the lessons of Katrina have been learned, but in maintaining a narrow focus on the need for a rapid and compassionate response to natural disaster they have allowed McCain, who has worked hard to detach himself from the Bush administration’s response, to assume such a mandate for his own campaign. He has made it his personal crusade to assure the security of all Americans. ‘If Obama can talk about Katrina,’ one Republican delegate from Arizona suggested, ‘then McCain can start talking about Gustav.’ Obama and the mainstream of the Democratic Party need to be talking about a very different lesson of Katrina that has still to be learned.

The tragic pictures broadcast from New Orleans three years ago did expose the Bush administration’s negligence in regard to the safety of American citizens, but the rest of the country were forced to directly confront the abject poverty that is tolerated in their way of life in front of a global audience. Here were pictures that radically undermined the ideal-ego of an exceptional nation as archetype of progress. The tragedy of 9/11 was met in New Orleans with a great outpour of sympathy for those directly affected - I still have my NOLA (New Orleans, Louisiana) Y New York t-shirt somewhere in my wardrobe. It could have been interpreted as symbol of the gap between the American ideal-ego and the different experiences of the U.S. role in the world. The Bush administration’s construction of a barbarous Other opposed to this ideal-ego instead provided many with the immediate suture for the trauma of 9/11. The victims of New Orleans also received the immediate concern of the nation, but the natural catastrophe left by Hurricane Katrina revealed the man-made injustices of the American nightmare that lay behind their symbolic constructions of the American dream. New Orleans could also have been interpreted as the symbol of the gap between the American dream and lived experience. Maintaining the former in a Freudian ego-ideal would provide the stimulus for the action necessary to close this fissure. But the wider tragedy was that these casualties became symbols of a narrow discourse adopted by the majority of the Democratic Party that focused on criticising the Bush administration’s response as the departure from this ideal-ego. Asides from the Black Caucuses and other members on the fringes of the Party, no serious challenge was made to the traditional attitudes towards poverty and race. Symptom was identified in cause as individual responsibility was accepted as the condition for poverty. This has meant that Democrats have failed to engage an alternative discourse that is present within, as well as outside, the U.S. that constructs New Orleans as a symbol of American inequality.

If growing up in rough areas of England had awakened me to the inequity of capitalist society, it could only partially prepare me for the disparate living conditions I witnessed during my brief residency in New Orleans before Katrina hit. Maybe it gave me a modicum of courage to at least look beyond the constructed divide that I was clearly supposed to stay behind. I will not easily forget the splendour of the affluent white areas of the city and the hospitality of its residents. Being welcomed into family trip for July 4th celebrations was certainly a highlight. The generosity extended even as I questioned the patriarch’s perceptions of the wealth and race divide in the city. But it was my fleeting relationship with Wesley – a former gang member with gold teeth and the inscription ‘F*** All Y’All’ tattooed across his chest – that I will always remember. His was a tragic story far removed from my own, but what was maybe initial intrigue on his behalf of a white Brit joining him in the hunt for any minimum wage labour eventually developed into common cause. Wesley held strong convictions of the race and class barriers that stood in his way. If he remains safe – wherever he is – I am pretty sure that Katrina only reaffirmed his perceptions of American society. Anecdotes aside, it remains clear that for all the anticipation of Obama’s triumphant march towards the White House, the persistence of economic inequity will sustain conflicting constructions of hierarchy and injustice. The Obama campaign has pushed its own message – a McCain administration would inevitably continue in the footsteps of its predecessor in failing to rebuild the American dream. But a wide gap also remains between the symbolic victory for Obama and Biden and any genuine cause for race or class liberation. It was Bill Clinton that gave the Democratic faithful in Denver the powerful line that, ‘people around the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.’ The Backyard will return to the latter and its impact, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, but for those Latin Americans pursuing liberation, the example set by the U.S. in New Orleans has been powerful for the wrong reasons. New Orleans was promoted as the bridge between the U.S. and Latin America after World War II by the Mayor, DeLesseps Story Morrison, but his commitment to racial segregation undermined his attempts to sell the American way of life. It is perhaps more apparent today that the U.S. is far from realising John Winthrop’s ‘citty upon a hill’ in the sub-sea level New Orleans.

Y Dónde Quedó América Latina?

2008-08-12T07:00:00.000-07:00

Y Dónde Quedó América Latina?

During the past couple of months academic and media focus has turned towards defining the legacy of the Bush administration’s foreign policy and the prospects for continuity and change under its successor. Wider attention has also explored the question of what the world situation will look like for the new occupant of the White House and what role the U.S. will manage to play in it. Perhaps not surprisingly, the issue of U.S. policy towards Latin America has remained largely out of the spotlight. Following Barack Obama’s international trip, John McCain even went so far as to broadcast adverts asking why his Democrat counterpart decided not to use the occasion to make his first visit to Latin America or even mention the region. Obama’s subsequent decision not to immediately respond draws the need for some explanation. The banners under which each candidate hopes to march towards the Oval Office perhaps offer some enlightenment.

In his campaign slogan, McCain makes it clear that his job is to put ‘Country First.’ He looks poised to continue the Bush administration’s strategy of pursuing a preponderance of power to maintain U.S. global primacy. The application of this slogan to a strategy of U.S. ascendancy must be considered however, in the context offered by Thomas Paine that ‘by serving themselves, Americans would serve the world.’ Domestic support for a foreign policy that defends national interests cannot be easily separated from the enduring belief in the U.S. as the guardian of universal values and the agent of human liberation. U.S. primacy is rationalised at the international level as necessary for universal progression towards freedom. The Bush administration regarded the projection of the symbolic image of U.S. power as confirmation of the inevitability of the U.S. leading the world towards liberation. Recent events in the Middle East and the former Soviet orbit have led to resistance to this construct of U.S. superiority. McCain insists on efforts to reassert the credibility of the projected image of U.S. power. Obama however, whilst not renouncing the U.S. claim to global leadership, has acknowledged the failure of the Bush administration to demonstrate that this is necessary for the liberation of the world rather than narrow national interests. Obama’s rallying call for ‘Change That We Can Believe In’ is directed at both the domestic and international audiences. In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations at the end of last year, Obama sought to reunite Americans through the restoration of its traditional Mission. As George F. Kennan had asked of the American people 60 years earlier, Obama insisted that they believe in this change and show the world that they know what they want and are able to achieve it. During his international tour last month, Obama also hoped to project this new image to those in Europe and the Middle East, who considered the Bush administration as acting only on behalf of their own interests. Obama promised to win their hearts and minds by providing them the freedoms from fear and want. Americans would serve themselves by serving the world.

But Obama recognises that persuading these allies that the U.S. must remain first among equals, cannot rely alone on demonstrating change that “we” all can believe in, but it must also be justified with the common threat that the U.S. must protect “us” against. The Bush administration had used its antagonistic division of “us and them” in the War on Terror as rationale, not only to extend beyond its frontier of influence and transform “them”, but also to maintain its claims to the leadership of “us”. Obama has made it clear in numerous speeches that Iraq however, was the wrong danger. It was not the Other that threatened and negated “us” all. But the threats that “we” face to “our” way of life are real, he argues. Rather than dragging “us” kicking and screaming into foreign policy situations they wish to avoid, Obama hopes to redefine the Other to one that “we” all share a fear of. The promise of a changed diplomacy of cooperation relies on the identification of this common cause that guarantees “our” greater cohesion. But it is here where we move on to look at the Western Hemisphere. Latin America has remained far from the War on Terror. There is little fear of it crossing the line of demarcation into Other in this discourse and it poses no significant challenge to U.S. leadership in this struggle. If the Bush administration failed to convince friends in Europe and the Middle East to identify with its representation of Self primarily because of its unilateral offensive against Iraq as the principal representation and danger of the Other, it failed in Latin America because of the complete absence of a common Other.

The Bush administration did not attempt to unite the region through common negation of an extra-hemispheric Other in the War on Terror, but through the positive pursuit of liberation through common ideals. However, the focus of attention and resources in demonstrating the credibility of its leadership in the Middle East guaranteed the failure to convince Latin America of its model of liberation through an agenda of security, democracy and free trade. Faced with serious alternative approaches in Latin America, McCain has pledged more engagement with Latin America, but it is clear he will not divert from the Bush administration’s agenda. Rather than demonstrating a new framework of U.S. power – where the U.S. restrains its unilateral pursuit for particular national interests – to change U.S. relations with Latin America, Obama would need to prove the credibility of the American model of liberation. Despite the disruption to the insinuated Bush-McCain continuum that a young, black Democrat could offer, Obama has offered no real evidence that he can make this happen. The difference in his approach to Latin America has again focused on a new diplomacy – promising to deal directly with Cuba and Venezuela. But other than expressing doubts about the Bush administration’s agenda of democratisation, security and development, Obama has offered no serious alternative. The Bush administration’s inability to stabilise Iraq has ensured that debate has continued to focus on capabilities of U.S. power rather than its model of liberation. In the near future Obama will continue to demonstrate the superiority of his vision of U.S. power over McCain’s, but outside of its domestic context the model of liberation looks as if it will remain unaddressed. Alternatives to the Bush-McCain strategy have been proposed though and The Backyard will examine their likelihood and viability over the next few weeks.

The Three Amigos!

2008-04-29T07:00:00.000-07:00

The Three Amigos!

Last week President Bush met with Stephen Harper and Felipe Calderón at the North American Leaders’ Summit in New Orleans. Dubbed in the media as ‘The Three Amigos’, Bush and his Canadian and Mexican counterparts gathered with representatives of major corporations from the three countries to develop further plans for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). Since its conception in early 2005, the SPP has received criticism from the right as a threat to national sovereignty and from the left as being beyond popular democratic control. But it is in its designation as “NAFTA plus” that the SPP has provided a new focus of protest for those unconvinced about the benefits of continental free trade. Protectionist sentiment has become more visible through the Democratic presidential nomination race and the Bush administration is now up against the clock. Administration and private leaders are working together to ensure that further integration plans are well developed and their case is well made before any potential transition to a Democratic White House in 2009.

The intensified efforts are due, in large part, because the SPP has been an executive initiative of the Bush administration. Negotiations have been subject to neither legislative oversight nor popular participation. Government officials of the three governments have instead focused on collaboration with a number of corporate leaders from across the continent. The North American Competitiveness Council was created in 2006 as a State-Private working group to drive plans for integration and selected representatives include leaders of Ford, General Motors, Chevron and Wal-Mart. As they congregated in New Orleans last week, a parallel People’s Summit of New Orleans hosted protests against the exclusion of ‘civil society’ from negotiations. Congressional representatives from both the Democratic and Republican parties have also expressed their concerns. In one letter to President Bush, Democratic House Representatives, Marcy Kaptur and Raul Grijalva, stated that Congress “objects to a process that permits the executives of the respective countries to bypass constitutionally mandated review.” They insisted that the SPP negotiations “are made transparent and proper legislative oversight is established.” The Bush administration finds these remonstrations against the form of negotiations problematic, not only in itself, but because the content of the SPP is also under criticism.

The SPP has provided fresh impetus for protests against the economic arrangements of NAFTA. The Democratic candidates for the White House have been using more and more protectionist rhetoric and have both promised to renegotiate the terms of the NAFTA. The Bush administration and business leaders fear that their agenda will be derailed if it has to become more accountable. Their main priority for the next few months will be to counter the growing criticism of their plans. Noting that administration officials would have to take a fairly diplomatic tone in this task, Thomas Donohue, the President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, felt that he was in a better position to rant against the protectionist sentiment emerging from the Democratic nomination race. “The bottom line” he suggested however, “is when we get down to serious business we are not going to change the position on [NAFTA].” He acknowledged that key members of Hillary Clinton’s campaign team, even former President Bill Clinton had come out in favour of NAFTA and Barack Obama had sent aides to Canada to ensure his criticism should not be taken too literally. The problem, of course, is that this rhetoric would soon become part of public discourse. Speaking to the Association of American Chambers of Commerce in Latin America, Donohue argued that private leaders would have to dramatically improve their efforts in talking to Congress and the public about the positives of trade. He also said that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had undertaken numerous surveys about the language that people use and understand on trade. As the term ‘protectionism’ had many positive associations, Donohue suggested that business leaders and corporate lobbyists should use the more negatively-connected ‘isolationism’ as the converse to their trade agenda.

Donohue is astute in his calls to focus on a negative opposition to NAFTA and current developments. Recent attempts to promote the positive sides of this agenda have not been particularly successful. In response to a reporter’s question on Democratic criticism of the fairness of NAFTA, Dan Fisk, the Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs on the National Security Council suggested that the significant increase of trade to nearly $1 trillion between the three countries was a positive record. He acknowledged that the administration’s main task was “to find ways to, frankly, convince the American people from our perspective, first and foremost, that this is an arrangement that’s worked for us and it’s also worked for our neighbours. It’s been a win-win situation.” The U.S. Department of Commerce even dedicates a webpage to dispelling the continuing ‘myths’ of the SPP, some of which are less accurate than others. But they persist nonetheless, as they have been drawn into an equivalent chain in a counter-narrative. This discourse is one that extends across borders and pivots around the kernel that NAFTA has not brought equal benefits. The Three Amigos’ focus on the advantages of increased trade has not been enough to break this discourse down. On the ground, many still cannot see that this increased trade has brought equally improved standards of living. Workers in the U.S., Canada and Mexico all still fear job losses. Demonstrations continue this week in Mexico against efforts to privatise water and oil resources. Larger protests still, target the large government subsidies to U.S. agricultural producers that are legal under NAFTA. Already making a profit in the U.S. market, these producers are able to dump their exports on the Mexican market at prices below cost. Whilst some Mexicans in urban areas can benefit from competitive prices, the rural farming poor are driven out of any profits and ultimately their jobs. NAFTA is only one part of inequitable global economic system, but it has become a focal point for dissatisfaction with current economic relations. The Three Amigos will have to do much better in creating their own political discourse if it is to generate a consensus in favour of the SPP during 2008.

Thomas Shannon, the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, will probably be the point man for the Bush administration on this task. He has long been on the front line in constructing a positive hemispheric discourse based on their free trade agenda. Speaking to the Council of Americas last week, Shannon did turn his attention towards North America: “It is about recognizing that we do live in a common continent, that we live off of common economies and markets, and that while we are independent countries, while we have enormous racial and cultural and ethnic diversity, we share fundamental political values and fundamental economic understandings, and that our ability to take advantage of this commonality, our ability to take advantage of these understandings and work together will enhance our position in the world and send a very strong signal to those who want to be partners with us that they have to understand these agreements in terms of strategic alliances and they have to meet our standards.” The problems with this approach are clear.
Shannon will struggle to replace the deep-rooted American exceptional identity or even the larger hemispheric identity he has been promoting recently. More importantly, this attempt to construct a continental identity ignores the very contingency at its foundation. Shannon acknowledges the diversity within North America, but suggests that their commonality is largely based upon their shared economic understandings. But it is the very resistance to these understandings that Shannon is trying to eradicate by focusing on a common identity. He will find it very difficult to promote an agenda through reference to its own deficient grounding. If the governments and private leaders of the three countries are unable to develop a consensus for the SPP, they will be forced to use more unilateral and unaccountable power to push the agenda onwards, which will only be met with more resistance. One wonders if Harper, Calderón and Bush would be better off just remaking the 1986 film, The Three Amigos, in which the three main characters, played by Steve Martin, Chevy Chase and Martin Short repeated their renowned catch-phrase, complete with dance moves:

Lucky Day (Martin or Harper): Wherever there is injustice, you will find us.
Ned Nederlander (Short or Calderón): Wherever there is suffering, we’ll be there.
Dusty Bottoms (Chase or Bush): Wherever liberty is threatened, you will find...
All: ...The Three Amigos!

Fortunes and Favours

2008-04-22T07:00:00.000-07:00

Fortunes and Favours

It is only a short comment from The Backyard this week, due to time constraints. But where analysis is lacking, the figures should speak for themselves. As the voting stations open across Pennsylvania today for the Democratic primary, debate continues over the candidates’ abilities to alleviate the plight of the Keystone State’s ‘blue-collar’ workers. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have together argued that the Bush administration has tragically failed this demographic, but both maintain that the other will not protect the interests of the working-class from the White House. After the ‘bitter’ comments, both the Clintons and Obamas have come out to establish their humble working-class origins, but the barrage of negative campaigning will perhaps leave the voters suspicious of either message. Whilst it may be unfair to label either as completely out of touch, their recent fortunes do not suggest that they have genuinely shared the ‘average’ American experiences of recent years. The (median) average household in Pennsylvania has earned around $300,000 under the Bush administration’s tenure. During the same period, Obama and his wife earned just short of $8 million. The Clintons have accumulated over $108 million.

This week’s release of the Obama household’s tax returns shows that they took earnings last year of $4.2 million. The ‘average’ Pennsylvanian family would need to have worked on current salaries since Warren Harding’s presidential election victory to have gathered a similar amount. These families will find even less comfort in the Clintons’ disclosure earlier this year that they made $20.4 million last year. To match that they would have been working since over a century before King Charles II granted William Penn the land charter to establish Pennsylvania. But the situation is far bleaker for neighbours in Latin America. Around this same time the Spanish missionary, St. Francis Solanus encountered the Guaraní Indians on an expedition through what is now Paraguay. But today’s ‘average’ Paraguayan household would have already been working for over a millennium in order to have earned last year’s Obama takings. The newly-elected Paraguayan President, Fernando Armindo Lugo Méndez focused his campaign on the country’s standards of living. More specifically stressed the need to deal with the acute income inequality in Paraguay. Indeed, for the large proportion of Paraguayan households that remain living under the poverty line, they would need to have been working since the estimated origins of the Guaraní to match the Obamas in 2007.

It is not to say that neither Obama nor Clinton can put aside their own prosperity and address income disparity in the U.S. and the wider problems in the Western Hemisphere. But neither has really shown willing to seriously tackle the systemic problems that provide opportunities for such inequality. The considerable backing that both campaigns receive from Wall Street does not suggest anything different. John Paulson was able to make a Wall Street record $3.7 billion last year and it remains unlikely that any Democratic White House will seek to dramatically curb such mammon. It will remain a sad story for those households in Paraguay destined to remain under the poverty line. For them to have made this record amount they would have been selling their labour amongst the earliest discovered hominids.

Turning Backs on Colombia?

2008-04-15T07:00:00.000-07:00

Turning Backs on Colombia?

The U.S. House of Representatives voted this week 224-195 to eliminate the ‘fast-track’ requirement for the approval or rejection of negotiated trade agreements by the executive branch. The immediate cause for this action is to allow them to indefinitely delay any vote on the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. The decision is already having an impact on the 2008 elections; presidential and congressional candidates are positioning themselves on either side of a battle line that separates different visions for reviving the economy and securing the nation. Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, stands strongly with the Bush administration in expressing “profound dismay” with the House vote, but the Democratic contenders are struggling to demonstrate their support for the decision. They have a unique opportunity to introduce a wider debate on U.S. policies in the Western Hemisphere, but the campaign trail has led them towards nationalist rhetoric that will not give regional neighbours much to be confident about.

The House decision received instant and fierce criticism from the White House. “The decisions that were made by the [House Democratic] leadership are disappointing,” noted the National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, on Fox News Sunday. “We will continue to work with the Congress,” he continued, “but the point is this is a good agreement. It helps American farmers, workers and businesses. It stands by Colombia. We have no better friend than Colombia in this hemisphere. And the president believes very strongly that Congress owes the American people a vote on this agreement this year.” President Bush also publicly condemned the “unprecedented and unfortunate action by the House of Representatives,” which he argued, “is damaging to our economy, our national security, and our relations with an important ally.” The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, has continued to publicly stand behind the decision. Although few have cared to mention it, this seems, in large part, to be another attempt by Pelosi to claw back constitutional power for the legislative branch. Many members of Congress have considered the White House to have usurped too much control over trade; the ‘fast-track’ authority, which has stood since 1974, is a good target for Pelosi to uphold her pledge to introduce more oversight and restrains of the administration. Whilst this may have some political motive for Pelosi, the economic and security issues underlying this decision have elevated it to a loftier stage.

The impact of the economic problems on the ‘ordinary’ American has grown to be the major issue in the 2008 elections and the Democrats have sought to lay blame for the current situation on the Bush administration. “For seven long years,” the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, declared, “the president’s failed economic plan has stiffed the American people.” Pelosi has spent the past few days making sure that the American people see the Colombian Free Trade Agreement as being squarely within that plan. She told the press at one point that, “[i]f we are to be successful in passing a trade agreement, we have to first tell the American people that we have a positive economic agenda that addresses their aspirations, addresses their concerns.” In doing so, she has laid down the gauntlet for the presidential hopefuls. John McCain has been a long-time advocate of free trade deals and immediately issued a public statement condemning the House for turning its back on American workers. But both Democratic nominees believe that McCain’s support for this agreement demonstrates his neglect of the interests of working-class America. The recent ‘credit crunch’ has led the many Americans still living below the poverty line to question the Bush administration’s economic policies. Indeed, at a meeting of the Newspaper Association of America, Senator Barack Obama asserted that McCain is making a bad bet in “running for George Bush’s third term.”

Obama has joined Senator Hillary Clinton in pledging to protect more American jobs by renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement and opposing the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. At a recent campaign rally, Clinton declared that “[w]e're going to take a look at every single trade agreement we've got and we're going to make those trade agreements pro-America and pro-American worker.” It is difficult to see this recent posturing on free trade as anything more than electioneering. Clinton has recently had to demote her key strategist, Mark Penn, after it was revealed that he had been lobbying on behalf of Alvaro Uribe’s Colombian government to promote the trade agreement. She has also had to distance herself from her husband as his ties to Uribe have been disclosed. Her credibility has already been damaged as she struggles to prove that she had remained opposed to the North American Free Trade Agreement when it was passed during her time as First Lady. But this has not left the door open for Obama to take up this mantle; his own position was compromised when a top aide was reported to have told Stephen Harper’s Canadian government that they could ignore Obama’s protectionist talk merely as campaigning. To look back into their voting records, it is evident that neither Clinton nor Obama can attest their recent positions. Whilst it is true that they both opposed the Central American Free Trade Agreement in 2005, they have both supported a number of agreements similar to the one with Colombia. Even as recent as late 2007, Clinton and Obama went against other Democratic presidential candidates in showing support for the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement.

This can only indicate that their opposition to the Colombian Free Trade Agreement is far more about their election campaign than any conviction about the interests of the American people. Perhaps even more evident, is the fact that they are not being guided by any concern for the people of Latin America. Neither Clinton nor Obama have called for any serious reflection on the way the U.S. deals with hemispheric neighbours. Labour groups and key Democrats have been critical of agreements with countries that cannot protect basic labour and human rights. On the Peruvian deal, the Democratic Senator from Ohio, Sherrod Brown, made a damning summary: “Slave wages are OK, unsafe working conditions are OK, unsafe products and food are OK, contaminated food is OK.” Undoubtedly, the situation is much worse in Colombia; the President of the AFL-CIO, John Sweeney, suggests that union leaders continue to be intimidated and killed. Seventeen union members have been reported as assassinated this year alone by the Colombian National Labor School. More ominously, there is mounting evidence of connections between the right-wing paramilitary groups that are perpetrating many of these crimes and high-level officials in the Uribe government. The Bush administration has continued to support Uribe’s claims that targeted labour and human rights activists have been sympathisers of the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia. Both Clinton and Obama expressed their concerns about the labour provisions in the Peruvian agreement, but this could not dampen their support. Fast-forward a few months and they also highlight the problems in Colombia, but neither has shown willing to make any blanket denunciations of U.S. partnership with Colombia. It is hard to believe that Colombian abuses alone would have been enough for them to raise their opposition to the Free Trade Agreement. They have firmly anchored the issue to U.S. interests and have used the labour rights problem for extra soundbytes. The debate on China only confirms this; the human rights card is played, but Permanent Normalized Trade Relations are hardly being questioned and the main issue is the threat to U.S. economic interests.

Noone expects McCain to make any dramatic changes to the Bush administration’s policies in Latin America, but the Democratic contenders are missing an opportunity for a serious consideration of U.S. activities in the region. The message from the Bush administration has been clear: Colombia is a key ally in Latin America and the Free Trade Agreement is vital for U.S. security and economic strategy. The U.S. Trade Representative, Susan Schwab, immediately complained that “[t]he House Democratic leadership has now slapped around a major U.S. ally, one of our most important allies in Latin America.” The Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, also suggested that “Colombia's security is very important and it would be a shame to see the progress that's been made there put at risk because they face economic difficulties or because President Uribe suffers political consequences because his good friend, the United States of America, basically turned its back on him.” McCain, unsurprisingly, has backed the Bush administration’s support of Colombia as “an important ally in the battle against international narco-terrorism.” Clinton and Obama may have disagreed with the suggested importance of the Colombian Free Trade Agreement, but neither has fundamentally questioned the U.S. partnership with the Uribe government. Neither of them was particularly critical of the recent Colombian incursion into Ecuadoran territory and neither has suggested that the billions of dollars committed in Plan Colombia are ill-spent. It has been left to the relatively unknown Green Party candidate, Cynthia McKinney, to question the success of the current drug policy and accuse the Bush administration of using it as cover for interventionist policies.

In focusing on U.S. interests in their campaign rhetoric, Clinton and Obama have failed to address many of the grievances of Latin American people against free trade deals. U.S. business lobbyists, such as Calmen Cohen, the president of the Emergency Committee for American Trade, have argued that the rejection of the Colombian Free Trade Agreement “will undermine U.S. credibility in negotiations for decades to come, making it more difficult for the United States to level the playing field, eliminate foreign trade barriers and open foreign markets to our goods and services.” Whilst Clinton and Obama can have acknowledged some of the disadvantages of free trade for American workers, they have been reluctant to suggest there may be burdens for those in other countries. The Colombian Free Trade Agreement would have eliminated a number of trade barriers for U.S. exports, but in return the Bush administration would only have made permanent the access to the U.S. market that Colombia has enjoyed since signing the 1991 Andean Trade Preference Act. Since failing to attain any agreement on the Free Trade Area of the Americas, the Bush administration has used bilateral agreements to force trade liberalisation measures that even the World Trade Organization has been reluctant to promote. The president of Oxfam America, Raymond C. Offenheiser, has expressed criticism of the Colombian deal that would cause suffering for the large proportion of Colombia’s population that rely on agriculture for a livelihood. Most would have no chance of competing with cheaper ‘dumped’ U.S. food exports that continue to be subsidised by the Bush administration. Offenheiser also suggests that this can only undermine regional security. Those small-scale farmers unable to compete with U.S. exports will have “few other options but to grow coca to survive.” The reduction of poverty in Latin America is surely essential for U.S. security in the region, but at the moment there does not seem to be any chance that 2009 will bring any major review of U.S. hemispheric strategy. Incoherence will continue to dominate strategy if the Democrats can only offer rhetorical shifts. Until they realise that they need to reverse the adage that in helping themselves they help others – they will be unable to attain international objectives.

Quietly Building a Legacy in the Americas

2008-04-08T07:00:00.000-07:00

Quietly Building a Legacy in the Americas

This week has seen the exposure of a draft strategic plan for the long-term commitment of U.S. military forces in Iraq. At the very least, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s appearance before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee suggests that the Bush administration is constructing a military framework to pass on to its successor. Whilst military strategists maintain focus on Iraq and the wider Middle East region however, officials from the Departments of State and Commerce are also concentrating efforts on quietly building a legacy for the administration in the Americas. Key policymakers are examining how to spend the remaining months of their term to build bipartisan support for a broad hemispheric strategy and ensure that it is effectively handed over to their successors. The need to ‘tie up loose ends’ comes with the recognition that their approach to the region will only be considered a success if it is continued beyond its tenure. The administration has already gone some way in developing its strategic framework for the hemisphere, but it is far from any coherent plan that will enjoy widespread regional support. The real danger is that it could still be continued into 2009.

The Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Thomas A. Shannon, was at the Americas Society & Council of the Americas program this week to discuss the Bush administration’s regional strategy. After the familiar restatement of the supposed successes of 2007, the ‘year of engagement’, he turned his attention to the next important step of making this engagement enduring. Shannon informed the many Latin American diplomats and journalists in the audience that the administration recognised the need to build a broader strategic approach. Recent U.S. policy in Latin America had, in large part, been reactive to various crises, but they would now be focusing on identifying and pursuing long-term interests that would ensure a degree of continuity. Shannon has noted the importance of enduring engagement with the region on several occasions over the past few months and the focal point of this strategic engagement is becoming more than clear: free trade.

This weekend, the Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez and the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs, Daniel S. Sullivan, attended the annual meeting of the Inter-American Development Bank to discuss U.S. strategic priorities for economic engagement in Latin America. Although the administration has long admitted defeat on the Free Trade Area of the Americas, it hopes instead that it can leave office having achieved “an unbroken line of Free Trade Agreements stretching from Canada to the tip of Chile.” President Bush will be attending a meeting in New Orleans this month with the Mexican and Canadian Presidents, Felipe Calderón and Stephen Harper, to discuss and, he hopes, to repair problems in the North American Free Trade Agreement. Following that, the focus will be on persuading Congress to vote in favour of the Trade Promotion Agreements with Colombia and then Panama, which Bush has called “urgent for national security reasons.” Shannon has also expressed hope that the successful creation of this free trade area would serve as a platform to then persuade the Mercosur members to reconsider their own positions on trade with the U.S.

This task is certainly not an easy one though. Many at home in the U.S. still need to be convinced by the administration that they have benefited from NAFTA, let alone will profit from the growth of free trade in the Americas. Important critics of the impending TPAs, particularly those in U.S. Congress, also remain unconvinced by Bush and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s arguments that there will be any gain for the people of Colombia and Panama. Whilst many regional political elites are looking to embrace free trade with the U.S., Calderón and Harper still face some domestic opposition to NAFTA and small but passionate popular resistance continues to pressure other Latin American leaders. Shannon recognised that the U.S. does now have to be prepared to compete for opportunities in the regional environment. But he was adamant that U.S. influence has not declined; it has simply changed. Since Bush’s speech to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in March 2007, the administration has identified the key to success in the region as engagement. They have isolated the problem as neglect of their hemispheric neighbours, whilst attention and resources have been focused on strategic priority areas, particularly the Middle East. Shannon highlighted the importance of the U.S. ‘being there’ in the region, but the U.S. also has to redirect significant resources, rather than continue with the public diplomacy efforts they have so far relied on. Upholding global commitments with an already overstretched domestic economy will only result in the failure of any hemispheric presence delivering the goods. Latin America has seen it all before.

Since adopting a global role, the U.S. has repeatedly oscillated between neglect of the Americas and policies reacting to the ensuing fallout. Such policies have rarely brought any sustained and meaningful commitment though; attempts to regain hemispheric support have generally relied on restatement of common history and values. Shannon’s remarks in New York this week show that little has changed: “I think we’re at a point in time in which the United States and Latin America really can get beyond our recent history, really can begin to see each other not through the light of a security struggle taking place elsewhere in the world, but we can really see ourselves clearly in the light of the Americas, can see ourselves clearly in terms of our shared political values and common understandings about our societies and about our economies, and based on this kind of get beyond the rhetoric and ideology that has really confined or restricted our engagements over time. And use this to build relationships that are lasting.”

This kind of language has been hard to take for many in Latin America, who still consider U.S. economic agenda to be motivated by narrow interests. The failure of the Bush administration to address numerous complaints ranging from the continuance of U.S. agricultural subsidies to some of the negative impacts on Latin American communities caused by U.S. private companies only damages the credibility of their engagement. The ‘recent history’ of the U.S. relationship with Latin America leaves others struggling to believe that this is a shared political project, rather than an attempt to sustain U.S. regional hegemony. A number of ‘left-leaning’ Latin American governments feel that the U.S. values its economic agenda over democratic ideals. Responding to the call from the Bolivian Ambassador to the U.N. for the U.S. to demonstrate a clear message of support for all democracies in the Americas, despite any other economic or political priorities, Shannon argued that the U.S. had already done so. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, he added, had made clear that the U.S. does not care about the political affinity of Latin American governments. “What we care about,” he added, “is that there a fundamental commitment to democracy and is there an interest in working with us.” As ever, this “interest in working with us” remains the stumbling block for the U.S. commitment to democracy. The Bush administration is miles off convincing the likes of Bolivia that the U.S. is committed to a shared hemispheric respect for democracy, regardless of U.S. particular interests and preferences. The Bolivian Ambassador could have legitimately made his request again, but he probably recognised the answer was not going to change.

With damaged credibility, the competing projects in the region will continue. “One thing we need to be careful of,” warned Shannon, “is that the region doesn’t fragment and that it doesn’t become a series of sub-regions.” The Assistant Secretary noted the importance of using regional processes and institutions to “bring everybody back together and remind them that we share a hemisphere.” The renaissance enjoyed by the Organization of American States in its 60th year, following its performance in the recent border dispute between Colombia and Ecuador will not be anywhere enough to rekindle a genuine hemispheric solidarity. But this, nonetheless, remains the administration’s goal for the next few months. Whilst key figures, like Rice, Gutierrez and even President Bush, will sustain efforts to secure the free trade legacy in the region, Shannon will still have a difficult job in attracting much of Washington’s attention away from Iraq. But the Assistant Secretary believes that regional policy can still play a significant role in global priorities.

Shannon suggests that because the Americas were “for the longest time...the centrepiece of our foreign policy,” the U.S. will be able to demonstrate a successful example of engagement that would in turn, offer “an opportunity to put our best face forward” and present a positive image of the U.S. for the Middle East. But the Pentagon and outside military experts are highly unlikely to consider such factors as they develop Middle East strategy. “The target is regional stability,” emphasised Lieutenant General William E. Odom, former National Security Adviser to President Reagan. General sentiment in Washington following the forecasts of Petraeus and Crocker suggests that few expect it to be a quick and easy task. But Shannon argued that regional policy is still important. Precisely because the U.S., as a global power, will continue to face “really tough security challenges elsewhere in the world,” then “living in a neighbourhood that’s secure and living in a neighbourhood that’s prosperous is going to be vital to our long term security.” Shannon hopes that such a secure and prosperous Western Hemisphere will be achieved through “engage[ment] with partners who are prepared to have a dialogue and to cooperate with us.” But this misses the point that the Latin American Republics have more strength now to demand the cooperation of the U.S. in their agenda through a genuine dialogue, rather than the monologue they have become used to.

Time and time again in the past, the focus on the “really tough security challenges elsewhere in the world” has undermined any “shining example” and stable platform in the hemisphere.
In developing its regional strategy over the next few months, the Bush administration will have to face the very real decline of its influence in the hemisphere. But if John McCain were to arrive in the White House in 2009 there is little to suggest that there will be any significant shift away from the free trade agenda in the Western Hemisphere. Preoccupation with restoring U.S. credibility in the Middle East would prevent any real reflection on regional strategy. Prospects for an immediate change with would not be lifted much more with a victorious Democrat. Not least because nearly all of the planning for the first major presidential appointment in the region - the 2009 Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago - will be carried out by the Bush administration. This does not necessarily rule out any major pronouncements, but again, campaign pledges to formulate an exit strategy for Iraq will almost certainly preoccupy key officials. After the experience of Iraq, it will take a bold initiative to restore U.S. credibility so badly damaged by the Bush administration. But the need to galvanise the American public for an active internationalist role means it will take a brave and able president to frame such an initiative in terms that can also persuade many Latin Americans of the merit of U.S. engagement in the Western Hemisphere.

Media and Hegemony in Latin America

2008-04-01T07:00:00.000-07:00

Media and Hegemony in Latin America

The rift in the Western Hemisphere was visible again last week during two parallel conferences on the role of the media in Latin America. Separated by just a few blocks in Caracas, private media company executives gathered at a meeting of the Inter-American Press Association, whilst the Venezuelan President, Hugo Chávez, was among a number of politicians and activists to address the delegates of the Latin American Meeting on Media Terrorism. At the Inter-American Press Association meeting, the corporate executives, representing well over a thousand publications, expressed their concerns about the increase in state-owned media in the region. At the Latin American Meeting on Media Terrorism however, the criticism focused instead on the executives who were charged with colluding with U.S. government and corporate elites to disseminate misinformation across Latin America. Chávez himself expected a “great debate” to emerge from these conferences, but the schism is not a simple battle over the control of the media. The opposing views of the threats to freedom of speech in Latin America represent another front in the ongoing hegemonic struggle in the region.

The delegates to the Inter-American Press Association meeting claimed that they had no specific target in their criticisms of the growing influence of state-controlled media in Latin America, but discussion clearly focused upon Venezuela. After Chávez’s refusal to renew the terrestrial license of Radio Caracas Televisión last year, these media executives fiercely protested the threats of a similar fate for the 24-hour television news channel, Globovisión. Following the conference, the Association publicly issued its censure of Chávez’s “attacks and intimidation” of media outlets critical of his Venezuelan government. David Natera Febres, editor of the Venezuelan newspaper, Correo del Caroni suggested that the State’s “hegemony over the media leads to totalitarianism.” The fact that Chávez has suggested that Globovisión, or the “sewer pipe” as he calls it, would remain “open” suggests that totalitarianism is still a way off. Both Globovisión and Radio Caracas Televisión were among the opposition channels that replaced regular programming with anti- Chávez broadcasts in the lead-up to the 2002 coup, but both remain on air today (albeit RCTV is now only on cable) and continue to openly attack Chávez’s government. The debate as to whether Chávez has displayed less tolerance of media criticism in the name of free speech than other democratic governments has been covered in some detail elsewhere and will undoubtedly continue. However, the Inter-American Press Association have also focused their criticism on the proliferation of state-controlled media.

Venezolana de Televisión remains the main government channel, which has been broadcasting nationally under this remit since 1974, but has been used extensively by Chávez to promote his agenda. Since coming to power, he has also established the national channel Visión Venezuela, which alongside a number of smaller local channels, receives government funding, much like American PBS, to broadcast community programming. Last year, Televisora Venezolana Social replaced Radio Caracas Televisión as a state-funded public television channel, but as of yet, the non-commercial and educational programming that is managed by an independent foundation has not managed to attract anything but negligible viewing figures. The Chávez government has certainly attempted to make the most of this state-controlled media, but as the Communication and Information Minister, Andrés Izarra, noted in an open letter to the Washington Post last week, the media in Venezuela continues to be dominated by the private sector. The largest station, Venevisión, owned by multi-billionaire Gustavo Cisneros, is easily identifiable as narrowly representative of the higher echelons of society: predominantly white and wealthy. The same is true of many of the other private channels, including Globovisión. The prevalence of private enterprises in media ownership, such as the Cisneros Group, is characteristic of the continuing domination of Latin American civil society by transnational business.

The Venezuelan Constitution not only guarantees the “right to free expression of thoughts,” but also the “right to timely, truthful, impartial, and uncensored information.” It is certainly difficult to see that the Venezuelan private channels could offer any such genuine open terrain. At the Latin American Meeting on Media Terrorism, Chávez argued that the corporate media’s manipulation and misinformation is “one of the biggest problems faced by humanity.” The Communication and Information Minister, Andrés Izarra, added that business elites have colluded with Washington to use the private media as a “political tool” to attack the project of ‘21st century socialism’. “Media terrorism,” he argued, “is the weapon of the empire in the battle of ideas.” The fact that the media can ‘manufacture consent’ for the necessary conditions that can maintain its own power does make it a potent weapon. The absence of the state in civil society remains prevalent in liberal democracies as basic proof of pluralism, but this ‘common sense’ is being challenged in Venezuela. Izarra noted “the importance of arranging positions to counteract the attack” from the elite private media. As with other areas of society, the Chávistas have identified the State as ground for a more inclusive media.

The differing attitudes towards free speech between the delegates at the two conferences may be clear, but the line of demarcation is not pure. In their conflicting meaning of free speech and their similar claims as protectors of this liberty there is no absolute dichotomy between the two camps. Free speech is not considered as a specific object with concrete content, but merely the name of an absent entity that is prevented by the other group. Each group view the antagonistic frontier that separates them differently, leaving a hegemonic struggle to define the meaning of free speech. Working within the liberal ‘common sense’, the private media executives continue to draw the chains of equivalence between the Chávistas and traditional conceptions of the repression of liberty. The evocation of totalitarianism in regards to free speech is part of a wider and sustained effort to shape the symbolic discourse on the role of the state and civil society. These charges will be easier to sustain if Chávez insists on using state media for electioneering or closing down opposition stations, even if this is in the face of sustained propaganda. But if the Chávistas are to succeed in showing the subversion of free speech by the domination of civil society by a privileged sector then they must continue efforts to redescribe this concept. This cannot be achieved simply with the promotion of a different political discourse that includes a role for the state or they will continue to work within a separate world of thought. Rather their concept must come to replace an increasing lack of conviction in current descriptions of freedom of speech. Efforts to draw equivalences between the private media and the ‘empire’ will only be deflected as the tirades of totalitarian government unless they are joined by ever widening groups from Latin America and from outside the hemisphere, who are willing to challenge the prevailing ‘common sense’ of monopolisation and cartelisation of the media.

Water, Water, Everywhere....

2008-03-25T07:00:00.000-07:00

Water, Water, Everywhere....

The number of U.S. troops killed in the Iraq War passed 4000 this week, which has been the focus of much of the analysis marking the fifth anniversary since the invasion. Barack Obama this week asked, “Where are we for all of this sacrifice?” President Bush made his feelings clear in his restatements of the correctness of the decision to take the U.S. to war, but maybe a fairer reflection of the administration’s perspective came in Vice-President Cheney’s response to being told by an interviewer that two-thirds of Americans said that the war was not worth fighting: “So?” It is shocking how this administration seems to trivialise the human costs of war, but as Scott Lucas indicated last week, the disregard for the larger sacrifice made by the Iraqi people is simply reprehensible. The catastrophic figures being documented of civilian deaths from violence should be met with intensified horror. Instead, as these reports are ‘normalised’ they seem to produce a growing indifference. It is this attitude that has long been prevalent in the continuing non-violent death. Deaths caused by lack of access to safe water in Iraq and across the world are unacceptable. This is a human sacrifice that we all should be fighting to stop.

The International Committee of the Red Cross marked the fifth anniversary with a report entitled: Iraq, No Let-up in the Humanitarian Crisis. Water in the country is “still scarce and of poor quality,” it summarised. Many of the points are worth quoting in detail. “Except in some areas in the south and north of the country where the production of drinking water has increased, the situation has steadily worsened over the past year. As a result, many Iraqis can no longer rely on public services for clean water. Left to their own devices, many people, especially the poorest, struggle to find what they need. The estimated average monthly salary in Iraq is now around 150 US dollars. As the cost of drinking water is roughly one dollar for 10 litres, each family has to spend at least US$ 50 per month on water alone.” This growing crisis was attributed to the “lack of maintenance of existing infrastructure, the shortage of engineers and experienced operators, and the misuse or breakdown of equipment.” The sewage systems, the report continued, “have often deteriorated to the point that there is a real danger of drinking water being contaminated by untreated sewage.”

Last summer, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction reported that one contractor, Bechtel, had completed less than half of ordered jobs. One priority job of building a new water-treatment plant in Baghdad had to be completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In some cases, the status of jobs could simply not be determined. Independent not-for-profit organisations have been complaining for some time about the difficulty in verifying Bechtel’s own assessment reports for reconstruction projects in Iraq. Many fear that they have failed to carry out much of the work they have been contracted for. Meanwhile, these charities and watchdogs continue to report tragic stories of the water crisis in Iraq. Outrage about contractors’ failings in Iraq has finally sparked outrage in Washington, but it may not be surprising that it took reports of problems for the U.S. military. The news that the former Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root supplied “unmonitored and potentially unsafe water” to U.S. bases in Iraq prompted the Democratic Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, to call for more scrutiny of private contractors in Iraq. “If we are going to use contractors to perform this kind of activity in the future,” he said, “we are going to have to do a much better job of supervising their activities.” Senator Dorgan expressed his outrage at K.B.R.’s denial of a problem, despite numerous reports from U.S. troops of illness caused by water used for personal hygiene and laundry. That similar and worse problems exist for Iraqi drinking water must bring serious calls for action.

This year is, after all, the United Nations’ International Year of Sanitation. Furthermore, last week also marked the U.N.’s World Water Day. This is not just a problem in Iraq, but a global crisis that requires action. “Every 20 seconds,” warned the Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, “a child dies as a result of the abysmal sanitation conditions endured by some 2.6 billion people globally.” Even if the Millennium Development Goals for 2015 are met, 2/3 of this figure will still suffer the conditions of poor sanitation. At current rates, even these targets will not be reached. The biggest obstacle to progress remains, as the U.N. Secretary General suggested, a lack of political will. Leaders and people of industrialised nations must recognise the urgency of this crisis. This week’s announcement by the U.N. Environment Programme that glaciers are melting faster than expected can only mean that the water crisis can only worsen for many regions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned last year that global warming was melting Latin American glaciers and those who relied on them for safe water supply would begin to feel these effects soon. Many analysts already fear that demand for water in many Andean cities will outstrip supply in the next few years.

This could be catastrophic for Latin America. The U.N. Economic Commission for Latin American and the Caribbean reported last year that already over a third of children in the region lack access to safe drinking water. Outside of Washington, the significance of the water crisis in Latin America is gradually being recognised and has already this year been the focus of three documentaries. The antagonists in each are the water companies attempting to privatise supply. They document the growing resistance of local groups to the privatisation of their water supply and the damage that companies have caused to communities who can no longer afford this basic necessity. Several previous documentaries have already reported the famous protest of “The Cochabamba Water Wars” in Bolivia. At the focus of this protest against unmanageable water rate increases after privatisation was none other than Bechtel (this time as part of the consortium, Aguas de Tunari). More recent and regular reports of price hikes and water contamination from Bechtel’s operations in Guayaquil, Ecuador suggest that this is far from an isolated incident. Again and again, private companies, like Bechtel, avoid serious accountability in their provision of public services. But the responsibility for these problems must then also lie beyond them. The industrialised nations and the international agencies, like the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank, who insist on privatisation as conditions for lending must be considered culpable. It is not the case that there is not enough water for everyone to drink; it is simply that the access to safe water to drink is still unavailable. This is a vital resource that should not be governed by the whim of the market. At the very least, if private companies are going to be contracted by governments then they cannot be allowed to evade regulation. The Bush administration and the likes of Bechtel will find that once the people of Iraq are finally freed from their daily fear of violent death then they, like the people of Latin America, will resist attempts to deny them political control of their access to water. Ending the tragedy of the water crisis is a duty we must all assume; if this hurts the profits of Bechtel then Vice-President Cheney has already given us a suitable response.

U.S. Particularity and the Universality of Liberal Intervention

2008-03-18T07:00:00.000-07:00

U.S. Particularity and the Universality of Liberal Intervention

Slate magazine are running a series of articles this week to mark the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. As part of this debate, ‘liberal-interventionist’ supporters of the war are asked to answer the question: “How did I get Iraq Wrong?” As part of Libertas’ own interrogation of the ongoing war, I had originally intended to engage the polemic that had re-emerged from the likes of Christopher Hitchens’ obstinate response to ‘his peaceniks’ that he had not been wrong. However, in his piece yesterday, The Corruption of Liberal Intervention, Bevan Sewell did a superb job in deconstructing the continuing polarised analyses of U.S. intervention. Rather than simply revisit the issues examined by Sewell, I believe it is more useful to answer his call to begin debate upon any conflict between the national interest and liberal intervention. I have already spent some time exploring the tension between conditionality and the rights of man on one hand, and national self-determination and the rights of states on the other. A more interesting question in this context is whether the U.S. can act as the particular agent of liberation through intervention. I would argue that it cannot, but at the same time, this should not necessarily lead to any abandonment of liberation; rather the acceptance of this fact opens up new opportunities.

The Bush administration’s belief in U.S. power and responsibility to actively work towards liberation was declared in the 2002 National Security Strategy. “[T]he United States will use this moment of opportunity to extend the benefits of freedom across the globe.” This idea of liberation is closely tied to notions of universality and the Bush administration stress the totalising mission the U.S. will embrace: “We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world.” At the same time, the U.S. as the particular agent is also evident in the President Bush’s concluding words to the preamble: “The United States welcomes our responsibility to lead in this great mission.” As Sewell emphasised, the Iraq War has not wholly eradicated such constructions and the 2006 National Security Strategy update maintained the need for the U.S. to maintain its unipolarity. It is vital then that U.S. primacy and the task of universal liberation continue to be interrogated.

It is irrefutable that the discourse of American exceptionalism is significant in maintaining the construction of the U.S. mission of universal liberation. Whilst official documents, like the Bush administration’s National Security Strategy, may avoid references to God and Christianity, religious eschatology remains a central element of this exceptionalism. The dualistic struggle between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ is still manifest in the clash between freedom and the ‘designs of tyrants’. The enduring belief in the Divine Providence of the U.S. is more obvious in many of the public addresses of administration officials and Presidential candidates. In this formulation, the task of universal liberation can be carried out by the worldly U.S. through the intervention of God. The idea that members of the Bush administration have supported intervention through heavenly calling does not sit comfortably with many, particularly in a more secular Europe. Furthermore, the fact that liberation in religious eschatology will only arrive through Revelation has also led many Americans to seek an emancipatory role for the U.S. beyond incarnation. The removal of Divine mediation between the U.S. as a particular agent and its universal task has encouraged an alternative discourse of the U.S. being able to express the universal spirit of humanity.

In its secular guise, the U.S. has a universal role through the embodiment of reason or modernity and can act as an agent with its own ability to master history. Such ideas are frequently found in U.S. official strategic declarations and public addresses, but, as Ernesto Laclau emphasises, the removal of God as guarantor and ground also removes the predetermined nature of a universal role for a particular agent. Whilst the Bush administration continues to assert the special role of the U.S. as agent of universality, this can only be maintained as a contingent hegemonic act. It is this contingency that sustains resistance to U.S. ‘liberal-intervention’ as an act of liberation. Since establishing itself as a global power, the U.S. has been unable to overcome the perceivable distance between its finitude and the universal task of liberation. In the post-Cold War world, the claims of the ‘End of History’ have continued to clash with the strategic priority of preserving U.S. unipolarity. Scott Lucas and Maria Ryan have already undertaken much useful work on the Bush administration’s focus on a preponderance of power. For many, particularly outside of the U.S., the invasion of Iraq is regarded as just another example of the continuing pursuit of particular interests that undermines any removal of power in universality. Accepting the tension between the particularity of the U.S. and the universality of liberation as irreconcilable should not lead to resignation in a perpetual clash of powerful interests however. For anyone concerned with the fate of humanity, and even the wider world, liberation remains a vital task.

The Bush administration and presidential aspirants will continue in their attempts to persuade the American people of the merit ‘liberal-intervention’ and the enduring ability of the U.S. to perform such a duty, but the clash between national interests and the desire towards liberation will only be exacerbated as the U.S. experiences relative decline. The American people are not necessarily opposed to maintaining such conflicting priorities. Even before the Iraq War, polls demonstrated that the American people simultaneously supported foreign policy objectives of self-interest and Messianic duty and arguably they have long been rationalised by ideological constructs of exceptionalism that can be found in the likes of Thomas Paine’s maxim that “[t]he cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind.” Successive policymakers have struggled however, to demonstrate the credibility of such claims to the American people, as well as those affected by U.S. foreign policy. The continuing struggle in Iraq has perhaps only further revealed the very finite nature of U.S. reason and as a result, it is becoming ever more acceptable to consider the substitution of the U.S. as the particular agent to fulfill any universal task.

The recognition of the particularity of the U.S. also further reveals the hegemonic act that elevated the American way of life to the universal horizon. It has and will always generate at least a kernel of resistance, but its contingency is becoming increasingly perceivable. Its deficiency as an emancipatory project may be evident in regions, such as Latin America, and will be in Iraq given the opportunity, but the limits of freedom and equality in American democracy and capitalist development are manifest in the U.S. itself. This is not to say that these values are without any value, but if they are to be the cause of liberation and used as the rationale for intervention then they must have a more inclusive definition. This firstly requires the acknowledgement of the limits of mankind and any particular agent to exclusively represent a universal essence. In accepting our own inability to conceive of or achieve a universal ground alone need not lead to relativist nihilism. Instead, we should recognise that the closure of debate on the universal values and the announcement of any ‘End of History’ should be replaced with a more open eschatology that encourages ongoing deliberation and negotiation. In the face of U.S. power, many may regard this as idealistic, but to continue accepting the impossible that is the U.S. ability to transcend its particular interests in intervention that would bring universal liberation is arguably more utopian. As a start, surely we must continue Sewell’s call to debate the future of liberation beyond the current polemic between acceptance and rejection of U.S. intervention and find a more nuanced assessment of the values that are being defined as universal.

Latin American Answers to Hemispheric Questions

2008-03-11T07:00:00.000-07:00

Latin American Answers to Hemispheric Questions

As last week’s crisis in Latin America cools down, the New York Times has already determined that Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, the U.S. and the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) have all emerged as losers. The big winner of this situation however, was declared to be the region itself, with praise bestowed upon it for resolving the dispute without outside help. There should be no surprise that the Western Hemisphere maintains its autonomy in dealing with the crisis, but a closer examination reveals a historic tension that the region has been unable to reconcile. Objectives that transcend national borders, such as recent priorities of democracy promotion and tackling terrorism, are in conflict with the long established principle of non-intervention and the sovereign rights of the American Republics. The enduring mistrust of U.S. power in Latin America means that the Bush administration’s efforts to use inter-American institutional frameworks to pursue its own strategic goals are isolating it in the region. Instead, the Latin American Republics continue to use hemispheric apparatus to reaffirm national sovereignty. The real efforts that should be commended, although remain problematic, are coming from Latin America.

The Organization of American States (O.A.S.) has plenty of critics, but it has enjoyed the acclaim of many after its handling of last week’s crisis between Colombia and Ecuador (and their U.S. and Venezuelan allies). In response to a request from Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa, it held a special session of its Permanent Council at Washington headquarters. The Council promptly passed Resolution 930, approving the creation of a rapid response high-level Commission, headed by O.A.S. Secretary General José Miguel Insulza, to begin talks with regional leaders and report to a special meeting of Foreign Ministers next week. The peaceful resolution of the crisis with Colombia, led Ecuador’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, María Isabel Salvador, to stress her deep satisfaction for O.A.S. support. The O.A.S., she felt, “has passed a historic test, which ratifies its reason for being, as this is the organization called upon to uphold the perseverance of peace, hemispheric security and the respect of principles of international law.”

Considering that this month marks the 60th anniversary of the opening of the Bogotá Conference establishing the O.A.S., many members remain disappointed that it still needs to pass these tests. Since its establishment, the O.A.S. has developed an institutional framework to facilitate the peaceful resolution of inter-American clashes. Bodies like the Permanent Council, as well as the General Assembly and Council of Ministers, provide environments for American Republics to discuss differences, but the U.S. in particular has repeatedly shown the capability of subverting these institutions. Secretary General Insulza defended the O.A.S. as always having “an important value, when the people working in them act in good faith and good will.” A wider reference to multilateral organisations also served to remind observers that the United Nations has also had trouble in containing unlawful aggression of the U.S. and other large powers.

In recent years, the O.A.S. has developed new initiatives to reassert its function of guaranteeing regional peace. At a Special Conference on Security in October 2003, the O.A.S. declared that “conflict prevention and the peaceful settlement of disputes are essential to the stability and security of the Hemisphere.” It established a new permanent Committee on Hemispheric Security as a new forum for dealing with issues like territorial disputes. Meeting next month in Washington, the Committee will discuss the progress of its new Confidence and Security-Building Measures in reducing tensions and fostering cooperation and trust between the American Republics. The Committee will undoubtedly have to make a thorough review following Rafael Correa’s statement of the difficulties for the Colombian President Álvaro Uribe to regain Ecuadoran trust. Nonetheless, Insulza is optimistic that the O.A.S. can assist in a long-term resolution: “Those who are here believe in international law because in many cases that is what allows us to survive, work and relate with one another. And we do so because we love our countries, love our Americas and because we know that when all the lights are turned off, when all conflicts end, or the conflicts that we live today and rhetoric are reduced, our people, our men and women will have to continue to live together.”

The Ecuadoran Ambassador Salavador did express that it was Resolution 930’s reaffirmation of the principle of national sovereignty and non-intervention that brought reassurance to her government and people. Numerous delegations have been quick to express their solidarity with Ecuador and condemn Colombian violation of this principle. The sanctity of national sovereignty is now well-established in a region with a long history of military interventions. U.S. interference in the domestic affairs of them Latin American Republics, particularly during the early 20th century, instigated efforts to secure an agreement on the principle of non-intervention, which was eventually signed at the Buenos Aires Conference in 1936 and later codified in Article 19 of the O.A.S. Charter. The establishment of the principle undoubtedly owed something to Latin American fears, but U.S. policymakers, facing unique circumstances brought a necessary impetus. The need to uphold regional hegemony threatened by rising Latin American resistance to military intervention converged with a new hegemonic project that would build global influence through a challenge to European traditions of colonialism and balances of power. The creation of an inter-American system based upon the equality of states would demonstrate U.S. benevolence to the Latin American Republics and would provide a positive example to the rest of the world.

Entering the post-war world, U.S. policymakers were presented with an opportunity to establish their international leadership on a grander scale, but regional plans were not abandoned. Article 51 was drafted into the U.N. Charter at the San Francisco Conference in 1945 to grant regional organisations the authority for collective defence. Latin American delegates worked together with U.S. leaders in ensuring this provision, but their success did not come without problems. Differences emerged, cutting across national lines, in what this inter-American system would look like. These differences were, for the most part, representative of a larger tension that U.S. policymakers were unable to reconcile whilst faced with shaping their post-war sphere of influence. In the developing Cold War, the Truman administration hoped to establish the credibility of its leadership in opposition to a stated threat against national sovereignty posed by Soviet imperialism. At the same time however, these U.S. officials also hoped to establish solidarity within its orbit through shared values of democracy and liberty that were threatened by international Communism. The simultaneous elevation of the rights of states and individuals created an uneasy unity.

At the regional level, many U.S. policymakers felt that hegemony had been preserved by asserting the equality of political rights of states. The authority of a regional organisation based upon these principles would maintain the necessary support for their hegemonic leadership and would prevent any extra-hemispheric powers from gaining influence in the region through the U.N. Faced with Soviet obstruction in the U.N. many U.S. leaders also saw the benefit of maintaining a credible example of benign U.S. international leadership. This in itself was not problematic; indeed, the President of the U.N. General Assembly, Oswaldo Aranha, wrote a Foreign Affairs article that praised the example that the inter-American system offered to the U.N., which had so far been unable to carry out its objectives: “The contribution of the Americas in the field of international organization cannot be disregarded by those who aim to build a durable peace structure for the world. Indeed, the statesmen who are endeavoring to develop our present world organization have a great deal to learn from the American experience. For the Americas have anticipated the international organization of the future.”

However, whilst U.S. Cold War leaders struggled to assert hegemony in the priority areas of Europe and Asia, the established leadership in the Western Hemisphere led to the idea that the region could also provide a ‘shining example to the world’ of American values. The rhetoric of democracy and liberty did not sit that comfortably with the reality that the respect of national sovereignty would maintain Latin American dictators inhibiting these rights. There was no consensus amongst Latin American Republics either. Most were confident of the positive example that Pan-Americanism could offer the world. One Latin American delegate to the Bogotá Conference emphasised their duty to mankind to ensure that the inter-American system served as a bridge of world conciliation and hope. What shape this Pan-Americanism and example would take could not be agreed on though. Most Latin American leaders were unwilling to lose the increased influence they enjoyed with their political equality and were wary not to lose the legal guarantee against any return to U.S. interventionism. As ‘good neighbors’, the American Republics could provide a model of international law and cooperation. The rhetoric of democracy however, was beginning to inspire more Latin Americans who were denied these individual rights and demands increased for the removal of dictators in the region. One Latin American leader felt that in a divided world, the inter-American system should provide refuge for all those on the side of democracy and liberty. As the Cold War intensified, the U.S. soon abandoned the primacy of the rights of states as they sought conditions to the non-intervention principle that would fits with its global strategy. Latin American fears that the U.S. and regional allies would use the anti-Communist agenda to undermine national sovereignty were frequently realised. If anything this experience has just intensified Latin American resolve to assert the non-intervention principle.

At the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has attempted to use appeals to individual rights to push its global democracy agenda through the region’s institutional framework. After the creation of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, the Bush administration used a meeting of the O.A.S. General Assembly at Fort Lauderdale, Miami to express its interest in using the body to allow intervention in support of democracy. Despite general agreement on the benefits of democracy, the Latin American Republics rejected the proposal. Again, the enduring concern that such pretexts could be used by the U.S. or other countries to assert their power over neighbours prevented support from Latin America. The original declaration of support for democracy in the O.A.S. Charter included the caveat of “with due respect for the principle of non-intervention.” This principle has become ingrained in the institutional framework of the region and has been appended to each significant declaration of individual rights.

The hemispheric commitment to the integrity of national boundaries is now being tested by discourses of the terrorist threat. Álvaro Uribe strongly attempted to validate the Colombian incursion into Ecuador’s territory within the context of the terrorist threat. The Colombian Ambassador to the O.A.S., Camilo Ospina, highlighted the extra-territorial threat that his country faced. The “transnational and invasive terrorism” that Colombia has been a “victim” of, “not only violates Colombia’s sovereignty, but it also disrespects the sovereignty of neighborly countries.” In its struggle to overcome this threat, Ospina urged the solidarity of the region. The Bush administration was quick to offer such support. President Bush publicly stated that “America would continue to stand with Colombia.” Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice joined regional leaders in expressing hope for a diplomatic resolution, but whilst other Latin American diplomats condemned the Colombian violation of Ecuador’s territory, Rice instead offered further U.S. support to its “good friend”. She also added that, “of course it shows that everyone needs to be vigilant about the use of border areas by terrorist organizations like FARC.”

The State Department’s Deputy Spokesman, Tom Casey, expressed U.S. intentions to work with the consensus in the O.A.S., but the Bush administration is unlikely to share any enthusiasm for any restatements of non-intervention. Regarding this week’s talks, Casey instead hoped that they would lead to arrangements to deal with terrorist groups. Whilst this position is leaving the U.S. fairly isolated in the region, the Bush administration is attempting instead to single out Venezuela as standing outside regional consensus. Casey stressed that Venezuela was the only Latin American Republic not to condemn the FARC. This has already prompted Republican Congresswoman to urge the Bush administration to list Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism. The State Department has discarded this proposal as untimely, but what is clear, is that the Bush administration is attempting to break down regional unity based upon the equality of American Republics. With the support of the Colombian government in particular, the administration is trying to replace this consensus with strategic alliances around its transnational agenda of free trade, democracy and anti-terrorism. The Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Thomas A. Shannon, has spent the best part of 2008 attempting to persuade others of the linkage in this agenda. Speaking in front of the House of Representatives’ Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs this week, he noted that the Bush administration were pursuing initiatives to deal with transnational terrorism that was threatening the stability of the region needed for democracy and development.

The intensity of U.S. statements on anti-terrorism in the region and its support for Colombia’s recent efforts against the FARC has brought their own involvement under question. Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro were quick to infer U.S. complicity and many analysts are suggesting the incapability of the Colombians to carry out the latest operation alone. The Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, has refused to directly address such claims, stating only: “Well, I would just say that we are very supportive of President Uribe's efforts to deal with the FARC terrorists. We have a good relationship with them.” The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen was a little more candid: “We've had an operation -- I mean, we've supported President Uribe in Colombia for many, many years sort of across the board from a training perspective and other perspectives. And I'd stay away from -- the details of any additional support, except to applaud their success in terms of impacting significantly on the FARC in lots of ways.” Even if the U.S. had not been directly involved, the characteristic heavy-handed and unilateral response of the Bush administration has further damaged its image in the region.

The need to tackle terrorism has been acknowledged by the other Latin American Republics, but the U.S. and Colombian approach is not gaining them many friends in the region. The American Republics have long recognised threats posed by groups like FARC and have struggled to develop their own approach to dealing with them. Last month marked the 80th anniversary of the Convention on Duties and Rights of States in the Event of Civil Strife, which resulted from the Sixth International Conference of American States in Havana; Article 1 bound signatories to using all disposable means to prevent people and arms crossing borders from their territory for the purpose of starting or promoting civil strife. However, the sensitivity towards intervention has meant that these duties for states have been gradually refined to prevent the kind of transgression that Colombia has recently been found guilty of. Article 15 of the O.A.S. Charter established “[t]he right of each State to protect itself and to live its own life does not authorize it to commit unjust acts against another State.” Article 21 more generally declared that: “The territory of a State is inviolable; it may not be the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by another State, directly or indirectly, on any grounds whatever.”

In their attempts to maintain the O.A.S. as a body that could restrain U.S. power, it has left the Latin American Republics with difficulties in dealing with many transnational problems. Many would argue the futility of this approach, as the organisation has repeatedly failed to prevent U.S. intervention. To a large degree, this is true as it is only the U.S. that can enforce any regional law. But the Latin American Republics recognise that refusing to offer a legal mandate for intervention can at least make the U.S., even under the Bush administration, think carefully about its global image in repeatedly overstepping the boundaries of international law. This is perhaps why Latin American leaders have attempted to deal with transnational issues by turning more often to regional groupings that are outside of the O.A.S. and exclude the U.S. The Asociación Latinoamericana de Integración (ALADI) meets today to discuss further Latin American free trade agreements; such successes continue where the U.S. has failed. They will also be discussing measures for further Latin American conflict resolution mechanisms. In the context of the crisis it may be significant that Presidents Álvaro Uribe and Rafael Correa were able to begin work towards reconciliation outside of the O.A.S. They came together in the Dominican Republic for a scheduled Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Permanent Mechanism for Consultation and Political Coordination.

Established in 1986, this ‘Rio Group’ meeting in Santo Domingo last week offered another forum for consultation without U.S. presence. The meeting began with Correa asserting that Colombia’s actions set “a precedent that shouldn’t be repeated in any country.” In response, Uribe argued that Colombian actions were necessary as “[they had] not gotten cooperation from President Correa in the fight against terrorism.” But this hostility was soon dampened and it was Chávez who was ready to calm the situation. “We still have time to stop a whirlpool which we could regret,” the Venezuelan leader said. “Let’s stop this…. Let’s reflect, let’s be cool headed.” Uribe soon promised there would be no repeated violation of the non-intervention principle and apologised, to which Correa accepted and considered “this very serious incident resolved.” As Uribe vowed to work with his neighbours in the peace process with the FARC, Chávez also declared that the “path of peace” would bring an increase in trade between Venezuela and Colombia. Before the delegates signed the Declaration of Santo Domingo that pledged the commitment to the peaceful coexistence of the region, they applauded handshakes between Uribe, Correa and Chávez. “God bless Ecuador,” said Correa, “God bless Latin America.” They may be a way off finding all the answers yet, but maybe in excluding the U.S. and working together, the Latin American Republics can still establish a genuine solidarity and framework for dealing with their collective challenges.

Tensions in the Western Hemisphere

2008-03-04T07:00:00.000-08:00

Tensions in the Western Hemisphere

A year ago tomorrow, George Bush addressed the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce to lay out his administration’s vision for hemispheric policy. The Americas, Bush suggested, were “becoming a community linked by common values and shared interests in the close bonds of family and friendship.” The rising tensions in South America this week seem to reveal the kind of family feud that some of us are more accustomed to. Floundering attempts by both Venezuela and the U.S. to advance regional integration under their own leadership have led instead to the hardening of lines of demarcation. Contrary to earlier rhetoric of hemispheric unity, mounting hostilities are hardly surprising as both camps seek unity through positing the threat of the other.

After losing the constitutional referendum last December, Venezuelan President, Hugo Chávez has spent much of this year aiming verbal attacks at the U.S. At the 6th Summit of the Alternativa Bolivariana para las Américas (ALBA) Chávez proposed that the planned positive social and economic agenda be supported by a collective security agreement and integration of armed forces. The pretext was an ‘anti-imperialist’ alliance against their common enemy: “the empire of the United States.” The Chávez government has, of late, been even more vocal in his warnings about planned U.S. aggression. The Venezuelan Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicolás Maduro, recently said that the Bush administration “has not given up nor will give up trying to destabilize our country and return us to the position of oil dependent colony.” For those doubting any direct action from “the U.S. empire”, Chávez argued that it “is creating the conditions to generate an armed conflict between Colombia and Venezuela.” Chávez has branded Colombia a ‘terrorist state’ and its President Álvaro Uribe a ‘criminal’, but there is no doubt in his mind that Colombia, as the ‘Israel of Latin America’, is clearly an American proxy. Whether from the U.S. or Colombia, he declared that the ‘anti-imperialist’ alliance would unite and resist any aggression.

So when the Fuerzas Militares de Colombia launched a strike within the territory of Ecuador that killed a number of Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) rebels, including the prominent leader Raúl Reyes, the rallying calls of the alliance have been sounded. The President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, was quick to denounce the attack and after rejecting the Colombian justification, he expelled the Colombian Ambassador from Quito and deployed troops to the border. The principle of non-intervention has long roots in the Western Hemisphere and the denuciation of the Colombian violation was echoed by Correa’s allies, but this has also offered Chávez an opportunity to reinforce the solidarity of the ‘left-alliance’. Sharing Fidel Castro’s blaming of the incursion on the “genocidal plans of the Yankee empire,” Chávez promptly closed the Venezuelan embassy in Bogotá, severed diplomatic relations with Colombia and moved troops to the border. The construction of the ideal Bolivarian regional identity has proven to be difficult of late, particularly as most of these American Republics in the alliance rely so heavily on maintaining economic ties with the ‘criminal’ Colombia and ‘imperial’ U.S., but Chávez has smartly argued that it has only been undermined by Colombian and U.S. aggression. Chávez draws the chains of equivalence between the allies through their common opposition to this hostile threat.

The Bush administration has remained quiet on the recent tensions and it is left to speculation about how much it was involved in or had knowledge of the latest operation against FARC, but it has certainly not been a positive force for regional unity. After its disastrous failure to pass the Free Trade Area of the Americas and in the face of an alternative vision for the region, the Bush administration has quietly abandoned any strategy to encourage hemispheric solidarity under its leadership. The projection of a united hemisphere with common aims has become increasingly harder to maintain and the Bush administration has instead focused on building its own regional alliance system. Despite the rhetoric of commonanity, Bush’s address last year preceded a tour to five regional allies, including Colombia, that would serve as a foundation for developing ‘special-relationships.’ In the ensuing year, the administration has focused its hemispheric resources on a development programme based on bilateral free trade agreements with these key allies. The Bush administration continues to adopt a hemispheric discourse, but it, like Chávez, has begun breaking it down with positive reinforcements of the democratic and progressive nature of allies like Colombia that is contrary to that of the ‘troublesome’ neighbours.

The Bush administration has worked through its public diplomacy to avoid making too many of the negative associations to the opposing coalition in Latin America. But it is becoming gradually more difficult to maintain their self-portrayal as benign collaborator. If the regional divide widens, the U.S. has already made it clear which side it stands on and will have to find suitable justification. Exactly 60 years ago the U.S. faced similar regional conflict; the Secretary of State George C. Marshall hoped to maintain a hemispheric unity and stability that would allow him to concentrate U.S. resources on the Cold War priority area of Europe. The Central American dictators, Anastosio Somoza of Nicaragua and Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, hoped that they would gain U.S. support in their clash with progressive American Republics, who were hostile to their repressive regimes, by trying to establish links between their foes and Communism. Whilst the rising tide of revolution in Latin America led later U.S. administrations to accept similar explanations of the barrier to hemispheric unity, Marshall rejected the specter of international Communism. Today, the Uribe government is presenting Chávez and Correa’s links to ‘terrorism’. Do not look to the Bush administration for any clarity.

"Change, Change, Change!"? Cuba and the United States

2008-02-26T07:00:00.000-08:00

“Change, Change, Change!”? Cuba and the United States

After stepping down from the Cuban Presidency, Fidel Castro dedicated his first public message to the U.S. reaction to his decision. He told the Cuban people that he only heard demands of “Change, change, change!” from the U.S. presidential candidates. Castro reaffirmed however, that “Cuba changed a long while ago” and resolutely asserted that it was the Americans who must change. Numerous newspaper column inches have been dedicated to the question of change in recent days. As we turn to monitor governmental change in Pakistan, Russia and Taiwan for signs of international tension, the question remains of whether Raúl Castro’s appointment to the Cuban Presidency will constitute any real cambio in Cuba or the U.S. It may not be as simple to answer as many suggest.

The Bush administration is certainly making its case that Fidel Castro’s decision to stand down “represents a change in name only.” The deputy State Department spokesman, Tom Casey, stressed, “The changing of the guard is not significant of and by itself.” The change would only be significant if it led “ultimately to a democratic transition.” Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has also made a public appeal for Cuba “to begin a process of peaceful, democratic change.” The end result of this change must be a release of all political prisoners, a respect for human rights and a pathway towards ‘free and fair’ elections. Surely then, it is clear that the U.S. government does not see any change in Cuba. If we look closer though, the Bush administration is not so certain. The immediate reaction to Fidel Castro’s decision to stand down was made by Bush himself. Speaking on his tour of Africa, he said that he viewed this “as a period of transition.” Yes, a transition that ought to lead to ‘free and fair’ elections (and he “means free and fair” – for those unsure about what he does actually mean, they may wish to look up his father’s definition in the 1990 Nicaraguan election), but a ‘transition’ nonetheless. So what? Is this just another case of Bush finding the wrong words in a press briefing? If Cuba has not yet experienced democratic change, does it matter if this period is called transition? For competing interests in the U.S., (which we will come to shortly) their government’s position on Cuba is of vital significance.

Surely the Bush administration’s appointed Cuba Transition Coordinator could clear this kind of question up? We have not heard any public statements from Caleb McCarry for some time however. Funded by the Bush administration, maybe the Cuba Transition Project has the answers? No official response to the accession of Raúl has yet been made, but the projections made shortly before Fidel’s resignation are far from decisive. Leaving aside their prediction that Raúl would not run for the Presidency, they suggest that there will be little change from the way Cuba has been run up to now...unless there is a significant discontinuity. Mmm. What is made clear however, is that Raúl’s leadership is a succession of power and a continuation of the “Castro brothers’ dictatorship” rather than change. Raúl is expected to only make limited symbolic economic and democratic changes until the death of Fidel, when he will be under pressure to make changes, particularly to improve living conditions. The Cuba Transition Project forecasts that whilst Raúl will not succeed in delivering such change, Cuba will not collapse after Fidel. Yet we are in a transition, they claim, which will be “slow and difficult.” A protracted period of ‘transition’ in Cuba, without the realisation of the benchmarks of ‘change’ is problematic for American policymakers, who are under pressure from different interest groups.

Those Cubans living 90 miles off the island in Miami have eagerly awaited their opportunity to return. Primarily through the Cuban American National Foundation, they have made no secret of their desire for a more active U.S. policy to ‘liberate’ the island. However, they have had to sit out successive administrations’ containment policy, all the while expectant that their adopted country would act after the demise of Fidel. With growing international support, particularly from the likes of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, it is unlikely that Raúl will quickly lose control of Cuba. Noone in Miami will find it easy to remain patient with an ineffective U.S. embargo as they look across the water at what they see as ‘Fidel lite’. The anti-Castro Cuban American population have vocal support from Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Congress, but for all the rhetoric of liberation, neither the Bush administration nor any successor will take further unilateral action lightly, particularly considering its already precarious position in hemispheric and global opinion. Persuading the international community for a hard-line multilateral approach will be a demanding, if not impossible task. With this in mind, the anti-Castro Cuban Americans and their supporters will have difficulty even in maintaining the status quo and justifying the continuation of the embargo. It is not just Fidel who is calling for a change in U.S. policy.

Many in the business community, particularly the agricultural sector, have called for a different approach to Cuba. Why adopt a policy of engagement with the likes of China and Vietnam they ask, but reject a similar policy for Cuba? Prominent Democrat and Republican legislators have long asked similar questions. The embargo’s failure to bring desired change in Cuba has meant that these groups, like the Cuban Americans, have awaited the departure of Castro as an opportunity to transform policy. Under pressure from powerful business interests, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez, has previously intimated that the situation would change after Castro. On point for the Bush administration in Latin America, the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Thomas Shannon, has gone to great lengths in the past few months to demonstrate that democracy and development are mutually supportive. He is under increasing pressure to explain why this logic cannot be extended to use economic development to bring democracy to Cuba.

Gutierrez, also the Co-Chair of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, has had to explain the reasons not to adopt a similar approach to Cuba as China. Gutierrez maintains that the embargo is a bargaining tool to extract favourable conditions from a Cuban government that is willing to talk. If the Cubans remain unwilling to make the necessary changes in the foreseeable future however, it is difficult to see the use in the embargo. Whilst they wait, they are left the task of defending the embargo whilst trying to persuade a critical international community to join their condemnation of the Cuban government. It walks a fine line however, when it tries to conjure up such denunciation, whilst simultaneously maintaining a need for an approach that differs from policy towards other criticised regimes.

The difference in policy, Gutierrez has claimed, is due to a difference in the Chinese and Cuban economies. The Cuban people had no opportunity to make a life for themselves, whilst “what you see in China today is a vibrant, entrepreneurial culture where people are free to improve their own lives.” Business and agricultural interests, as well as wider supporters, have argued that it is precisely a policy of economic engagement with Cuba that would bring about these market reforms. Gutierrez and the Bush administration have quickly turned to other avenues to stave off these reformists. How could the U.S. change its policy without Cuba committing itself to political change?

Reacting to the news of Fidel’s resignation, Gutierrez demanded that the Cuban people be granted the same rights as people in the other American Republics: “free elections, a free press, the right of workers to organise, independent political parties, freedom of speech and democratic institutions.” It is difficult to see how this can be an argument for why the U.S. follows a different policy towards Cuba than it does towards China. Indeed, Gutierrez has had to admit that China remains far from a “100 percent free society.” Yet, whilst the Bush administration has ignored the human rights question in economic relations with China, Gutierrez has repeatedly asked in regards to international response to Cuban human rights abuses: “Where is the outrage?” Gutierrez has gone to great effort to draw attention to Cuba’s treatment of Afro-Cubans and even the labour conditions of Cuban workers. The claims look tenuous not only in the parallels with China, but also when Gutierrez simultaneously extols the conditions in Colombia. Despite persistent reports of labour abuses, he claims that Colombia can provide a shining example to the world of how American engagement can improve living conditions. He paints a pretty picture. It is amazing, he claims, that kids are now playing in the streets. This is certainly a case to question the claims of the business community that economic engagement will bring political and social freedoms, but it also demonstrates the lack of consistency within the Bush administration.

For those still unconvinced of the political reasons not to deal with Cuba, Gutierrez draws the chains of equivalence between Cuba and Burma. His confusion about why the international community is selective in its condemnations is valid to an extent, but the Bush administration’s own logics of difference are hardly constructive. Gutierrez goes as far as to claim that Cuba will one day have a similar experience to Khrushchev’s speech to the 20th Party Congress and the true horrors of the Castro regime will be discovered. Incidentally, these are sentiments echoed by the notorious Otto Reich. In the meantime, the U.S. must do a better job at exposing the crimes of the regime. Furthermore, the U.S. must destroy the myths of the success of the Cuban Revolution. If the comparison to Stalinist Russia is not enough for you, then Reich will certainly convince you with his critique of the Cuban health system, which should not be considered a success due to the declining intake of protein that has led to smaller Cubans!

In all seriousness, after trying to draw as many dualistic parallels between Cuba and other global evils, the Bush administration is still left to explain why Cuban policy deserves different treatment. In the end, Gutierrez (and the likes of Otto Reich) argue that Cuba, unlike China and Vietnam, is led by anti-Americans. Why should the U.S. follow the China model in Cuba, both ask, when Cuba is a self-proclaimed enemy of the U.S.? Furthermore, to draw the ultimate dualistic framework, Gutierrez has to remind us that Cuba is an anti-American terrorist state. Few informed observers will accept this dualistic analysis. U.S. trade with an adversarial Venezuela continues to thrive and the State Department’s designation of Cuban terrorism is sketchy: guilt by association at best and guilt by silence at worst.

The Bush administration’s policy of isolating and attacking its enemies has been questioned by, amongst others, presidential candidate Barack Obama. This policy has only diminished U.S. influence in areas of vital importance. A closer look at Obama’s comments shows however, that he wishes to see some democratic transition in Cuba before any meaningful change in U.S. policy. The Bush administration remains even more steadfast that it will not change until Cuba does. The other presidential candidates have not suggested anything different. The problem for the Bush administration and the next occupant of the White House is that whilst they wait for this change in Cuba, they face domestic pressure for change from different directions. The dubious parallels and differences that have been drawn up are constantly exposed as the policymakers skirt the political tightrope between opposing powerful political interests. Cuba still needs to change they claim, but under pressure from domestic interests growing impatient with the current containment policy, they maintain that transition is already under way and they only have to wait a little longer. Concluding a speech in Miami a few months ago, Gutierrez implored his audience to persevere with the embargo. In Cuba, he stressed, “change has already started. It is inevitable.” The U.S. should not change, he asserts and everyone must “recognise that change has started” in Cuba. “The day is coming,” he closes, but you get the impression that this is a prayer rather than a prediction.

Disrupting Reality: Images and the American Media

2008-02-19T07:00:00.000-08:00

Disrupting Reality: Images and the American Media

Images are powerful. The American mainstream media, particularly in its post-9/11 coverage, projects images into homes and personal technology that deliberately attempt to provoke fear and anxiety of the ‘Other’. Their mediated ‘reality’ is all too often one that maintains a dualistic framework of ‘us’ and ‘them’. Every now and then however, unavoidable news stories break, which circulate images that disrupt this duality and undermine the comfort of ‘reality’. Many Americans who may find the news generally ‘too depressing’ can discover that the Real world is far more traumatic. However, reactions to these shocking images vary between individuals.

The graphic images of Iraqi civilian deaths at the hands of American soldiers have been suspiciously absent in the mainstream media. The general focus is on the casualties of enemy terrorist attacks, which serves to confirm public fears. These shocking attacks of the enemy are also constantly reemphasised in contrast to the noble wartime actions of American forces. The images at Abu Ghraib, once exposed, were a shocking reminder to the American public that there is no clear line of demarcation between ‘us’ and ‘them’. The Bush administration was quick to make it clear that the Abu Ghraib abuses were isolated cases of a few rogue soldiers or ‘rotten apples’. In his apology to the King of Jordan, Bush assured him that “Americans like him didn’t appreciate what he saw.” A number of widespread abuses had already been reported by international non-government organisations, but these particular images, once in the public realm, were unavoidable and embarrassing. Many questioned the symbolic ‘reality’ they were faced with, but for others the natural reaction was to defend against such trauma of the Real.

Slavoj Žižek argued that despite the general shock and distress of the Abu Ghraib images, this was more due to the public exposure of “the disavowed beliefs, suppositions, and obscene practices [they] pretend not to know about.” Many Americans like Bush may not have appreciated what they saw, but they were all too willing to accept the official explanations that would allow them to return to the comfort of ‘reality’ where the balance of right and wrong was restored. [In late 1999, the notorious political punk band, NOFX, moving away from their typical sub-two minute songs, released an 18 minute EP that recorded their take on the decline of American society and their concerns about rising complacency and indifference. The lyrics have always stuck in my mind and they are particularly evocative in this context:
“Don’t think. Drink your wine. Watch the fire burn. His problems not mine. Just be that model citizen.... And so we go on with our lives. We know the truth, but prefer lies. Lies are simple. Simple is bliss.”]

This week the widespread dissemination of undercover video footage of the abuse of cattle has again introduced Americans to the traumatic Real. The concerns for human safety after Westland Meat Company (Hallmark Meat Packing) of California recalled nearly 65 million kilograms of beef have ensured that this story has dominated the news. The Humane Society of the United States’ exposure of Westland/Hallmark’s practice of slaughtering ‘downed’ cattle has provoked fears that these animals, with their weakened immune systems and prolonged contact with faeces that make them more vulnerable to a number of contaminations, including bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE – ‘mad cow disease’), have put many Americans, particularly children, at risk. The images that accompanied the story however, again serve to remind of the embarrassing Real of what it takes to have ‘food’ served on plates. Undoubtedly for some, especially children, this is a previously unimaginable idea – shielded from the harsh Real of intense industrial farming. For many ‘decent citizens’ however, the insatiable demand for comfortable living and security too often leads to burying the horrors undertaken in their name.

There are still bastions of hope. Looking back, many now regard the protest marches against the Iraq War that occurred globally five years ago as futile, but few regret the opportunity to make the collective statement: “Not in our name.” The images were powerful and undermined the official ‘reality’ that numerous governments attempted to project. I have received plenty of derision for different boycotts undertaken, but it is rarely the case that such action is expected to attain instant success. The chance to declare ‘not in my name’ is important, but once in the public realm it is something that others have to face and decide whether they want to rethink their own framework or attempt to reconcile it with these embarrassing facts. This is by no means an American ignominy, everyone is guilty. It often takes the activist organisations and journalists to hold the ‘mirror’ up that will prompt the necessary questions. There is a long history of human and animal rights groups in the U.S. that have sought to offer alternative explanations to the shocking images that create gaps in perceived ‘reality’.

For all of the images of Abu Ghraib prisoners stripped and forced to act as animals, the ‘de-humanisation’ was not enough to remove the clear depiction of suffering. The revelation that ‘we’ are not all good may be disturbing, but the knowledge that ‘they’ are not altogether unlike us is far more traumatic. Activists have had some success in forcing wider publics to confront human suffering that guarantees our lifestyles – I have certainly experienced less shock to certain facts about U.S. foreign policy. The Bush administration has provoked many students to acquaint themselves with an alternative American history. Yet I still manage to be the subject of derision for being a vegan! I am rarely messianic, but I suspect the abuse, even from very liberal friends and colleagues, is more due to the embarrassing and ‘inconvenient truth’ that they attempt to reconcile. From personal knowledge, I know that few will appreciate the equivalence of human and non-human sentient beings. I personally will not tolerate any killing in my name, but I think the words of Jeremy Bentham’s Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, which are displayed proudly on a lentil jar in my kitchen (laugh away) are more widely pertinent: “The question is not, Can they reason? Nor, Can they talk? But, Can they suffer?”

Žižek examined the Bush administration’s explanations that Abu Ghraib prisoners had forfeited their rights, as they had been targets of ‘legitimate’ U.S. bombings and had escaped death. This did not prevent the uneasiness of watching images of suffering. Similarly, everyone knows that animals bred for food have been ‘legitimately’ targeted, but the images of suffering remind us that we have a fundamental commonality with these sentient beings. Like Abu Ghraib, the official explanations have already been presented. The Secretary of Agriculture, Ed Schafer, has expressed his “dismay” of the “inhumane handling of cattle” at Westland/Hallmark, but his Department’s Food Safety and Inspection Service was quick to state its belief that this was “an isolated incident of egregious violations to humane handling requirements.” Activists will be ready to give you an alternative account.

You all know where to go for alternative U.S. foreign policy. Try petatv.com for something different or if you are feeling brave:

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?detectqt=false&video=agri_short&Player=qt

WARNING – The images are graphic. You may wish instead to pour another glass of wine and throw another log on the fire.

One (Universal) America in 2009? John McCain and Fragmented Globalism

2008-02-12T07:00:00.000-08:00

One (Universal) America in 2009? John McCain and Fragmented Globalism

“Our next president will need to rally nations across the world around common causes as only America can.” The message in the 2008 presidential campaigns has been clear – the U.S. must regain the global leadership that Bush has squandered. International consent for U.S. foreign policy and appeals to global hearts and minds must replace the current administration’s unilateralism and employment of raw military power. This is not just a Democrat maneuver for political capital; such is the unpopularity of Bush’s foreign policy that the above message is also of the assumed GOP candidate, John McCain. However, the Republican Senator’s vision for rallying the world’s nations is no reclaim of an End of History. The common cause(s) are plural and will not be globally shared. Instead the U.S. will endeavour to lead different coalitions in a fragmented world.

The Bush administration's pursuit of unilateral power has undoubtedly damaged America's position in the world. It has not only failed to achieve its objective of total unipolarity, but has also undermined key relations with allies and provoked adversaries into renewed challenges that make this goal even more unattainable. The challenge for the next administration will be to move away from this reliance on military power and attempt to rebuild moral support for U.S. leadership. The Democrats have long recognised the domestic and international backlash against the Bush administration's foreign policy and the presidential candidates have recently expressed the need to assure cooperation and support for future policy. The warm welcoming of these ideas at home and abroad, led Hillary Clinton to confidently state that: “The era of cowboy diplomacy is over.”

Republicans have not been blind to this political fact either. In a recent Foreign Affairs article, “An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom,” John McCain acknowledged the shortcomings of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the need for change. “America needs a president,” McCain asserted, “who can revitalize our country's purpose and standing in the world, defeat terrorist adversaries who threaten liberty at home and abroad, and build enduring peace.” The implicit message was that the incumbent President had failed in all of these tasks. Democrats will cast doubt on the prospects for change under another Republican, particularly one who is in favour of continuing the war in Iraq. To be fair to McCain though, he has not always been the flavour of the month in the White House in the past few years and lest we forget, he was Bush’s defeated opponent in the 2000 race for the Republican presidential nomination. More significantly, his overall foreign policy vision is little different to those of his hopeful Democrat opponents.

Bush's militarisation has undermined American hegemony, but through a reorientation towards the latter, a familiar foreign policy tension is already threatening to re-emerge. In order to build “a peace that will last a century,” McCain has already promised “to lead America and the world to victory.” The question of who the world will achieve victory over is unclear though. Some may not rule out an Independence Day-style alien invasion, but this is more likely a simple extension of particular American objectives into universal ones. However, McCain nor any other President will ever gain global acceptance of the idea that the particular American cause is none other than the universal cause of all mankind. The gradual fading of American strength will only make it increasingly more difficult to reconcile the tension between particular and universal interests. Nonetheless, McCain sets himself the challenge of restoring the faith in American defence of universal interests and ideals that have been undermined by Bush's pursuit of narrow self-interest.

The U.S. is far from building enough power and influence to claim a global unipolarity; the continuing existence of America’s “terrorist adversaries” is evidence enough of this fact. As McCain's construction of the universal already contains its own negation, it follows that immediate prospects of a universal will still have to contain a number of clashing particularisms. For McCain, like many other Republicans who remain skeptical of the utility of the U.N., the impossibility of a true globalism leads him to champion U.S. hegemony is a number of more limited and overlapping spheres. Acknowledging the true contingency in American universalism, McCain first prioritises U.S. hegemonic leadership of a united group of the world's democracies. Establishing the American leadership of a league of 'like-minded' countries will be necessary to achieve an enduring peace through defeating those threats who remain outside the American sphere. Few people needed persuading of the flaws in the restatement of Bush's dualistic vision of U.S. leadership of the 'Free World'. Asides from the problematic charactarisation of the 'enemy' threat of 'rogue nations' like Iran and the 'terrorists' in the continuing war on terror, the task of consolidating American hegemony in the 'Free World' is far from an easy one. Whilst many 'democracies' remain suspicious of U.S. power and motives, this does not just apply to those countries where the U.S. remains skeptical of their democratic credentials, but also extends to many of the major allies across the world.

The growing power of many allies in the 'Free World' will make it more difficult for the U.S. to attain their cooperation. The recognition of this inherent challenge leads McCain to the conclusion that the U.S. must in fact attempt to build hegemonic leadership of a number of more limited regional alliances. This will not only deter the rise of any regional powers to challenge U.S. influence, but will also offer flexibility to build coalitions of interested partners without relying on allies that have little self-interest in 'out-of theatre' situations. In the Western Hemisphere, McCain advocates improving recently strained relationships in order to rebuild long-standing U.S. hegemony. Reinforcing the Organization of American States and cooperation with 'natural partners' are regarded as an essential counterbalance to Havana and Caracas. Similarly in Asia, the threat of North Korea and China necessitates more cooperation and a new security partnership amongst the major Asia-Pacific democracies. To deal with the mounting Russian challenge, McCain recommends a new G-8 organisation of market democracies that introduces Brazil and India, whilst excluding Russia. Former Secretary of State John Foster Dulles would be proud of McCain's penchant for regional coalitions.

McCain's top priority however, is to revitalise the transatlantic partnership. A cooperative relationship will be vital for U.S. global hegemony, but it has been strained in recent activities, such as NATO missions in Afghanistan. The Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, has warned this week that the NATO alliance is being jeopardised by European unwillingness to participate in combat operations in Afghanistan. “Some allies ought not to have the luxury of opting only for stability and civilian operations, thus forcing other allies to bear a disproportionate share of the fighting and dying,” Gates declared. The problem is that many European governments simply do not share all U.S. strategic objectives. Gates has made it clear that the objective in Afghanistan is to defeat an Islamic extremism or ‘al-Qaida-ism’ that, like communism before it, threatened Western security. Prominent European allies, such Germany, are not so narrowly focused. Yet Gates feels that the whole transatlantic alliance depends upon its performance in achieving the U.S. strategic objective. McCain will need to rethink any approach that asks Europe to carry a heavier burden for an objective defined in Washington.

Yet there is a logic behind Gates request for more hard military involvement from European allies that McCain will find difficult to escape from. Whilst there is still a war to be won, many in the field have already recognised the need for more emphasis on 'unconventional warfare'. An improvement in American image necessary for rebuilding global hegemony will require extending the scope of the U.S. military capabilities to winning 'hearts and minds'. At the moment these tasks are generaly falling to American allies. The U.S. Army has revealed plans this week to change this by adopting a revised field operations manual later in the month. At the core of this new manual will be the doctrine of 'full spectrum operations', which call for the ability for simultaneous involvement in high-intensity offensive and defensive operations, as well as new focus on nation-building and 'stabilisation'. In the first major amendment of operational guidelines since the onset of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the objective of winning 'hearts and minds' is elevated to similar levels of priority as militarily defeating the 'enemy'. Lieutenant General William Caldwell stated that: “The U.S. Army might win every battle it fought without achieving its real goal – winning the peace.” Such lessons are at the heart of McCain's Foreign Affairs article, but it is doubtful that the U.S. can now persuade all international partners to adopt their own wider military role towards this objective of peace.

Nonetheless, McCain's plans to rebuild American hegemony will depend on reorienting U.S. strategy. Reestablishing American moral credibility, according to McCain, will be more powerful than any show of arms. If the U.S. faces difficulties in persuading allies that it does not only act for narrow self-interest, then it must also act in areas such as Africa. It is probably unfair to question McCain's sincerity to save lives, but he is well aware that such action would “add luster to America's image in the world.” To restore the positive image of the U.S. abroad will also require a more active promotion of America's message across the world. Like Truman and other predecessors, as President McCain would call for more explanation of the idealism driving American policies. The first course of action would be the re-establishment of the U.S. Information Agency to disseminate the propaganda that links U.S. interests to the cause of mankind.

There is not just the task of establishing this link abroad however. McCain also recognises that U.S. hegemony will rely on the willingness of the American people to support an internationalist foreign policy. Many are beginning to question the benefits of such an approach when the domestic economic situation is floundering and they only seem to be generating antipathy. It is the Bush administration’s betrayal of American ‘purpose’ that McCain suggests as an answer for those at home who are still asking “why do they hate us?” This is no ‘Secret Speech’ denunciation, but rather an attempt to redefine the domestic understanding of America’s role in the world to maintain support for internationalism. There is nothing original in this appeal; this has long been a terrain of struggle to define U.S. foreign policy. It is interesting the McCain introduces and concludes his essay with the arch-adversaries Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. McCain adopts Jefferson's own reconciliation of American pursuit of power and American purpose - a “unique form of leadership” that is “the antithesis of empire” – an Empire of Liberty.

McCain’s reminder that the U.S. “was created for a purpose” evokes the idea in many Americans that their relations with the rest of the world are mediated by a third higher force. Under the watch of a Lacanian ‘big Other’ – their ‘Creator’ - the American people undertake their duty to spread their 'benign influence'. The Bush administration has failed to convince the American people that its foreign policy lives up to this responsibility, but it will not necessarily restrict its successor. Painting the sign of the ‘Creator’ on their shield could unshackle the next President. McCain will need however, to persuade the American people that his foreign policy approach will not only serve their interests, but also of History, fate, destiny, a ‘greater cause’, or even Divine Providence. To those looking in from the outside, McCain's reassurance of the American people that internationalism will promote their own values and interests only confirms the ultimate particularism in the universal project. This is an American project - cooperation or not. McCain concludes that he is ‘ready’ to lead the U.S. and the world in common causes. However, not everyone in the U.S. and the world are ‘ready’ to follow.

Uno Américas en 2009: El Súper Martes

2008-02-05T07:00:00.000-08:00

Uno Américas en 2009: El Súper Martes

Super (Duper) Tuesday has finally arrived! No virtual corner can be turned on the internet without encountering journalists, pollsters, pundits or bloggers offering their unique predictions on the voting intentions of one key demographic or another. As the Democratic race remains close going in to today’s votes, many of the ‘experts’ who have closely scrutinised the ‘black’ and ‘female’ votes are now turning to the ‘Hispanic vote’ as a crucial determinant in deciding results. Some of this coverage is not only off beam, but reveals some of the general ignorance that pervades the media. The persistence of such ignorance will likely prove a significant barrier to improved hemispheric relations in 2009.

In yesterday’s Guardian, journalist Nick Davies accused the news media of “recycling ignorance”. Journalists were never perfect, Davies argues, but the demand to produce, on average, three times more content in recent years than in past has meant even less time to check the quality of their work. The upshot is that journalists have become “mere passive processors of unchecked, second-hand material,” which has in turn led to widespread dissemination of distorted information. Perhaps journalists should not be singled out; I have had the (dis)pleasure to work in a number of think-tanks, where fact-checking is far from a priority for some of the ‘leading policy thinkers’. All too often, their ‘expert’ testimonies to the press are simply regurgitations of opinion they had read in other newspapers. The (re)cycle of ignorance is complete. With increasingly busy schedules, the temptation to scrimp on quality control can sometimes be too much even for academics, but, in general, critically assessing data is bread and butter for most and a passion for some. In the 24-hour media world, the journalist’s thirst for a quick new angle or soundbyte that can stretch a story for a few more column-inches or screen-time minutes means that they can no longer, as Davies concludes, always be regarded as a reliable source of information.

So how then, should we regard media coverage of the ‘Hispanic vote’? With considerable caution is the answer. This is not to say that is unimportant. Although Latinos are estimated to be around 10% of the entire electorate, their concentration in some of the key battleground states has added to their authority. The decisions of states like California and New York, with a number of delegates on offer, to bring their primaries forward to Super Tuesday has led to numerous forecasts that their large Latino population will have an important role in a tight Democratic race. If it were not for the failure of bills introduced to the Texas legislature to add to the front-loading then this influence may have been stronger. As the Obama campaign’s national field director, Temo Figueroa stated: “Latinos have never had this amount of attention in a primary or played this important a role before.” The candidates have certainly not ignored this fact as both Obama and Clinton have attempted to attract important votes. The media has been left to forecast the results of these endeavours. Forecasts are, by their very nature, bound to be wrong sometimes. 60 years ago the Chicago Daily Tribune famously published the headline of the 1948 election, “Dewey Defeats Truman”. However, the typical media coverage of a homogenous ‘Hispanic vote’ has been of the careless nature that Davies warns of. Studying any social group in mutually exclusive terms is always going to be problematic, but this is is somewhere between lazy and professionally negligent.

A few months after Truman’s election victory, the New York Times described the American public’s general ignorance of their Southern neighbours. Unawareness of the geography of the region was matched by a lack of understanding of the diversity of its population (see accompanying picture below). The depiction of the Latin American, to all intents and purpose, as a monolithic ‘Other’ could only only impede broader plans to improve inter-American relations. It is now the contemporary media with its representation of the Latino in the U.S. that is building barriers to better mutual understanding. There are certainly some binding factors in the U.S. Latino population that can draw similarities, but the idea that a poor Dominican woman in New York shares analogous election priorities as a rich Salvadoran man in California, a young third-generation Mexican immigrant in Texas, or an old Cuban exile in Florida is nonsensical. Yet vast swathes of media coverage continue to pursue Hispanic voting intentions. Anticipation is currently focused on the endorsement decision of Bill Richardson, the Governor of New Mexico (and withdrawn presidential candidate). No doubt Richardson will have some influence with many Latinos, but as he himself suggests, his endorsement will not deliver the ‘Hispanic community’. Many journalists in the U.S. and the U.K. have also been willing to stick their neck out and enlighten us to what issues will determine the (homogenous) ‘Hispanic vote’. The Financial Times shrewdly asserted that the “slowing U.S. economy” is a key concern for Latinos! Fantastic analysis.

More disconcerting has been the focus on race. Recent polling data has suggested that Clinton retains a majority over Obama with the overall Latino vote, but the decision of many in the media to run with the idea of race in this issue is a false start. The New York Times turns villain in a piece arguing that Obama “confronts a history of often uneasy and competitive relations between blacks and Hispanics.” A discussion about variations between migrants (and their descendants) with different national origins is one thing, but comparing ‘black’ and ‘Hispanic’? Even a journalist without good sense would not be too troubled to check with the U.S. Census Bureau that race and Hispanic origin are two different concepts. The terms “Hispanic or Latino” officially refer to geographical origin of Latin America and anyone who has a small appreciation of the region would know of the diversity in race and background. Perhaps these reports can be traced back to the imprudent comments of Clinton pollster, Sergion Bendixen, who suggested that “the Hispanic voter—and I want to say this very carefully—has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.” Surely however, the role of the media is, as Davies argues, to filter out such falsehoods. The pursuit of a more genuine hemispheric unity in 2009 will only be made more difficult by such simple ignorance. ‘One Americas’ will only be established by addressing many difficult issues and material inequalities, but without the foundations of respect and understanding of Latin American neighbours there will be little hope for any sincere engagement. For this reason, the regional integration project will likely take on an increasingly Latin flavour in the near future. The more considerate dialogue developing south of the Río Bravo del Norte may yet lead to more meaningful discussions of ‘Uno Américas’. As to the question of which presidential candidate those Latinos residing in the U.S. consider to be best able to look after their future – that just depends on which one you talk to.

One America(s) in 2009? The Bush Legacy

2008-01-29T07:00:00.000-08:00

One America(s) in 2009? The Bush Legacy

After hailing 2007 as the “year of engagement” with the Americas, the Bush administration this week claimed that 2008 will be a “year of partnership”. If the hemispheric agenda that President Bush promoted during last year’s visits to key regional allies was representative of ‘engagement’ however, then we should not expect much ‘partnership’ in the coming year. In fact, the plans for 2008 look set only to reinforce divisions that are emerging in the Western Hemisphere. The Bush administration will leave a momentous task of rebuilding regional unity for its successor in 2009.

The Bush administration has revealed two major objectives in Latin America for 2008. Neither is particularly original nor surprising. Firstly, it seeks to preserve its predominant position of influence in the region. The four pillars of it’s policy – consolidate democracy, promote prosperity, invest in people, and protect the security of democratic states – are, as the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Thomas A. Shannon affirmed, ways to maintain such influence. The hegemonic project has been far from a complete success. The inevitable resistance to American influence has developed to a degree that threatens a fundamental schism in the region. Rather than concentrating efforts on enticing adversaries back into its orbit, the lack of an immediate contender to U.S. regional leadership has led the Bush administration to focus resources on key allies. Bush’s March 2007 tour was restricted to these ‘key allies’ and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice appears to be furthering these links in 2008 with follow-up visits. Despite continued rhetoric about hemispheric solidarity, this partial campaign has only facilitated the division in differing ‘ways of life’. Rice stated this week that the President had “a positive agenda for each and every one of our allies.” The aim is to demonstrate the benefits of cooperation with the U.S., but the choice of the likes of Colombia and Guatemala as exemplar allies shows that the Bush administration has again destroyed American credibility by backing the wrong horses.

This cooperation with questionable allies has also destroyed any chance of success in pursuing its second hemispheric priority. U.S. relationships with regional partners are considered a fundamental part of global strategy. The Bush administration has sought to demonstrate the successful adoption of American models of government and development in Latin America that can serve as an example to the rest of the world. The “unique challenge” that Shannon identifies for the Bush administration is to “[cement the] linkage between democracy and development and [show] that democracy can indeed deliver the goods, but also that development can be democratic.” This objective is not only vital for the credibility of American influence in Latin America, but also in the wider world. Shannon expresses that so far, it is only in the Americas that such a challenge has been taken on. Meeting this particular challenge would be a springboard for the more difficult areas of the world where U.S. influence is waning. The Bush administration has learned the difficult lesson that coercive power is insufficient for maintaining global primacy. It has sought to reemphasise democracy, prosperity, development and security as the core of its global hegemonic project. However, its limited interpretation of these principles has not only undermined hemispheric plans, but as a result, it also threatens to derail global strategy.

The Bush administration has set about demonstrating how democracy can bring development by focusing on free trade agreements with democratically elected allies in Latin America. The current priority has been to secure passage through U.S. Congress of the negotiated Colombian Free Trade Agreement. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice took 10 key Democratic leaders to visit Colombia this week in an effort to bring the agreement to a vote. “The first priority,” Shannon noted of the visit, “is to win over Congress to the Colombian Free Trade Agreement.” The second, he continued, “is to demonstrate the role of Colombia in a broader strategic approach to the Americas.” Shannon highlighted the critical role that Colombia had in showing how a democratic state can deliver the goods of social and economic development. He hoped that it would provide a strategic platform to extend free trade agreements beyond the Western Hemisphere. The promotion of free trade has been at the core of the Bush administration’s approach to development and winning this intellectual battle has taken on regional and global significance. The Secretary of State for Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs, Daniel Sullivan, reiterated the oft-cited argument that the free trade agreements are a win-win situation. The battle is far from won though. The prioritisation of economic growth has yet to demonstrate an ability to deal with the wider Latin America agenda of tackling poverty and extreme inequality. The U.S. Agency for International Development recognises that 80% of the Colombia’s rural population lives below the poverty line. Measures in the Free Trade Agreement however, such as the deregulation of American investments and increased dumping of surplus American agricultural produce, are only likely to exacerbate the situation for rural dwellers. Such concerns have led many to question the Bush administration’s ‘everybody wins’ argument and accuse it of pursuing its own economic interests.

Nonetheless, whilst the administration has repeatedly stressed that this engagement will bring economic benefits to Colombia, it has also been eager to suggest that it will also enhance democracy. Shannon noted that the administration is working with partners in the region to consolidate common political values, such as “democracy, respect for human rights, and open societies.” Rice was quick to declare that Colombia is one of the U.S.’ “strongest allies in this critical region,” but many Democrats in Congress have found Colombian President Uribe’s efforts to consolidate “common values” to be inadequate. The Democratic leadership in Congress continues to oppose the Free Trade Agreement, whilst Colombian “democracy” does not extend to guarantees of basic human rights and continues to uphold impunity for many paramilitary abusers. Human Rights Watch continues to warn of the highest global rate of trade unionist killings under the Uribe government. Even the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor reported last year on a number of Colombian government human rights abuses: unlawful and extrajudicial killings; forced disappearances; insubordinate military collaboration with criminal groups; torture and mistreatment of detainees; overcrowded and insecure prisons; arbitrary arrest; high number of pretrial detainees some of whom were held with convicted prisoners; impunity; an inefficient judiciary subject to intimidation; harassment and intimidation of journalists; unhygienic conditions at settlements for displaced persons, with limited access to health care, education, or employment; corruption; harassment of human rights groups; violence against women, including rape; child abuse and child prostitution; trafficking in women and children for the purpose of sexual exploitation; societal discrimination against women, indigenous persons, and minorities; and illegal child labor.

Yet Secretary Rice asserts that Colombia has “transformed itself.” Further economic engagement, she argues, gives the U.S. an opportunity to talk with a democratically elected ally that is “trying to do the right thing.” In response to accusation of Colombian paramilitary abuses against trade unionists, Shannon has also stressed that Uribe has made significant strides in his “democratic security” agenda. Whether this is a plan to secure democracy or to maintain security of a democratically elected government is unclear. “I think they want a healthy democracy,” Shannon suggested. Despite many of the facts on the ground, Shannon was willing to accept the Uribe administration’s promises that it was “trying” to guarantee labour rights. Such trust is unlikely to be afforded to other democratically elected leaders in the region, such as Hugo Chávez, Rafael Correa and Evo Morales. It is illuminating that added to the end of his list of common political values that the U.S. sought to foster; Shannon also stated that the Bush administration hoped to “make concrete a common understanding of what generates economic opportunity and prosperity.” It is this linking of limited concepts of democracy as elected representative governments and development as the adoption of economic liberalism that has been a central feature of the American hegemonic project. Whilst the U.S. has continued to build a preponderance of power, it has often recognised the need to construct a more consensual acceptance of its position of unipolarity. It has sought to build a common identity of the Western Hemisphere and the ‘Free World’ under American leadership based upon shared values of political freedoms that do not extend to popular control of the economic sphere or opportunities to oppose the U.S. However, the insistence of Secretary Rice that “the story of Colombia is one that is inspirational, inspirational in the region and inspirational in the world” is one example of why resistance grows towards American hegemony. Like so many historic cases of American ‘model’ states, the “shining example” of Colombia is not going to shed inspirational light on neighbouring Latin American antagonists and it certainly will not reach to the Middle East. The next occupant of the White House will have to embark upon a radically different course to reinstall American influence in the region and foster a genuine unity.

One America in 2009? Republicans and Illegal Immigration

2008-01-22T07:00:00.000-08:00

One America in 2009? Republicans and Illegal Immigration

In South Carolina, Mitt Romney is cheered by Republicans as he pronounces his no-tolerance stance on illegal immigration. The applause intensifies as he declares: “One simple rule – No amnesty.” Minutes later, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, a key player in John McCain’s presidential campaign, was booed from the stage as he announced his support for the program of permanent residency for illegal aliens (also backed by McCain). The message was clear: immigration was a key issue for Republicans and McCain, with his position, was going nowhere. That was South Carolina’s Republican Convention in May 2007. Fast forward to this weekend and McCain claimed a victory in the South Carolina presidential primary that pushed Romney into a distant third place.

So has the immigration issue lost its significance in the presidential race? Many already believe this is the case, but it is probably too early to come to such conclusions. Reflecting on his barracking at the Republican Convention, Senator Graham noted that immigration is “an emotional topic.” “People are mad,” he added. Many of the interviews of Republican voters suggest that the issue has lost little of its venom. McCain’s victory looks all the more remarkable then, particularly when we see that immigration was cited as the second most-important issue for voters and that he only marginally trailed behind Mike Huckabee with the 25% of voters who felt immigration was the most-important issue. The result certainly reflects other concerns, such as national security, the Iraq war and, more importantly, the economy, but McCain has also transformed his relative position on immigration.

McCain has certainly benefited from the Bush administration’s retreat from the immigration reform proposal that brought such derision from many Republicans. However, he has also been forced to bolster his position on border security to allay any further criticism. The question of how to handle illegal immigrants is likely, nonetheless, to remain a wedge issue and how the debate is framed will shape the Republican race. Even more interesting will be how the Republicans take this issue into the contest with the Democrat candidate. Any push for a crackdown on illegal immigrants to ‘heal’ American identity will offer a distinct alternative to Obama’s calls for ‘One America’. Although the immigration issue appears to be fading for Republican voters in Florida ahead of the primary on January 29th, the unpredictability of elections means a candidate could reignite the debate come Super Tuesday.

After the confusing and divisive period under the Bush administration, it is not necessary to go as far as Richard Hofstadter’s renowned ‘status-theory’ to recognise that many Americans are suffering a general anxiety about their identity. The 2008 election represents, in some part, a power struggle to define the process of re-identification with an American identity. As noted last week, fundamental differences prevent any positive assertion of a cohesive American identity through a fixed underlying principle. Republicans like Romney and Huckabee have drawn on many Americans’ inability to identify with the communities in which they have traditionally identified themselves with to displace this tension with a direction. An imaginary unity is sought in the negative projection of the illegal immigrant as the obstacle to bring American identity to its completion. The Republican candidates positioning vis-à-vis the illegal alien Other marks a hegemonic power struggle.

This power struggle in the Republican Party will be decided, in some part, by the candidate demonstrating the ability to define the limits of the debate on American identity and simultaneously offer the possibility of transcending them by eliminating the Other. The candidates may well be aware of the impossibility of this task, but their success will depend upon creating a pole of identification that Americans can attain a sense of being able to transform the U.S. into an imaginary ideal identity. For those Americans who have distanced themselves from their surrounding environment, some of the approaches to reintroduce a sense of belonging have been nothing short of dangerous. Tom Tancredo, although now out of the race, announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination to shape the debate on immigration. One advert he produced, claimed that the consequence of open borders is an influx of illegal immigrants, who are “Pushing drugs. Raping Kids. Destroying Lives.” “Deport those who don’t belong,” he declared.

Whilst not as inflammatory, Romney is also unrelenting on dealing with immigrants. He lays out a more comprehensive plan, which extends beyond border security to the issuance of biometric identity cards to non-citizens to prove their legal status. Not only will Romney reject any amnesty for illegal immigrants, he also threatens to punish any cities or employers who refuse to comply with these laws. Huckabee is even more dramatic. “In this age of terror,” he states, “immigration is not only an economic issue, but also a national security issue.” Securing the borders, he claims, “has reached the level of national emergency.” Look to the campaign adverts of the other candidates and these sentiments are echoed. The issue of identity and belonging is summarised by Huckabee: “I will take our country back for those who belong here and those who are willing to play by the rules for the privilege to come here.”

McCain’s position on immigration is far more moderate than his rivals. His proposals focus on border security, which he asserts will contribute to addressing the immigration problem. As measures to deal with immigration he focuses upon introducing his other priorities that bring more support: developing economic ties with Latin America and domestic “economic-growth” measures (tax cuts and deregulation). Without ostracising the illegal immigrant, McCain hopes to promise the American people a new America by highlighting immigration reform as just another Washington problem that he can distance himself from. For those immigrants already in the country, he proposes a program of assimilation that insists on the adoption of the American way of life. This is unlikely to satisfy many Republicans who have been drawn by his rivals more provocative rhetoric. For the first time in a while however, the Republicans are wary of the need to present an electable candidate on a terrain that looks more amenable to a Democrat front-runner. McCain will endeavour to shape the debate around his priorities.

One (United States of) America in 2009?

2008-01-15T07:00:00.000-08:00

One (United States of) America in 2009?

“[T]here's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism, or do we participate in a politics of hope?”

Barack Obama made his national political debut back in Boston in 2004 with this call for a ‘politics of hope’. In the little under four years since, few would be so bold as to suggest that the Bush administration has offered, or even been willing to offer, any new hope to the American people. “Change” is the maxim that is being carried on the campaign buses across the nation. However, it is Obama’s drive for American unity in his campaign for presidential nomination that has best captured this sentiment. It is only through a narrow reading of the political sphere though that Obama can find any political harmony in such a divided nation. Such empty calls for unity will not bring any real change.

The continuing existence of social division in the U.S. must be acknowledged. The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was perhaps the most barefaced exhibition of some of the problems that the U.S. still faces. Back at the Democratic Convention Obama declared that the American people knew that they could do better at ensuring “that the doors of opportunity remain open to all.” Neither he, nor John Kerry believed that it should be enough for just some to prosper. Obama declared his intention to run for the presidential nomination in 2008, was because he “believed that the size of these challenges had outgrown the capacity of our broken and divided politics to solve them.”

Obama asserted that a “new kind of politics” is necessary to tackle these social problems. Focus must be given to the values and ideals that Americans hold in common. The “true genius of America,” Obama claimed is that: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” If we ignore the obvious and oft-cited particularisms within this declaration, we can agree that a consensus on the pursuit of equality and liberty is a necessary foundation for progressive change and social cohesion. This does not preclude however, divisions on how to achieve them.

Obama’s call for politics to be undertaken on neutral territory is therefore problematic. It fundamentally denies the right to political debate over the interpretation of these “common” values. Furthermore, whilst these principles are not mutually exclusive, there is no natural correlation and their relative positions must be continually negotiated. It is nothing new to suggest that American liberalism has prioritised individualism before equality. Individual liberty is paramount, but left unrestrained it can only lead to inequality. Placing American liberalism beyond political debate may support such a hegemonic structure of inequality, but it can be no basis for any enduring social cohesion. Antagonisms caused by the current American interpretation of liberty and equality will continue if they are denied any political articulation that could foster any progress towards more substantive equality.

If the rest of the field of candidates for the ’08 election inspires little hope for such change, even the ‘progressive’ saviour, Obama, does not provide an adequate solution. Rather than promoting a comprehensive plan to re-articulate the relationship between liberty and equality, the Senator from Illinois recommends a “slight change in priorities.” He may argue that it is not enough for just some to prosper, but he does not champion equality. Instead, he argues for a revitalised “third-way” arrangement. The American people’s individual pursuit of their “simple dreams” remains the priority, but is moderated with the provision of a vital minimum of security and welfare that would connect the American people in one “single family.” The American people want to work hard to get ahead, Obama suggests, but there can be no unity among them with such opportunity for vast inequality.

The limits of American economic liberalism in achieving social equality cannot be left unadressed in the political sphere. Moving it into the realms of rational scientific law, shared moral values, or even common recognition of duty and shielding it from political contestation infringes on the democratic rights of the American people. Obama is clear that “people don’t expect government to solve all their problems,” but denying them involvement in such a large part of the running of the country will only lead them t0 seek answers to their social problems elsewhere. Non-political identifications have no platform for non-antagonistic debate. Social cohesion, as a result, can only be further undermined.

Any shared belief in values of liberty and equality need a democratic theatre for adversarial confrontations of legitimate different views on their specifics. If the American people continue to consent to the denial of their popular power they will only ensure further entrenchment of the asymmetric and antagonistic relations. The focus of Senator Obama’s “new politics” on shared American values and ideals and “common sense over ideology, straight talk over spin,” will probably make those familiar with Gramsci’s concepts of hegemony shudder. The first step is to resist conformity with this particular “common sense.”

Over the next weeks, the Backyard will make enquiries into the possibilities for “One (Hemispheric) America” and “One (Universal) America” in 2009.

Tragic Tales in Two Acts

2007-12-18T07:00:00.000-08:00

Tragic Tales in Two Acts

Uncover it. Deny it. Condemn it. Justify it. Get indicted for it. Get away with it. The tragic story of torture in the Americas has two new adaptations. In the U.S. production, the macabre tale takes us through investigations into the C.I.A.’s role in ‘alternative’ interrogation methods. In Peru, the former President Albert Fujimori is facing trial for torture and murder during his office. There are intriguing sub-plots of secrecy, conspiracy, video tapes and accountability, but the main narrative is the pervasiveness of torture as a key tool in U.S. foreign policy. Torture is all too common a theme for American tales, but so too are the perpetrators’ routine denial and justification of it. That neither can be sustained to the end of the story is inevitable. The only twist left to anticipate is whether the antagonists can get away with it.

In the first act the perpetrators deny the accusations against them. The Bush administration continues to deny any prior knowledge of the destruction of C.I.A. video evidence of water-boarding. The President and his top ranking officials have also continually rejected the charges of systematic torture throughout their tenure. Their denials have been underpinned by establishing the legality of the “alternative set of procedures” used by the C.I.A. In pushing the Military Commissions Act in 2006, Bush declared that Agency procedures to obtain information from terrorists were declared safe, lawful, and necessary by the Department of Justice. However, the distinction made by the administration between torture and “enhanced” coercive techniques is difficult to sustain. The American public is unlikely to share such separation with further disclosure of evidence and expert testimony that reveal what these “lawful” practices entail. The former interrogator, John Kiriakou’s recent interview has increased public awareness of C.I.A. techniques permitted by Bush’s July executive order. “Water-boarding is probably something that we shouldn't be in the business of doing,” Kiriakou stated. Attorney General Michael Mukasey cannot stall for much longer on the question of whether the practice of water-boarding constitutes torture without damaging the administration.

The U.S. use of torture extends well beyond the use of water-boarding however. Yet leaders have continued to deny any responsibility for the custom use of prohibited practices of “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” Even in the face of incriminating photographic evidence, the Bush administration has argued that these were isolated cases of actions taken by a few ‘rotten apples.’ They cannot, however, expect to be able to silence all the whistleblowers that will continue to come forward. There will be more like John Kiriakou who will testify that the higher echelons are accountable for decisions of torture. In the meantime, Bush can look out to his audience and assert, as he did two years ago – “We do not torture.” Attentive spectators would notice that particular denial was undermined by the stage that it was made from. Bush spoke during a trip to Panama, where 60 years previously the Truman administration had established the notorious School of the Americas. This bastion of gruesome education is testament to the pervasiveness of torture in U.S. policy. It has taught some of the most horrific techniques for torture in the modern era and has produced some of the worst human rights abusers in Latin American history. Despite defendant’s contrary claims, the U.S. must accept some responsibility for the exploits of the graduates of the School of the Americas. Accountability does not stop at the actual turning of the screw.

In the Peruvian production of this story, one such graduate, Vladimiro Montesinos, who has already been jailed for corruption, is now facing a number of charges that include torture and murder. Montesinos directed the Peruvian death squad, Grupo Colina (Colina Group) that led counter-insurgency efforts primarily against the Maoist rebels, Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path). He has been implicated in a number of cases of drug-trafficking, torture and massacres that were carried out by the Colina Group during the 1990s. The U.S. may only be a concealed character, but its role is revealed as even more sinister when we learn that the C.I.A. continued to fund Montesinos with the knowledge of his activity. This may not come as a surprise considering where he received his training. In this version however, it is not American leaders that have to deny accusations of culpability. That role has been taken by Fujimori. He faces separate questioning about his links with Montesinos, who acted as his Chief of Intelligence, and the operations of the Colina Group.

Fujimoro has already been found guilty for ordering the illegal search of the apartment belonging to Montesinos’ wife. Many suspect that Fujimori was hoping to recover the incriminating video tapes of bribery and corruption that, when later aired, led to Montesinos and Fujimori both fleeing the country. In this latest trial, Fujimori has stuck to the script and denied any involvement with the Colina Group. “I can give a clear and unshakeable response,” the former President answered when asked about his knowledge of the death squad’s massacres in the early 1990s: “No – not at all, never.” Fujimori also denies any responsibility for the kidnapping and torture of a journalist and businessman in 1992. During fierce questioning, he finally snapped and yelled, “I don't accept the charges against me ... I never ordered the death of anybody.” The case may take some time to reach its conclusion, but Fujimori will probably remain defiant as the curtains come down.

Meanwhile, preparations are well underway for the second act – justification. The top bill actors have already laid the groundwork by setting a scene of threat and danger. To his supporting cast, Fujimori stands as a national hero who did what was necessary to eradicate the terrorist threat posed by the Shining Path rebels. If their protagonist must maintain his silence on the ethics of their war on terror, they do not have the same fear of recrimination and they continue their efforts to validate an appropriate role for torture. The terrorist threat has also been the justification for the Bush administration’s “legal” activities. “There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again,” Bush declared. “So you bet we will aggressively pursue them, but we will do so under the law.” In order to save lives, Vice President Cheney has declared water-boarding a “no-brainer”. Key administration figures are obliged to speak within the legal boundaries that have been set, but their supporters are able to make a more overt utilitarian justification for torture.

Tony Blankley, conservative fellow at the Heritage Foundation and author of The West’s Last Chance, argues that extreme C.I.A. measures are a necessity to deal with the threat posed by Islamic extremists, which is greater than that of Nazi Germany. “It is not a good thing,” Blankley suggested last week. “It is a necessary thing. That is what our intelligence agencies are supposed to do. They are supposed to make the hard decisions to protect our national security.” Blankley supports the secrecy and centralisation of security decision-making and defends the C.I.A. against those, like Democrat Congresswoman Jane Harman, who are unhappy with the “cover-up of a cover-up.” “I am so proud of our CIA,” he stated. “After all the years of bungling, finally they got something right and they did the only rational patriotic thing, which is they got rid of these tapes before they got leaked and played on Al-Jazeera and became another propaganda catastrophe for America…. [Whoever] at the Agency did this – my hats off to them – they need to get a secret award for their patriotism and their shrewdness.”

The responsibility for protecting citizens is obviously a heavy one, but this kind of justification is still unsustainable. Not everyone is willing to relinquish their say in how their country conducts itself around the world in the name of national security. That top Agency officials lied to the 9/11 Commission in their denial of the existence of any interrogation video tapes has already created a backlash. More significantly, there will be a number of people who are unable to condone the practice of coercive measures for national security. In the War on Terror, the responsibility for torture is not then put on a few ‘rotten apples’ or those who stretch the interpretation of legal practice. It is put on those who are on the receiving end of torture, as they seek to do greater harm. It is unreasonable to assume that victims are either always guilty or even have useful information. There will be plenty that feel that leaving such judgments to unaccountable power is dangerous.

Insiders may come forward in opposition, in part, to seek vindication and absolution for their role, but many will simply no longer be able to condone the “cruel and unusual punishment.” It is not only inimical to the idea that “no one shall be subjected to torture” stipulated in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but it is also contrary to many Americans’ own view of themselves. “We're Americans, and we're better than that,” Kiriakou stated. For some, the dehumanisation of the enemy has been necessary to consider them unworthy of the equal rights predicated in the universal nature of American and international declarations. This can never be complete however, as a dualistic separation of the American ‘self’ and the terrorist ‘other’ can never be complete. The animal rights movement has shown how equivalences become more evident when watching victim’s suffering and the realisation of one’s own barbaric or animalistic actions. There may be a clear difference between the infliction of pain on innocent and non-consenting animals than on those who seek to mete out similar destruction on others, but the utilitarian ideal simply cannot be applied in the same way for pain as it is for pleasure. That this ethical question is not clear cut and may not even have an obvious answer is an important point. If it is dealt with secretly and from above, there will always be those seeking avenues to express their opposition.

So will they get away with it? Fujimori looks to be facing a long trial, but it seems inevitable that he will join Montesinos in facing a long sentence. U.S. complicity will probably not reach the public domain. For American cases in the War on Terror, the fear of prosecution will inevitably lead to more destruction of evidence and covering of tracks, but there is no guarantee that it will be completely successful. There will undoubtedly be a scapegoat for the water-boarding incident. José Rodriguez, the former CIA deputy director of operations who ordered the tapes destroyed, already appears to be being lined up as the fall guy. To suggest responsibility at a higher level, will require an open review about the acceptable level of contravention of individual rights necessary to secure wider safety. Congress has already motioned towards more strict enforcement of U.S. and international law on coercive measures, but at the same time may senior figures have already revealed their collusion with the administration to conceal their knowledge of many procedures. The tragic moral of the story may well be that the U.S. will continue until strong evidence implicates the higher echelons and the pervasiveness of torture is revealed.

Sorry, the Bank is Closed.

2007-12-11T07:00:00.000-08:00

Sorry, the Bank is Closed.

Any New Yorker driving up the Avenue of the Americas would eventually be greeted by the statues of José Martí, José de San Martin and Simón Bolivar. The Latin American ‘Liberators’ probably receive little attention from the locals who reach the northern end of what they more commonly regard as 6th Avenue. There is not much evidence to suggest, however, that they have paid any more notice to another landmark en route.

The ‘National Debt Clock’ down at 44th Street is now clicking over $9 trillion, but it does not seem to have stopped many in their tracks. The clock was moved from its original location a few blocks away to allow for construction of the new Bank of America Tower. The new home in the Big Apple for the U.S.’ largest commercial bank is due to be completed sometime in 2009; around the same time that the clock is expected to become redundant as the debt reaches $10 trillion and can no longer fit on the display. Oh and incidentally, it will also be around the same time that the Bush administration hands over its economic legacy to its successor. New Yorkers may be ignoring it, Americans in general may be ignoring it, but the next administration will not be able to overlook the debt. Almost certainly a resolution of the problem will involve further neglect of the descendents of the Latin American Liberators.

Commentators are making much of the current crisis in the ‘lame-duck’ budget that the new occupant of the White House will inherit in 2009. President Bush is continuing to push for more funding for the War on Terror and last week criticised congressional Democrats for their opposition to a $196 billion appropriation. At the same time however, Democrats are showing increasing frustration at the Bush administration’s proposals to cut spending elsewhere. Plans to cut funding for Homeland Security have only exacerbated the antagonism caused by last month’s veto by Bush of a child health insurance bill in the name of financial restraint. The New York Times showed no qualms this week in condemning Bush’s role in this ‘cynical budget war’. After years of tax cuts that have left the U.S. unable to cope with the spiraling costs of the Iraq War, the editorial is unsympathetic towards Bush’s attempts to paint Congressional Democrats as overspenders. The Democrat Senator, Barbara Boxer, has attacked the Bush administration for not “putting their money where its mouth is.” As a result, the Senator declared that, “This budget proposal is dead on arrival.”

It looks as if some kind of compromise deal will be cut that offers a little to those on both sides of the aisle. Nonetheless, both sides will continue to look for further cuts elsewhere as a means to finance their priorities. Needless to say, the Western Hemisphere is unlikely to come out well from the situation. That is even before any major strategies for dealing with the national debt are considered. The implications for U.S. relations with Latin America will be profound. During Bush’s trip to Latin America in March, Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon announced that the agenda was to deliver a positive message of U.S. cooperation. Bush soon revealed that this positive agenda was no signal for any significant new commitment. Rather it was just an effort to highlight that the U.S. had been steadily increasing aid and not getting much credit for it. The message was further undermined by exposure of faulty calculations in Bush’s claims and a subsequent cut for aid in the 2008 budget. Such feeble marketing efforts revealed an administration that was neither willing nor able to bank all of the cheques that its rhetoric had written.

At the time, members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee were concerned that with “anti-Americanism on the rise,” a reduction in American aid would send “the wrong message to our friends in the hemisphere.” Reporters from various countries were quick to suggest that the administration’s attempt to put a positive spin on its policy was due to the challenge posed by Chávez. In response to one such inference, Shannon promptly retorted that foreign aid in Latin America was not a competition. It is a good job too, because if the U.S. was already lagging behind, the planned cuts for next year will put the U.S. almost out of sight. A report by Celia Dugger reveals that the Millennium Challenge Corporation looks to be a main victim of the budget crisis. It is Congress this time however, who threaten to reduce funds to countries in Africa and Latin America. Burkina Faso’s Prime Minister has already warned that such cuts “won’t be good for the image of the United States.” This United Nations’ progress report on the Millennium Development goals this week show that Latin America may be faring better than the African nations, there is still much to do. Although it is hard to imagine that the Bush administration’s image could get much worse in Latin America – it can.

American credibility will be damaged if it has to renege on its commitment to eliminate poverty in the region. The universal aims in the Bush administration’s rhetoric are already looking sketchy and claims to global leadership will be undermined if more exemptions appear. At the same time however, maintaining a global commitment to American hegemony, whilst resources are increasingly overstretched and fail to achieve any results, will only further undermine prestige. The U.S. will seek refuge in two approaches. Firstly, the Bush administration will concentrate limited resources on specific examples to demonstrate the credibility of their universal claims. Shannon openly expressed that they were concentrating and prioritising resources to get “value for money.” A limited objective however, can only offer limited success.

So, the U.S. will continue stressing the need for freer trade in the Western Hemisphere as a means for mutual benefit. Inequalities in Latin America will only be exacerbated by such an approach though. The Latin American wealthy already redirects large amounts of their capital to the U.S. and they will exploit the opportunity to increase their advantage. U.S. leaders may cling to the idea that with a rising tide of free trade they can lift all ships, but for many Latin American poor that one sailed a long time ago. The next administration will only face the same, if not worse, dilemma. It may not only be the Latin American people that become disillusioned however, as the American people will inevitably have to make their own sacrifices at some point, in order to reduce the national debt. By this time the clock may have stopped.

Between the Black and White

2007-12-04T07:00:00.000-08:00

Between the Black and White

The ‘No’s’ have it. Hugo Chávez suffered a marginal defeat this weekend in a referendum on proposals to reform the Venezuelan constitution. The Bush administration is clearly relieved, if not jubilant. “We congratulate the people of Venezuela on their election and their continued desire to live in freedom and democracy,” declared the National Security Council spokesman yesterday. We can only assume that these congratulations were offered for the result, rather than the process. The descent into dictatorship remains evident to many and the issue of democracy in Venezuela is clearly “black and white”. The descent into dictatorship is evident to many. Prior to the referendum vote, Donald Rumsfeld warned in the New York Times, that a “Si” victory would have offered Chávez the opportunity to “obliterate the few remaining vestiges of Venezuelan democracy.” The Venezuelan leader, Rumsfeld charged, is an “aspiring despot” who poses a threat to his country and its neighbours.

The former Secretary of Defense suggests that “the smart way to defeat tyrants” like Chávez is to support friends and allies like Colombia. The Bush administration’s support for the questionable government of Alvaro Uribe has made it difficult for many to swallow the “black and white” of democracy in the ‘Free World’. Like the Sandinistas acceptance of democratic defeat in 1990, the fact that “the people spoke their mind” in Venezuela creates further strain in the Washington view of the world. Rumsfeld is in no doubt, however, on who the U.S.’ friends and allies are and how the U.S. should assist them. He proposed curbing Congressional oversight of the Bush administration’s budget to build up the military capacity of “partner nations” such as Pakistan and Afghanistan. Rumsfeld also called for a reorganisation of the U.S. public diplomacy apparatus, in order to counter pervasive anti-American myths and present the world with “the truth.” It is perhaps, however, American claims to a universal truth alongside some of its choices of friends in the “with us or against us” construction that make anti-Americanism so enduring.

Such statements are as allaying to some as they are anathema to others. Many people have a view on Venezuela; almost everyone has an opinion on the U.S. From Afghanistan to Iraq to Iran to Venezuela, the permeation of U.S. hegemony seems to polarise many observers. It is evident to me that the constructed Manichaean world of the Bush administration leads many young students into their first undergraduate class on international relations or world history with a predetermined pro- or anti-American sentiment. Surely, it is the role of academia to introduce shades of grey to knee-jerk black or white reactions. To look around much of the academy however, is to see support for the imagined world that saturates the media. The formation of what can be perceived as a ‘conservative-liberal’ consensus leaves only a few to counter the dangerous simplification of the international environment and the role of the U.S.

In his inaugural podcast for the launch of Libertas, Professor Scott Lucas cautioned against the “false step that says you can take up no position regarding Iran, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Latin America, Russia, China; you can take up no position without this being considered to be either a pro- or anti-American position.” As scholars and students of the U.S., it has occupied a central position in our analysis of the international environment, but it is not, as Lucas adds, “centre to all of our concerns.” Taking a critical position on the U.S. should not necessitate qualifying this in morally equivalent terms of other countries; nor should a position on the diverse nations of the world need to be taken in relation to U.S.’ interests and ideals. “None of us speaks the language that America speaks,” Lucas concludes, “because there is not a single America.” We can not be ‘with’ the U.S. anymore than we can be ‘against’ it. The same is true of Venezuela under Hugo Chávez. The dichotomous rhetoric of Bush and Chávez cast each other and their governments as the negative agents to freedom. The universal declarations of liberal-democracy and ‘21st century socialism’ conceal fundamental heterogeneity. It is essential to engage with the grey that is found between the ‘red’ on one side and the ‘red, white and blue’ on the other.

Professor Lucas proposes that we can only speak from our own perspective. Diverse perspectives, even if they offend should be engaged rather than derided or ignored as they are by those in the ‘conservative-liberal’ consensus. We must be free, as Slavoj Žižek insists, to question the predominant ‘liberal-democratic’ ideology that underpins this American ‘truth’, or freedom of speech simply means nothing. American exceptionalism and the naivety, or even evil, of its adversaries cannot be accepted without question. A simple reversal however, is not enough; the conventional diatribe of the U.S. as the epitome of tyranny should also be rejected. Similarly then, the emerging ‘socialist’ ideology promoted by the Chávez government must also be open to question. In an article earlier this year, Michael Hardt not only made these points, but calls for a reinterpretation of the concept of democracy. It is a useful starting point to promote discussion on the complex nature of U.S.-Latin American relations.

Democracy, Hardt suggests, is a difficult word to pronounce today. Those who fly the banner of democracy often promote something like the opposite. The term democracy has been so abused by many ideological traditions that many have abandoned its use altogether. Hardt insists on a different approach of reinterpreting these ideological traditions, recognising the conflict and tensions within them, and identifying the concepts that are still of utility. Looking for new meanings of contemporary relevance in the original words of political thinkers, rather than how they were interpreted by successive political leaders is of vital importance. Indeed, Žižek similarly argues that despite the monstrous failure of Lenin’s plans, there is still a “utopian spark in it worth saving”. It is essential to distinguish between what Lenin did and what he effectively opened up and the opportunities he missed. Hardt argues that the constructions of the American Founding Fathers should be analysed in a similar way to those who have had less enduring success.

Hardt’s deconstruction of Jefferson’s ideological views reveals important features of American democracy. Understanding the fundamental tensions within the ‘liberal-democratic’ discourse is essential for those of us wishing to develop a radical reinterpretation of liberty and democracy. In reality, Jefferson’s formula for democracy is, to a degree, analogous to Lenin’s concepts. More importantly, Hardt suggests, is that each of the necessary elements of democracy identified by Jefferson posed practical problems that remain unsolved today. The contradiction between the ideals and actions of Jefferson, the principal drafter of the Declaration of Independence, are well documented elsewhere, but of prime importance to new interpretations are some of his constructions of equality, freedom and republicanism.

Firstly, the reading of Jefferson’s notion that equality could not be based on sameness or identity resonates in current socialist strategies. Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe emphasise that a new discourse of radical democracy cannot be one of the universal. There can be no singular social identity and without it any attempt to base equality on it will lead to expressions of difference and exclusion. The shaky foundations of our social identity have led to the numerous antagonisms that are evident today. Hardt notes Jefferson’s recognition of this and his idea of a totally inclusive social equality based upon the fact that all life was singular and unique, yet common to the same natural system. If we are to struggle against inequality we must do so then, in the understanding that there is equivalence in our individual and collective struggle.

The rights and freedoms of the individual however, have dominated ‘liberal-democratic’ ideology. The liberal doctrine has focused on the idea of negative liberty – to be free from interference. The reduction of state influence then has been central to the idea of individual liberty. Democracy and the state, Laclau and Mouffe suggest, has been regarded as a tool “only to safeguard that which legitimately belongs to us.” It discredits the idea, that has had more influence through Latin America, that there must be some ‘positive liberty’ – to have the capacity to keep open real choices. Central to the Venezuelan proposal for an inter-American Social Charter is the idea that poverty and lack of education a denial of such positive liberty. The logical conclusion of positive liberty is a real equality that extends beyond the political into the economic sphere as well. Despite Hardt’s exposure of Jefferson’s belief in positive liberty, the ‘liberal-democratic’ ideology has dismissed the notion that economic equality is separate and unnecessary for political equality.

The notion that political equality can exist without real economic equality can only be short-lived though. The apparent tension between democratic equality and the intrinsic inequality of liberalism will face mounting pressure for justification. It can only be found in a belief that social inequality can be separate from political equality. Jefferson did not accept this and neither should we. As noted above, a proclamation of real equality, not just equality of opportunity, does not remove the idea of difference between individuals. Yet this has been the vestige of the liberal – imposing equality must mean an unnatural homogenisation, which in turn can only be interpreted as totalitarian. As Laclau and Mouffe charge, this “right to difference” is a fallacious one. The defence of individual liberty should not underwrite a gross social and economic inequality.

For Jefferson, freedom is inseparable from positive equality. Liberty is not only the right to be left alone, but also the right to determine the actions of government. In this task, it is essential to have a genuinely equal participation of the citizenry. Unlike James Madison, Jefferson argued that a republic was not just any government with representation. Hardt describes Jefferson’s support for councils of participatory democracy that were in direct conflict to Madison’s construction of representative democracy that was ultimately presented in the Constitution. Whilst the Chávez government has been criticised for its ‘un-democratic’ attempted to implement more direct citizen participation within Venezuela, the notion of representative democracy promoted by the U.S. was clearly formulated by Madison as a means not only to link the people to government, but also to separate them. For many of us living in representative democracies, we have no clear representative of our views. Again, the numerous campaigns for democratic reform are well documented elsewhere. At the heart of Jefferson’s thinking was, according to Hardt, the idea that the form of government should be constantly revised to allow for the multitude to govern itself autonomously.

This is the fundamental line of demarcation for all interpretations of democracy. Are we, as the people, capable of self-governance? This is a question that we must all ask ourselves and I can only answer for myself. My belief in the capacity of man is probably derived, in part, from the fact that I am a product of a cleric father and working-class mother. My early experiences were lessons in liberation and power (or the lack of). I soon rejected the dogma of institutionalised religion, but as with political thought, that is not to say that spurious interpretations of ambiguous texts should negate some of the original thought. Various denominations teach the linkage and equality of all life. Individual liberation cannot be separated from the concept of the common fate of man. At the same time, the inequality that was manifest evoked my sense of justice and pursuit of equality. That the social position of my family was commonly rationalised as a failure to seize the opportunities that were equal to all did not tally in my eyes. The benevolence, acumen, and ability that were apparent to me were not recognised by society. In that case, it was a short step to extrapolate this to those who I did not know.

After teen radicalisation in an alternative music scene I find myself, more usefully, in a quest for understanding real equality, liberty and justice. I am surrounded by minds far greater than mine. For many of them, their position is a confirmation of an intrinsic social hierarchy. The fact that liberals have joined conservatives in rationalising this inequality has only exacerbated the problem. They seek only to attack the conservative view of a birthright to inequality. To attack the system of meritocracy, as to jeopardise it, would attack their belief that they have successfully seized the opportunities available that demonstrate their superiority. There are many available radical denunciations of the inequality bred from equality of opportunity, so I move only to say, that like Jefferson, I believe that through participation we are all capable of self-governance. Jefferson proposed that the radical experiment should be to explore new ways of guaranteeing the education required for individual positive liberty. If our caravan is to travel the wilderness together then we must help the slowest.

Perhaps separated from the majority of the real people, many of the ‘experts’ – both liberal and conservative, left and right – have been less accommodating of such a view. Žižek even criticised Lenin’s declining faith in the capacity of the masses and reliance on ‘experts’. Although there have been limited attempts in Venezuela reverse some of these trends, the contemporary situation in the industrialised nations to move many decisions from the public to the private domain has mirrored such sentiment. This has happened to such an extent, Laclau and Mouffe argue, that the concept of democracy has not only been attacked, it has been emptied of its meaning. Liberals may criticise the rejection of divine right and inherited privilege, but do not expect a radical reinterpretation of an equality of the people.

Democracy can only be understood as the sovereignty of the people. However, the rejection of a single sovereign based upon divine right has removed a significant unifying factor of society. Any attempt to restore unity through claims to a universal identity that represents all people leads to a totalitarian path. The assertions that 21st century socialism represents the predestined ‘way of the future’ are as totalitarian as the declarations of universal identity in the ‘End of History’ based upon the American way of life. Neither Bolívarianism nor liberal-democracy are whole concepts that can unite people under a shared identity for they are unable alone to reconcile social antagonisms.

The logic of equality and liberty in a radical reinterpretation of democracy demonstrates our innate differences that cannot be denied by any universal ‘truth’. No individual, institution, or state can lay claim to be the exclusive carrier of truth, whether it is the American Creed, Hugo Chávez, or an exceptional U.S. Progress towards a new order must come, not only from our opposition to such impositions, but also through the independent construction of our own identities. How to steer a course between individual and common emancipation will need a genuine engagement with each other. I certainly do not know the direction. These are only nascent thoughts of a searching mind. I only hope that constructive engagement with others will help me to reconcile the contradictions I regularly discover. Only such engagement will lead to a fuller understanding of all the shades of grey between the black and white.

Democracy and Neighbourly Respect

2007-11-27T07:00:00.000-08:00

Democracy and Neighbourly Respect

It is 75 years ago, this month, that Franklin D. Roosevelt carried 42 states to defeat the Republican incumbent, Herbert Hoover, in the 1932 presidential election. For the last time, before the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution, the American people had to wait until the following March to hear the inaugural speech of their new president. After laying out his plans for the New Deal from his position on the East Portico of the Capitol Building, Roosevelt turned to the Good Neighbor Policy. “In the field of world policy,” Roosevelt declared, “I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor—the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others—the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.” Roosevelt’s commitment to the Good Neighbor Policy did not signify its conception, but it was a significant statement of U.S. intent not to return to the gunboat and dollar diplomacy that marked earlier inter-American relations.

The Good Neighbor Policy marked the development of a shared hemispheric identity based on the political equivalence of the American Republics. Declarations of the equal rights and duties of states in the Western Hemisphere led to a commitment to the principle of non-intervention. The idea that there could be any genuine political equivalence in inter-American relations was never persuasive however, whilst the U.S. dominated the region with its vastly superior economic and military strength. The principle of non-intervention has been repeatedly cast aside since Roosevelt’s commitment to the Good Neighbor Policy, but it has now become institutionally embedded in hemispheric relationships. Article 3 of the Charter of the Organization of American States establishes “the duty to abstain from intervening in the affairs of another State.” The assumption that this alone could form the basis for equality was increasingly dismissed during the Latin American revolution in rising expectations that paralleled the ‘American century’. The first declaration of the rights of individuals was made in the Americas in 1948 and has also become an integral feature of hemispheric identity.

The tension between sovereignty and conditionality is an enduring one. The Good Neighbor Policy figuratively, even if not actually, discarded the conditionality of Latin American self-determination based upon protection of U.S. interests, which had been asserted in Theodore Roosevelt’s Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. The qualification of sovereignty based on the rights of individuals has created a significant tension. The original American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man adopted at the Ninth International Conference of American States asserted the democratic rights of individuals. The affirmation of democracy as the basis for hemispheric solidarity was later declared in Lima on September 11th 2001 through the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Both declarations however, asserted that the promotion of these rights must be made “with due respect for the principle of nonintervention.” For the U.S., or any other American Republic, to promote democracy in the Americas it has to maneuver through the tension between the rights of individuals and states.

This may have significance in current inter-American relations. These hemispheric declarations also endorse differing interpretations of democracy that are now being contested. Elections that are free and far, honest, and periodic are essential to both declarations. However, whilst Article II of the Democratic Charter proclaimed representative democracy as the legal basis of individual democratic rights, Article XX of the original declaration announced that participation could be made by representation or directly. The government of Hugo Chávez has remained critical of this new interpretation. In a statement to the Organisation of the American States in 2005, the Venezuelan Foreign Minister, Dr. Ali Rodríguez Araque, denounced the idea that democratic rights should be entrusted in representatives alone. He added that, “there cannot exist a singular model of democracy.” Venezuela would progress towards a system of direct participation of citizens in matters of public interest.

Venezuela is leading a movement of several Latin American Republics for democratic reforms. On Sunday, the Venezuelan people will vote on the adoption of reforms to their Constitution. There has been widespread opposition in the U.S. to these steps towards “participatory democracy.” The New York Times was scathing of the proposals for democratic changes, particularly that of allowing unlimited presidential nomininations. (Presidential limits to two terms was introduced in the U.S. in 1947 with the 22nd Constitutional Amendment – allowing Franklin Roosevelt to be elected for 4 consecutive terms.) The Venezuelan Ambassador to the U.S., Bernardo Álvarez Herrera, responded in defence of his government’s plans for an “alternative model of participation.” “Ultimately,” he added, “the reforms are meant as a path toward a new model for development and democracy in Venezuela. And although you may not think so, the 75 percent of the Venezuelan people who turned out to vote in last December’s presidential election prove that there is something to Venezuela’s participatory democracy.”

Following recent form, the State Department has remained relatively quiet on internal affairs in Venezuela. Instead, comments on the commitment of the U.S. to Venezuelan democracy have accompanied meetings with high profile Venezuelan opposition. In regards to the proposal to remove presidential terms limits, the State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, noted only that they are an indication of a “downward trajectory” in Venezuelan democracy. He suggested however, that the State Department would have something more to say when action was taken in Venezuela. In an address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies last week, Álvarez stated, “The basic request of the Venezuelan people is that this democratic process be understood and be respected.” After the Venezuelan people speak next week, will the Bush administration ‘respect’ its neighbours?

Iron Man Diplomacy

2007-11-20T07:00:00.000-08:00

Iron Man Diplomacy

The U.S. finally defeated Cuba this week! Do not panic – you have not missed a major event in international relations. Team U.S.A. beat Cuba in the final of the 37th World Baseball Cup this Sunday to record their first win since 1974. At first glance, baseball’s significance to U.S. foreign policy and inter-American relations may not be that evident, particularly for many of us on this side of the Atlantic. A closer look reveals that sports play a basic part in U.S. cultural diplomacy and an introduction to baseball has been used as a means to generate cultural ties with other regions and reduce negative stereotyping of the U.S. In the Western Hemisphere however, where there is a shared love for America’s national game, béisbol diplomacy reveals a different undertone to U.S. policy. Cultural diplomacy has aimed not only at mutual exchange and understanding, but also to project a positive and superior image of the American way of life. Attempts to demonstrate the universal appeal of the American way are obfuscated by concurrent efforts to portray the exceptional nature of the U.S. and its people. This familiar tension between American universalism and exceptionalism has found its way into baseball.

In August, the State Department named the former Baltimore Orioles star, Cal Ripken, Jr. as their new public diplomacy envoy. In her introduction of the appointment, the Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy (now working through her notice), Karen Hughes, explained the role that Ripken would play in U.S. policy: “Through their personal examples, our public diplomacy envoys become leaders in America's effort to engage in a positive and constructive dialogue with the world.” Condoleeza Rice also added her support for the personal contribution that Ripken could make to cultural diplomacy: “He truly exemplifies America at its best, our aspirations to be a better nation and to help build a better world.” Ripken has, since retirement, established business and philanthropic efforts to spread the global appeal of baseball. His personal qualities were not the only draw for the State Department though. “Baseball is America’s national pastime,” Hughes added, “a sport that truly defines American culture. It is only fitting that the face of our national pastime would be one of the faces that America shows the world as our next public diplomacy envoy.” Ripken was also convinced of the role that he and his sport could play in representing the U.S.: “I happen to think that sport – baseball, in particular – is very magical. It can go across cultural lines.”

In the first few months if his new post, Ripken has already begun efforts in China to build a bridge across such cultural lines. After bringing a Chinese delegation to his Baseball Academy in Maryland, Ripken visited China earlier this month to introduce the game to young people across the country. Such ‘people-to-people’ connections were stressed as important to the future peace and security of the world. Similar sporting links to China have already proven to be important. The Nixon administration used ‘ping-pong diplomacy’ as an opening to establish normal relations with China. Mao’s offer for the U.S. table tennis team to tour China would inevitably prove a success for Chinese propaganda and cultural diplomacy, but Nixon’s priority of rapprochement led him to accept this opportunity to ease hostilities. Now, as the U.S. seeks to spread the influence and appeal of its way of life among the Chinese people, the Bush administration has turned to its own main sport. Opportunities to take a similar approach to easing tensions with Cuba have always existed. The support for a hard-line approach to Castro has perhaps been more prevalent than it has with Communist China, but there have been a number of prominent Americans that have sought engagement with Castro and the Cuban people. The differences between the U.S. and Cuba have been stressed by the leaders of both countries, but their shared passion for baseball invites a ‘people to people’ approach.

In 1975, after the normalisation of relations with China and Team U.S.A.’s last baseball World Cup victory, the U.S. baseball commissioner, Bowie Kuhn attempted to set up a goodwill game between teams from the U.S. and Cuba. In his efforts to persuade Henry Kissinger to endorse this fixture, he preempted Ripken in asserting baseball’s “magic value in projecting a positive image of the U.S.” Kissinger’s aides noted that a baseball game could “break the ice” as it had done with ‘ping-pong diplomacy.’ The positive domestic and international response to Kissinger’s moves in China would be evoked in a similar symbolic act that could herald constructive engagement with Cuba. In the end however, Kissinger was not interested in bridging the gap with Castro and Kuhn was forced to recognise that the Secretary of State had problems “larger than baseball.” It was not until March 1999, that Major League Baseball finally made it to Cuba. Despite much criticism, Ripken’s Orioles played a Cuban All-Star team in Havana and Baltimore, although the ‘Iron Man’ himself was absent due to the death of his father (also an Orioles’ legend – Cal Ripken, Sr.). The lead-up to the historic occasion brought much media attention, but as one Orioles’ fan site noted - it built only to the anti-climax that “it all came down to a baseball game.” The games, it added, were far from an international arms-deal. In the end, the Clinton administration was not prepared to radically alter the framework of U.S.-Cuban relations and the people-to-people program was never fully developed.

Small-scale private sports exchanges have continued to some degree, but in reality, any major breakthrough in cultural engagement with Cuba will require U.S. government involvement. The ‘larger problems’ will certainly deter many U.S. politicians from baseball diplomacy, but there will always be those that opt for small steps to increase U.S. influence. Major League Baseball is still eager, but this is probably due more to the pool of talent on the island that is currently unavailable. For his part, José Serrano, a Democrat Congressman from New York, has also introduced the Baseball Diplomacy Act to every Congress since the 104th. The bills, which have sought to waive prohibitions on Cuban nationals playing professional baseball in the U.S. and returning with their salaries, have all failed to make it out of committee and the current attempt in the 110th Congress, House Resolution 216, looks doomed to a similar fate. In the White House, President Bush, as former owner of the Texas Rangers, certainly shares Castro’s passion for the game. “I never dreamed about being President,” he once said, “I wanted to be Willie Mays.” Bush has also remarked on the positive effect of foreign-born players in the Major League that helped the U.S. understand people with different cultures. Cal Ripken has already expressed openness to further assignments from Karen Hughes’ successor, but it is unlikely that Bush will be sanctioning any baseball diplomacy with Cuba in his final year.

The Bush administration has clearly laid out its intentions to engage China, whilst isolating Cuba, but the absence of sports diplomacy in Cuba may also be explained, in part, by the interest in baseball itself. The intrinsic tension in international relations between the universalism of shared humanity and the particularism of national identities is also powerful in international sports. Through sports individuals can share a common interest and culture, but on the other hand, there is also a tendency towards tribalism and competition along national boundaries. In China, Ripken has been busy attempting to foster common human ties through a new sporting interest across traditional cultural boundaries. “Public diplomacy cannot be an American monologue;” Condoleeza Rice expressed, “it must be a dialogue with people from around the world.” Despite this, the baseball initiative in China is clearly a monologue. Not only does the Bush administration seek to promote a common culture based upon the American way of life, but it also endeavours to portray the U.S. as a proud sporting nation that is exceptionally successful. As baseball already transcends the divide with Cuba there exists only a rivalry that every sports fan has experience of.

The problem then lies in that since Team U.S.A.’s 1974 victory, Cuba has dominated baseball. During this period they have won all but one World Cup and have taken gold in all of the Pan-American Games and 3 of the 4 Olympic finals (baseball only became an official sport in 1992). The American partisan will undoubtedly emphasise the college and minor league composition of Team U.S.A., but Cubans will also stress that their national system has been amateur since 1961. It was only the introduction of the World Baseball Classic last year that offered the prospect of both countries’ best teams playing each other. Successive Cold War administrations understood the psychological importance of demonstrating the superiority of the capitalist system over the socialist system in every aspect. The symbolic importance of a clash between a top U.S. and Cuban side had not been lost on Castro either. "One day,” he declared, “when the Yankees accept peaceful coexistence with our country, we shall beat them at baseball too and then the advantages of revolutionary over capitalist sport will be clear to all."

As a national game imbedded in American culture, baseball commands more importance in victory and defeat than the foreign games of ‘ping-pong’ and ‘soccer’ that have little domestic following. Perhaps it was this thought that pushed the Bush administration into initially refusing to grant the leading Cuban team visas to play in the World Baseball Classic tournament. The public backlash eventually encouraged them to make an about face, but they were saved from any direct clash when Team U.S.A. failed to get out of the 2nd round. With the Olympics in Beijing next year and another Baseball World Classic scheduled for 2009, there may be a widespread feeling in the U.S. that their World Cup victory has marked a turn around. It was the supremacy of the U.S. team that actually encouraged proponents of béisbol diplomacy in the Ford administration. Playing a game that they were likely to win would, they believed, “go well with Americans who are depressed by the regimented victories of the Communists in Olympic games.” A consolidation of Team U.S.A.’s supremacy may prompt the next administration to adopt baseball diplomacy in the region.

The common theme of shared hemispheric experience and way of life expounded by successive U.S. administrations has been drowned out in recent years by the rallying cries of an alternative in Latin America. Aspirations of baseball glory are shared by Latin American people and leaders alike and diplomacy will only be successful if there is a genuine dialogue with both. The next U.S. administration could foster pan-Americanism through a genuinely mutual baseball initiative that engages adversarial governments in the region. The reputation of the U.S. has only suffered from the Bush administration’s policies of isolation and division. Baseball is no arms agreement – or more importantly in the Western Hemisphere – it is no development agreement. However, if the U.S. cannot even encourage interests and passions with Latin America that they genuinely hold in common, it has no chance in persuading the leaders and people of the region that it shares their aspirations for a significant improvement in their standard of living.

[For the sake of keeping my mentor and my girlfriend happy – I must mention that the Orioles are being outclassed this season by the Red Sox and the Braves (just).]

Sanctuary and Invulnerability

2007-11-13T03:50:00.001-08:00

Sanctuary and Invulnerability

The immigration debate is back and is beginning to have significance in the 2008 election campaigns. It will have some influence on American voting next year, but it is certainly not just a domestic issue. Latin Americans have always gauged their relations with the U.S. through symbolic examples of broader regional bonds. In the past, the proximity and unique ties of both Puerto Rico and pre-revolutionary Cuba offered such symbolic yardsticks of American respect for their Southern neighbours. The rapid growth of Hispanics in the U.S. that still consider ‘home’ to be in Latin America has offered a more personal experience of American amity (or lack of) in the modern era. The treatment of illegal aliens and immigration policy under the Bush administration has had a negative impact on inter-American relations. The campaigning positions of many Democrat and Republican candidates are already sending signals of an ominous future for hemispheric solidarity.

The current debate has so far focused on the particular questions of immigrant citizenship and border controls. Democrat and Republican presidential candidates have faced pressure on both questions from strong partisan bases. The Democrats, up until now, have been happy to avoid having to walk the tightrope between their large Hispanic base and the inevitable Republican baiting on national security. The issue has now very much hit the Party. Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, has hit out at the Democrat position on illegal immigration. His immediate target is Hillary Clinton and he is now running an advertisement campaign that criticises her support for “sanctuary” of illegal immigrants residing in the U.S. Romney has promised that he would enact harsh penalties against any U.S. cities that avoided legal requirements to arrest unlawful immigrants.

Clinton and fellow candidates find themselves in a tight spot. Reaching the Latino vote will be important for any Democrat and there is no clear separation between the legal and illegal residents. A large number of illegal aliens entered the U.S. lawfully and there are many family connections that cross this legal boundary. There are just as strong ties between the wider Latino diaspora. This week more than 150 organisations are meeting to coordinate a strategy to defend the rights of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. that they represent. The testimonies that they present demonstrate a significant negative impact on the families and communities that have been shocked and divided by raids. Such evidence has prompted Democrats John Kerry and Hilda Solis to introduce the Families First Immigration Enforcement Act to the Senate and House that would warrant a more humanitarian approach to illegal immigrant arrests.

There may be good reason to go even further. Polls during the immigration debate earlier in the year revealed that a clear majority of the American public favoured granting citizenship to illegal immigrants already in the country. Key members of Congress and the Bush administration agreed. President Bush’s comprehensive immigration reform bill included measures to introduce pathways for illegal immigrant citizenship. Although traditional leftist organisations and leaders demonstrated opposition to what they regarded as limited measures, the proponents of reform were primarily defeated by a conservative minority. Their focus on law, crime and security holds some sway with the American public and Democrat candidates looking to capture the centre ground next November have decided that they cannot ignore it. In a recent debate, Clinton attempted to avoid a question on the granting of driving licences to illegal immigrants. Her campaign team later issues a statement of her support for such a measure, but it is clear that there is a fine line that is being walked.

The issue is certainly not a partisan one. Democrat Christopher Dodd expressed his opposition to the driving licence measure and Romney has also attacked Rudy Giuliani’s immigration record. As Governor of New York, Giuliani demonstrated a fairly progressive approach to illegal immigrants and welcomed conditions for recognition of their rights and a path to citizenship. Giuliani was certainly not alone in the Party as the split caused by Bush’s reform proposals revealed. In recent statements however, Giuliani has opted to place immigration questions within the framework of terrorism and national security. That such a framework has been imposed on the question of immigration is an unfortunate one, but the discussion has clearly become centred on the importance of border security.

Republicans have expressed intentions to strengthen the Department of Homeland Security’s Secure Border Initiative. Pivotal to this scheme is the reinforcement of the fence that is being constructed along the U.S.-Mexican border. The Border Patrol announced this week that it planned to add an “invulnerable structure” to sections of the fence that would give extra protection to law enforcers and add a further deterrent to potential illegal immigrants. Democrat legislators have attempted to block funding for such measures, but the presidential candidates have been forced to take a more cautious approach. During the September debate in Miami that focused on Latino issues, the Democrat frontrunners, Clinton and Barack Obama, both stood by their decision to support the border fence. The rationale they offered was, again, national security. It was left to the Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, to condemn the idea as “a terrible symbol.”

The symbol is terrible and is significant to determining the future of the next administration’s relationship with Latin America and the domestic Hispanic population. The fence between the U.S. and its Southern neighbours adds a striking imagery to the reality of the divide that has existed for some time. Activist groups have long argued that the border initiative does not tackle the inequality at the root of the immigration problem. In fact, it embodies it. Whilst standards of living and average incomes south of the Rio Bravo del Norte remain so much lower than those north of the Rio Grande, deaths during crossing attempts will continue. The “invulnerable structure” and the treatment of illegal aliens negate the rhetoric of Bush administration that has emphasised the equality and shared identity of the entire peoples of the Western Hemisphere.

The simple fact is that illegal immigrants are being characterised as criminals, drug-traffickers and terrorists. The National Border Patrol Strategy identifies the threat posed by the Mexican border as one of terrorism and terrorist weapons. The cross-border terrorist threat, it argues, is not mutually exclusive from economic immigration. There may be some truth in that terrorists can use the same passageways as economic migrants. With such assertions however, it has become easy for some to depict the two groups as equivalent in the same problem. There are a number of private American groups that widely distribute propaganda about illegal immigrant crime. They also revere the Border Patrol’s Mounted Guards – their portrayal fitting with a mythical image of the American cowboy hunting the ‘barbarous’ Indian. Many Latin Americans are under no illusion that they are as unwelcome by some U.S. citizens.

Under the pretence of ‘law’, conservative Republicans have done little to demonstrate a fraternal connection to Latinos seeking to enter the U.S. or already seeking sanctuary. Some liberal Democrats have opposed the ‘tough on illegal immigration, tough on illegal immigrants’ approach, but the imposition of the national security framework has distorted the debate. There still needs to be a clearer assertion of being ‘tough on the causes of illegal immigration.’ The aspirant candidates of both parties, who are seeking to travel an ambiguous path between the two bases, in an effort to maximise votes, will have a job in satisfying either. The Hispanic electorate in the U.S. will be watching closely, as will the rest of Latin America.

Emerging Threats and Missed Opportunities in Natural Crises

2007-11-06T02:48:00.000-08:00

Emerging Threats and Missed Opportunities in Natural Crises

Noel has left its mark on the Americas. The hurricane is the latest in a string of recent natural disasters to claim hundreds of deaths and thousands of victims in the Western Hemisphere. The fatalities in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Puerto Rico and the Bahamas have already exceeded those caused by Hurricane Felix that hit the Caribbean and Central America two months ago. At the same time, nearly one million people have suffered the effects of flooding in the region of Tabasco in Mexico. During the season for natural hazards these crises are not unexpected, but this inevitability calls for a better effort to reduce human susceptibility. The Director of the United Nations Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) has already called for more government action to protect vulnerable people.

In its Living with Risk report, the ISDR concludes that there is potential to reduce human vulnerability to hazards. It notes that the word crisis is represented in Chinese by the characters for threat and opportunity. The threat is clear. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has already suggested that environmental disasters are likely to become more frequent. The opportunity should lie in the shared danger. Some regions may be more naturally vulnerable, but these disasters are widespread and have no deliberate target. The problem, however, is that the impact is not equal. The ISDR reports that more than 90% of deaths related to natural disasters occur in ‘developing’ countries, where there is a lack of capacity to limit their effects. These statistics are supported in studies by the likes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Federation. Those in the American Republics south of the familiar divide in the Western Hemisphere are likely to face a larger risk.

Although the ISDR recognises the primary responsibility of nations to protect against disasters, it also advocates more regional cooperation. There is an opportunity then for the U.S. to demonstrate regional and global leadership by allocating its superior resources in a positive response to the threat. The Bush administration has adopted two main approaches, but neither has shown particular success. The U.S. does have a long history of emergency response to disaster. Recent humanitarian assistance has been directed primarily through the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance in the Agency for International Development (USAID). It has provided relief to Latin America in the aftermath of this season’s natural disasters, but the aid has not been of substantial proportion.

Funds for the International Disaster and Famine Assistance account represented only a small part of the USAID budget for FY 2007 and were reduced further in the budget request for FY 2008. Resources have instead been heavily concentrated in supporting those ‘strategic states’ on the ‘frontline of the War on Terror.’ In a Senate hearing on the USAID FY 2008 budget request, Senator Patrick Leahy told the former Administrator of USAID and Director of the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, “We know you have to make hard choices. We all face budget constraints. But Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Indonesia are not the only countries where the United States has important economic and security interests. You need to make sense of this for us if we are going to be able to work together.” The relatively small allocations for the Americas program were also dominated by peace and security measures. Funds for humanitarian assistance were heavily overshadowed by those for counter-narcotics programs.

The declining support of emergency aid is partly due to the emergent approach based on the understanding that disasters should not be managed by humanitarian response, but by comprehensive economic development. The fact already established that underdeveloped nations suffer more from natural hazards suggests that development should be welcomed. The chance to invest in restructuring economic infrastructure appeals to the modernisation focus of U.S. development theories. The protection of economic and technical processes that is common in developed countries is certainly necessary if vulnerable regions in Latin America are to recover from natural disaster. This alone however, does not address human vulnerability. The U.S. development model has failed to benefit everyone. Despite significant investment in the oil-rich region of Tabasco, wealth inequality remains endemic. The impact of natural disasters is more severe for those who neither have the means for easy escape nor rebuilding their lives. The risk that is unfairly divided between rich and poor nations is matched by a disparity within nations.

In shaping its response to the threat of natural crises in the Americas the U.S. is faced with strategic opportunities and threats. The Bush administration has formulated its global strategy around demonstrating the credibility of both its leadership and power and universal model of liberation. Regional strategy has long played an important role in validating both claims. The inability of many Latin American states to deal with crises does not mean that U.S. response need be driven by lofty idealism and neighbourly concern alone. Demonstrating leadership, cooperation and a real capability to raise human safety and living standards in its own backyard would send a powerful signal to the rest of the world. The Bush administration, however, has chosen the Middle East to demonstrate the resolve of its leadership and model of liberation. Its failure to do either has already damaged its reputation, but the neglect of Latin America also has long-term implications.

Further death, destruction and displacement for those already suffering the most in Latin America will undoubtedly generate widespread instability and despair. The U.S. faces a significant strategic problem if it is perceived to be unable to positively shape the environment on its own doorstep. The problem is amplified if more of Latin America loses faith in the U.S. and seeks an alternative means of salvation. Can the Bush administration and its successor actually curtail popular dissatisfaction in Latin America and restore confidence in the U.S.? There are many spheres of the relationship that have to be improved, but the ability to persuade many in Latin America that the U.S. offers the immediate refuge and the wider path to development and security from the increasing threat of natural disaster is a symbolic, if not basic foundation.

If many Latin Americans are reluctant to trust the Bush administration’s weak efforts to improve their security and wellbeing, few will be persuaded otherwise by its approach to disaster management and development in the U.S. The pictures of people stranded on rooftops in Villahermosa, the state capital of Tabasco, invoke the symbolic images of New Orleans. Andrés Granier, the Governor of Tabasco, is among many to have compared his region’s flooding to that of the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The response of the Bush administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency has proven to be a public diplomacy catastrophe. Taking up her position as Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Karen Hughes stated that, “It's offensive to me to suggest that somehow, as I've seen some headlines and some reports do, that people, that Americans weren't helped because they are poor or because of their race. That is anti-American. That is not what our country is about.” The perception that race and class were significant factors in government response certainly damaged the image of the U.S. and the credibility of the Bush administration in Latin America.

Less public, but just as noteworthy as the administration’s failing to provide relief for many poor black residents who were left stranded for days on rooftops and in public spaces like the Superdome, is the fact that many wealthy white victims were able to take advantage of private sector rescue services. In her recent work on ‘disaster-capitalism’, Naomi Klein uncovered the extent of the privatisation of emergency assistance that was employed after Hurricane Katrina and has become widespread among privileged America. In this Saturday’s Guardian, Klein revealed such services that were utilised in the California wildfires. Private fire response companies were called in to protect the homes of the wealthy, whilst under-resourced public units struggled with infernos in poorer areas. The American rich will be able to quickly readjust after such disasters, but the poor who were fortunate to escape death or injury will still have to deal with having no insurance and little means to rebuild their lives. Two years after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit New Orleans thousands are still displaced in temporary camps and unable to return to their homes and lives.

The recent U.S. experiences of natural disasters will have a more profound effect on the ongoing efforts to sell the American way of life to Latin America. They will likely face a mixed reception. Private disaster response will undoubtedly appeal to many of the region’s rich who already benefit from private services in segregated communities and will be eager to elevate themselves further above the rest of the population. The Latin American poor who have become increasingly opposed to U.S. influence in the region have been offered a rare glimpse past the rhetoric of the American dream. Media broadcasts showing them that what is true for them is also true for some of the American poor is only going to increase their resilience to the U.S. design for ‘progress’ and ‘development’. In missing the opportunity to positively respond to natural crises and demonstrate that the U.S. can improve the safety and living standards of the domestic, regional and global population, the Bush administration is only generating more threats that will have to be faced later.

Sowing the Seeds of Failure in the Western Hemisphere: Incoherent Identities in American Hegemony

2007-11-01T07:00:00.001-07:00

Sowing the Seeds of Failure in the Western Hemisphere: Incoherent Identities in American Hegemony

“Those who ignore Latin America do not fully understand America itself. And those who ignore our hemisphere do not fully understand American interests.”
George W. Bush, August 2000.

“The United States appear to be destined by Providence to plague America with misery in the name of liberty.”
Simón Bolívar.

2007 was supposed to mark the Bush administration’s ‘year of engagement with the Americas’. Unless there is something remarkable hidden up Bush’s sleeve for December, the people of Latin America will spend the next year waiting to discover the identity of the new occupant of the White House. Time after time, the Latin American Republics have anticipated a fresh approach from a new U.S. administration only to have been let down. On the 2000 campaign trail, Bush himself pledged to put the Western Hemisphere at the centre of his foreign policy. “Our future cannot be separated from the future of Latin America,” Bush announced. “Should I become the president, I will look south not as an afterthought, but as a fundamental commitment.” After the damage caused by the Bush administration, the 2008 election will need to bring, at least, a renewed hope for better inter-American relations. The next administration will inherit leadership of an international environment and nation from the most divisive president in recent history. The 2008 election will represent, in part, a debate on the identity and role of the U.S. in the world. How the Western Hemisphere fits within this identity and wider approach to the world will shape the future of U.S. relations with the region. National and regional tensions however, run deeper than the past 7 years and the 44th president will struggle to reconcile them.

The narrative of American exceptionalism is at the core of these tensions. This discourse has supported the belief in the superiority of the American people and their way of life. Speaking to the magazine, Emel, this week, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, expressed criticism of this “chosen nation myth of America, meaning that what happens in America is very much at the heart of God’s purpose for humanity.” Divine Providence has provided the U.S. with a unique sense of Mission, but it has not imparted a clear vision on how to fulfill this duty. It has instead offered a narrative and rationale for disparate views of the U.S. and its role in the world. Different constructions of American identity and global role remain in permanent conflict and the 2008 election will continue a national debate on their relative merit. The future of hemispheric relations will be determined somewhere within these incongruous constructions of identity.

The embedded belief in American exceptionalism supports conflicting views of the U.S. It confers to many Americans a sense of unique character and a conviction that they alone can carry out “God’s purpose for humanity.” This belief reinforces a prioritisation of protecting the American people and their way of life. The impulse to separate the U.S. from threats posed by the rest of the world has had enduring influence, but there has been a more prevalent acknowledgment that isolation will neither guarantee the security of the nation nor protect the commercial interests that support the American way of life. American interests would instead need to be protected by expanding its influence beyond its borders. The Latin Americans soon discovered this expansive impulse as the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 declared U.S. interests in a hemispheric sphere of influence. The notion of American exceptionalism justified a relentless pursuit of U.S. interests in the Western Hemisphere to the general detriment of the rest of the region. The main theme of the ‘American Century’ was the conclusion that only global primacy would guarantee American physical and economic security. This has continued as Archbishop Williams notes that, “We have only one global hegemonic power at the moment.” It is not accumulating territory;” he added, “it is trying to accumulate influence and control.” Whilst the Archbishop correctly identifies the U.S. as the sole global power, it is still evident today that the extent of U.S. influence is not universal. The need to increase U.S. influence in the world has been more commonly accepted in the post-9/11 environment, but debate continues over the extent of engagement necessary to achieve the security of the U.S. and its way of life.

The pursuit of securing U.S. interests may invoke realistic limits to engagement, but the drive for the expansion of U.S. influence will also continue on a different basis. The narrative of exceptionalism and destiny has also constructed a conflicting concept of the universality of American character. Belief that the American way of life represents the future liberation of humanity has driven a Messianic pursuit to spread its influence. The tension between the particular and universal concepts of American exceptionalism is permanent. A consensus for expanding the American orbit has been possible however, whilst it appears to protect both the American project for mankind and the spread of liberation. “By serving themselves,” Thomas Paine had once argued, “Americans would serve the world.” The narrative of exceptionalism accompanied discourses on the liberation of the American people and others in the advance of the frontiers of the American orbit through the declarations of Independence and the Monroe and Truman doctrines. The declaration of the ‘End of History’ was supposed to be the final chapter as the U.S. led humanity into the post-Cold War world. However, the intrinsic tension between the particular and universal forms of American exceptionalism is exposed by conceptual and tangible obstacles to expansion. This first became apparent in the Western Hemisphere and is now globally evident.

The need to demonstrate liberation determines the conceptual limits of the exceptional nation motivation for expansion. Universalistic discourse requires the liberation of those integrated into the American orbit and a conflation of their identity with American exceptionalism. The prioritisation of U.S. national interests promoted in the opposing construction of a unique American character denies, however, any such equivalence to entities external to the U.S. This conceptual tension between the universal and particular constructions means that support for American expansion is found in contradictory discourses. On the one hand, the conviction that relations with Latin America should be governed by the prioritisation of U.S. interests is reinforced by a construction of Latin America as an inferior ‘Other’. The concept of American distinctiveness originally supported by a framework of overt racial hierarchy and ideas of civilisation were gradually replaced by concealed notions of modernity and progress. On the other hand however, the consent of Latin Americans and American idealists for American hegemony, or at least acquiescence in it, is reliant on the demonstration of equivalence between the U.S. and Latin America.

Ultimately however, the need to defend particular national interests determines the objective limits of the universalism behind American global expansion. Preservation of an asymmetrical power structure with the U.S. at its apex negates any genuine equivalence. It inevitably denies others some of the values at the core of the American way of life. Nowhere has this been more apparent than in the Western Hemisphere, where as an obstacle to the liberation of individuals and states of Latin America, the U.S. cannot escape provoking forces of resistance. Faced with unrelenting opposition, the very assertion of U.S. leadership and pursuit of primacy actually prevents its complete realisation. To foster support for American hegemony, successive administrations have sought instead to accumulate the plurality of interests in the Western Hemisphere in narratives of shared identity.

The demarcation of continental borders between two oceans provides an ontic boundary to this sphere, but the identification of a hemispheric identity does not indicate an equivalence of its components other than their naming. Despite geographical proximity, it has proven problematic to base the unity of the heterogeneous states and individuals of the region on any significant shared characteristic. Initially their equivalence was based instead, upon common differentiation to a negative externality that confronts each of them. In this case the ‘imagined community’ of the ‘New World’ was established in binary opposition to the common ‘imagined anti-community’, or the ‘Other’, of the ‘Old World’. The Republics of the Americas shared a common narrative of revolutionary struggle for independence against the colonial powers of Europe. However, the emerging reality that the U.S. was replacing the European powers as the masters of Latin American destiny soon fractured such a cohesive distinction.

Although a common identity was not determined, that is not to say that it could not be developed. The U.S. transferred some of its power through declarations of both the equal rights of both states and individuals in the Western Hemisphere. (See this week’s The Backyard for analysis of the strategic tensions between these two concepts of equality.) The Truman administration also sought to develop a positive core to the common identity through the creation of an inter-American system. The narratives and myths of common identity were reinforced by the institutionalisation of principles of equality. Whilst these institutional frameworks placed some immediate constraints on American regional hegemony, they were, however, not enough to represent a genuine equivalence. The continued absence of real economic and political equality in the hemisphere meant that Latin American antagonism towards the U.S. was not fully eliminated.

The U.S. never needed to fully reconcile these tensions to maintain its hegemony though. It had only to ensure that opponents did not unify with equivalent demands to challenge American hegemony. At the domestic level concerted attempts were made to resolve the pursuit of U.S. interests in the Western Hemisphere with liberation ideals. The Truman administration pursued a credible demonstration of the path to liberation through engagement with American commercial and security interests. Latin Americans and American idealists would need to be persuaded that U.S. leadership of the region would quickly lead to a genuine equality. Postwar expansion made such demonstrations impossible though. The acceptance of new commitments in an extended sphere overstretched the resources and attention that were necessary to guarantee delivery on promises of substantial development assistance made in World War II. The extension of the American orbit to include the European ‘Other’ further strained the notion of hemispheric exceptionalism. The prioritisation of resources to Europe negated any suggestion of the equivalence of all the constituent parts of the U.S. sphere. In the ‘year of engagement’ the rhetoric of liberation has led to resurgent Latin American expectations. Nevertheless, the U.S. has still failed to demonstrate that its leadership and way of life represents the best path for Latin American liberation.

The Bush administration has instead identified a simple boundary to the U.S. sphere of influence. The limits of the ‘Free World’ have been drawn in the Middle East and the administration has committed resources to advancing the frontier. However, the construction of the ‘Free World’ is even more problematic than that of a shared hemispheric identity. There are certainly no comparable ontic demarcations. Unfulfilled universalism cannot be explained simply by antagonistic forces of an ‘anti-American orbit’ that stands outside and opposed to the American orbit. Neither can the opposition be considered as cultural. “I am skeptical,” Rowan Williams states, “about fixing the identities of civilizations in an eternal form as if they are bound to clash with each other.” The homogenisation and simplification of the outliers to the American orbit into a representation of the ‘Other’ neglect the complex reasons for identification and disassociation with the U.S. sphere. Without a cohesive negative construction of the ‘Other’ it is even more difficult to escape the complexity and impermanence of the American orbit.

The incremental nature of U.S. expansion means that there are narratives from preceding constructions of American spheres that undermine the new discourses of the ‘Free World’. The new construction of the ‘Free World’ is complicated by continued Cold War discourses of the ‘West’. The cohesion and equivalence of this new sphere are weakened by the absence of comparable institutions and discourses. More significantly, the shared narratives and myths of hemispheric identity have even deeper roots and have been preserved by the continuation of the inter-American system. The Bush administration has continued to employ hemispheric exceptionalism discourses that demonstrate the continued meaning of this particular identity. The constructions of national exceptionalism and the asymmetry of power in the region remain dominant, but the reaffirmation of the hemispheric construction ensures that it resides in the cognitive framework of policymakers and the wider American public.

There is no significant common core that would provide a positive feature for an objective unity of the ‘Free World’. Recent attempts to claim a shared identity with states like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan demonstrate the incoherence of this construction. Despite this, the presidential candidates have generally accepted this Manichaean construction of the world. The U.S. must, according to Barack Obama, “lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good.” Rudy Giuliani has also pledged not to “remain silent when evil makes an appearance” and to “keep America on offense in the terrorists’ war on us.” Archbishop Williams is critical of this American Mission. “It is not working,” he stressed, with particular reference to the damage it has caused in Iraq. The 2008 election is, to a large extent, a debate on whether the U.S. must continue the active pursuit of extending the ‘Free World’ or admit the immediate difficulties of the task and temporarily retreat to reinforce the boundaries of its sphere of influence. There are certainly appeals to the Jeffersonian impulse to reinforce American hegemony through redirecting resources for a demonstration of a positive example of liberation. A shining example of liberation is probably necessary to restore U.S. reputation. The tension in American exceptional identities would however, create problems for determining how to rebuild prestige.

Reinforcement of the exceptional nation will not be enough to repair the damage to the unity of the American sphere of influence and the credibility of U.S. hegemony caused by the Gulf War. Forces of opposition are rising and the U.S. cannot risk a cohesive challenge to its hegemony. It would be impossible however, to focus already overstretched resources on the entire ‘Free World’. The Western Hemisphere has always presented a good opportunity for the U.S. to demonstrate the benign nature of its leadership and the model of liberation that the American way of life offers. Like its predecessors however, the Bush administration has adopted rhetoric of hemispheric exceptionalism that has drawn “the eyes of all people” on the region, whilst declining to commit the resources to establish it as a “citty upon the hill.” A strategy that continues to assert overwhelming primacy in a Western Hemisphere that is also depicted as having a shared identity carries the seeds of its own failure. The same can be said for any similar primus inter pares in the ‘Free World’. Guaranteeing an acceptance of its hegemony and a level of cohesion in its orbit is vital if the U.S. wishes to extend its influence. The hegemonic system provides the source for the U.S.’ preponderance of economic and military power and a stepping stone for pushing the frontiers of its orbit. The Bush administration has demonstrated that is has been unable to consolidate its hegemonic hold over its own backyard without reneging on global commitments. The expansion of the U.S. sphere without establishing ascendancy and assuaging opposition will only further frustrate and overstretch any military and economic preponderance.

The renewed calls for retreat are louder than usual, but it is unlikely that they will herald a new approach in 2009. The active expansionist impulse to defend U.S. interests remains too strong to be superseded. None of the presidential candidates have suggested a drastic change in approach. Despite distancing themselves from Bush, particularly his failure in Iraq, their campaign speeches share the same popular narrative of American exceptionalism and destiny that has pervaded the current president’s rhetoric. Barack Obama has expressed his agreement with Bush that, “America’s larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom.” Similar sentiments are easily found in the campaign speeches of the other candidates. The absence of U.S. global hegemony is pushing them towards an active role for the U.S. in advancing the frontier one last time. Pushing on these walls however, will only divert their attention from the holes that are emerging in the foundations of American hegemony. These holes are getting wider and deeper in Latin America, where they continue their wait for the actual realisation of the rhetoric of hemispheric exceptionalism. They have persevered in hope for many years though; they will wait another.

Where is the Outrage?

2007-10-30T01:58:00.000-07:00

Where is the Outrage?

U.S. Secretary of Commerce and Co-Chair of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, Carlos M. Gutierrez, has a “very simple message” for the international community: “Where is the outrage?” Speaking to the press and public after last week’s major policy address on Cuba, Gutierrez reemphasised President Bush’s challenge to the international community to speak out in favour of democracy in Cuba. “All nations,” Bush had stressed, “can make tangible efforts to show public support for those who love freedom on the island.” President Bush called on the world to put aside differences and to stand with the Cuban people as they stand up for liberty. “The day is coming,” he said, “when the Cuban people have the freedom they have awaited for so long.” Urging international leaders into action, Bush contended that “when freedom finally comes, they will surely remember who stood with them.” For its part, among other measures, Bush declared that his administration “will keep the embargo in place.”

Latin American political leaders responded quickly to Bush’s call and expressed their intent to stand by the Cuban people. For their part, however, their solidarity was built upon the removal of the Cuban embargo. In condemning Bush’s speech, one Guatemalan politician stated that: “This is the longest blockade in contemporary history, and also the most inhuman act against a people that has decided to defend its self-determination and independence.” “It is a discredited, isolated policy that has no future. It has remained only due to the US leaders' obstinacy,” charged one Nicaraguan politician. A prominent Salvadorian leader, made the more general indictment: "Continuing with that aggressive policy is unfair and a serious violation of international decisions." Responding to Bush’s address and the reaction of many of his neighbouring countries, the Cuban Foreign Minister, Felipe Perez Roque, defiantly asserted: “We tell Bush that the day to lift the blockade is coming.”

The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Thomas A. Shannon, stressed that the timing of Bush’s speech was not determined by this week’s annual vote on the Cuba embargo in the United Nations’ General Assembly. Few will be persuaded by such a weak claim. The past few days has seen a palpable intensification in the Bush administration’s efforts to gain support for its embargo. Gutierrez publicly reaffirmed the U.S.’ wish to work with allies and friends, but again he asked of the international community, “Where is the outrage?” He added, “We've heard of the outrage about Burma. And you know the things happening in Cuba have been going on for a lot longer and more intensely than Burma. Where is the outrage?” It is unlikely however, that this short-term diplomatic drive will be enough to improve the U.S.’ poor record in the U.N. on this issue. It has been unsuccessful in its opposition to a draft resolution to end the embargo on Cuba every year since 1992, when the vote was first introduced. Last year, the U.S. faced its most heavy diplomatic defeat when the resolution was adopted by a majority of 183 in favour and 4 against. Standing alongside the U.S., in an unimpressive ‘coalition of the willing,’ was long-time partner Israel and the global forces of the Marshall Islands and Palau. The statements in opposition to the U.S.’ unilateral embargo were too numerous to be recounted here, but a few examples highlight the task for the Bush administration this year.

The spokesperson for the Group of 77 developing nations condemned “the continued imposition of the embargo as a violation of the principles of sovereign equality of States and non-intervention in the domestic affairs of a country.” On behalf of the Caribbean Community, its spokesperson declared that Cuba is “an integral part of the region” and “it threatens noone.” The embargo, he added, serves “no useful purpose in the twenty-first century.” The resolution was reinforced by similar denunciations made by the large trading blocs of the European Union and Mercosur. Perhaps more revealing, considering his own nation’s experience with U.S. sanctions, was the Chinese delegate’s statement that, “for more than 40 years, the embargo and sanctions against Cuba have been carried out under the pretext of ‘promoting democracy, freedom and human rights in Cuba,’ but the reality was that the practice of attempting to force another country to give up its independently chosen path of development, even to overthrow its Government, through embargo and sanctions, was a violation of the Charter and the basic norms governing contemporary international relations. That kind of practice had nothing to do with promoting democracy and freedom.” Russia too, was harsh in its disapproval of U.S. coercive unilateral measures. The fact that both Russia and China maintain their own unilateral measures against neighbouring countries demonstrates some hypocrisy, but the fact remains that the U.S. faces overwhelming international opposition in its sanctions against Cuba.

Outspoken critics last year not only included nations who have experienced U.S. sanctions or are now faced with them, such as Iran and Syria, but also established partners. Many have never been totally comfortable with the U.S. assertion of hemispheric ascendancy through the Monroe Doctrine and its various corollaries. The persistence of the U.S. embargo despite the Organization of American States’ decision to lift collective sanctions over 30 years ago, has only served to undermine the claim that the Monroe Doctrine had been ‘multilateralised’. Further afield, the U.S.’ determination to demonstrate the credibility of its benign global leadership and commitment to collective decision-making has also been damaged. 45 years and a day before Bush’s speech on Cuba, the Kennedy administration received a letter from the Soviet Premier, Nikita Khrushchev in response to their naval blockade of Cuba. “The actions of U.S.A. with regard to Cuba,” he wrote, “are outright banditry or, if you like, the folly of degenerate imperialism.”

The Bush administration has done little to persuade the international community that it is not pursuing an outdated imperialism in its own backyard. Its credibility has only been further damaged by its policies in the Middle East. The administration now faces a colossal task if it hopes to repair this reputation and gain international support for ‘democracy promotion’ through sanctions against Cuba ahead of this week’s vote. There are a myriad interests and principles represented in the U.N. General Assembly. Many nations will share the U.S.’ concerns about the domestic situation inside Cuba, but the following also share an ‘outrage’ against the U.S. embargo:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
(For those counting - The Federated States of Micronesia abstained and the Côte d’Ivoire, El Salvador, Iraq, and Nicaragua were all absent from the vote.)

Development For Us, Led By Us

2007-10-23T14:38:00.000-07:00

Development For Us, Led By Us

The economic development agenda was brought to the forefront in Latin America again last week, when the governments of Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela met in Rio de Janiero for discussions on the creation of the Banco del Sur (Bank of the South). The preparatory talks have reached advanced stages and the inauguration of the new development bank is expected early next month, with the possibility of operational capability in the New Year. The progress of the Banco del Sur and the economic agenda however, represent a broader struggle to define the future of Latin America.

The Bush administration remains resolute in the pursuit of its vision of development in the Western Hemisphere, based upon the principles of economic growth through free trade and private investment. To a large degree, this ‘Washington Consensus’ has been the central feature of Latin American economic development since World War II. Indeed, the economic strength of the U.S. has long made it the most attractive suitor for many Latin American governments. It has the capital and markets that are vital for developing Latin American economies and raising living standards. To that end, there has been a latent pragmatism to Latin American pursuit of good relations with the U.S. and the acceptance of the American economic model. For many, it has provided the only acceptable course for receiving development assistance. Few Latin Americans believe that this has not come without a price. There is a difference of opinion in the region however, as to what this price is.

The need to correct the imbalanced economic relationship between the U.S. and Latin America has rarely been challenged in the South. Next year sees the 50th anniversary of the creation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America. In its formative years, the agency posited the idea that U.S. policies were designed to sustain its own economic ascendancy and actually trap Latin America in a ‘dependent’ relationship with the U.S. Over the next half century, the U.S. demonstrated an open hostility towards alternative sponsors or development models in the region. Economic development continues to top the Latin American agenda, but recent economic growth has made the role of the U.S. and its economic model more contentious. The U.S. has encountered growing resistance to its vision for the region, most significantly in the opposition to its proposal for a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

Representatives of the Mercado Común del Sur (Southern Common Market – Mercosur) regarded the FTAA as an “asymmetrical model of negotiations between North and South.” For the larger economies of this growing trade bloc, Brazil and Argentina in particular, their recent increase in economic strength affords them a much improved negotiating position. Through the increasingly influential Mercosur they have been able to operate with even more autonomy. The U.S. has frequently used the concept of hemispheric fraternity and identity as a driving force for regional integration under its own vision. However, the equally pervasive belief in American exceptionalism and perception of difference between the North and South has often undermined this sentiment. Despite differences and local antagonisms, the Latin American Republics have been more sincere in their Pan-Americanism. The gradually shifting balance of power means that the pragmatic relationship with the U.S. need no longer necessarily entail integration and development along U.S. lines.

The proponents of the Mercosur free trade bloc envision an alternative to U.S. economic hegemony. Clinging to the panacea of economic growth, they foresee a bright future for the region. Despite optimism being slightly dampened by the economic slowdown in the U.S., they still forecast significant growth. Not everyone shares this enthusiasm however. Economic neoliberalism, even without the predominance of the U.S., is too costly a price for many. Economic growth has failed to substantially raise the living standards of many Latin Americans. As the Copenhagen Consensus argues, the “one striking feature in Latin America is how little redistribution is carried out.” The reality for many Latin Americans, even in the economies with significant growth, is a life in poverty.

Fewer Latin Americans now live in conditions of ‘extreme poverty’, but nearly a quarter of the population of Latin America are still trapped by an inequality that sees them living on under $2 a day. Hit hardest by poverty rates are the indigenous population living in rural areas. However, it is the familiar pictures of young people in urban shanty towns and scavenging in rubbish dumps just minutes away from their affluent neighbours who live in gated communities and spend disposable income in lavish shopping malls that are often more striking in highlighting the problem of inequality in Latin America. For many Latin American leaders, the economic rebalancing between nations has to be matched with an economic rebalancing within the nations themselves. Only last week, leaders of leftist-movements in South America met in Quito, Ecuador to consider means of economic progress that were not susceptible to the destructive elements of free trade and neoliberalism.

The Alternativa Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América (Boliviarian Alternative for the People of Our America - ALBA) has a current membership that extends only to the coalition of left-leaning American Republics, but they have already set about advancing the principles of social welfare and mutual economic aid through their Tratado de Comercio de los Pueblos (People’s Trade Agreement). The ALBA provides an entirely different model of economic integration, but like the FTAA and Mercosur, it is as much about wider power relations as it is economic development. In signing an agreement last week that would further integration between Venezuela and Cuba, Chávez declared that unity would make their bloc of nations stronger in the field of knowledge, economy, politics, scientific development and the military power. “We will make this aggregate of countries from the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas and beyond into a power region of the world,” he stressed. “Not one powerful country, rather a powerful region.”

The Banco del Sur will progress within this wider context of cooperation and competition within Latin America. Its role in the region is still uncertain. The Venezuelan government has conveyed its intention to promote the Banco del Sur as an alternative lender to the likes of the International Monetary Fund, Inter-American Development Bank, and World Bank. These established institutions generally welcome the additional resources that could be brought to the region, but many critics fear that the Banco del Sur is the latest of moves by Venezuelan President, Hugo Chávez, to extend his influence across the region. With an estimated $7 billion in initial capital, the Banco del Sur will not be as large as the Washington-based funds, but Chávez regards the bank as a step away from the tutelage of the “tools of Washington.” He has already expressed intentions to leave the International Monetary Fund. “The idea,” declared the Venezuelan Finance Minister, Rodrigo Cabeza, “is to rely on a development agency for us, led by us.”

The surprise development of the recent Colombian request to join the Banco del Sur may demonstrate some reconfiguration of power away from the U.S., but Álvaro Uribe, the Colombian President, has insisted that the bank should not be considered a total rejection of Washington. Instead, the U.S.’ closest ally in the region asserts that the bank should be an “expression of solidarity and brotherhood.” Here he captures the mood of some of the other participating governments, such as Argentina and Brazil. Both may prove eager to strengthen the region through access to more credit, but neither will be quick to unnecessarily damage pragmatic relations with Washington. Brazil, in particular, has expressed reservations about plans for creating an emergency bail-out fund to match the IMF and has insisted upon the bank’s remit be limited to aiding investment in the region. Despite being based in Caracas, the spread of fund contributions make it unlikely that Venezuela will be able to dominate this multilateral initiative. Chávez may turn to regional allies to form a coalition, but the pervasive influence of other members will ensure he is not guaranteed success. Latin American economic development will continue to be overshadowed by these wider power struggles. Meanwhile however, millions of Latin Americans will continue to experience the inequality and suffer the poverty.

Signals of Failure to Ally and Enemy Alike

2007-10-16T07:00:00.000-07:00

Signals of Failure to Ally and Enemy Alike

The Bush administration brought out the ‘heavyweights’ this week in an effort to resurrect its faltering global economic strategy. President George Bush and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice used major public addresses to foster support for a series of free trade agreements with Peru, Colombia and Panama. With U.S. leadership in the free trade agenda running into mounting opposition and with key programmes, such as the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, virtually dead in the water, these bilateral treaties are an attempt by the Bush administration to retake the initiative in the Western Hemisphere and further afield. Secretary Rice led the way with an address to the Council on Foreign Relations and a Roundtable with trade and economic journalists, whilst President Bush also made the case for these agreements in a speech at the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce and in his weekly radio address to the nation. However, they face diverse opposition to their agenda and will find it difficult to foster a consensus in support. Bush and Rice will have to make a coherent argument, whilst at the same time, appeal to different target audiences. It is a problem that has confronted many of their predecessors and it already appears to be a challenge too far for them.

The locale of the Council on Foreign Relations for Rice’s principal speech was a symbolic choice. As an organisation, it has attempted to build and develop a broad internationalist consensus since its establishment in the early 1920s. It has focused on extending this consensus beyond the state to opinion leaders and the wider public at home and abroad. Secretary Rice made it clear that it would be necessary for similar efforts to develop a consensus for these new free trade agreements. "It will take all of us," she asserted, "not just the government, but the assembled friends of the United States around the hemisphere and around the world and also our business leaders and our university leaders and indeed, those who are concerned about economic growth and development." In sum: "We have to be one in promoting trade." The Council has however, experienced only mixed success in cultivating consensus in the past. Agreement has often been limited to broad strategic aims that conceal different and often incongruous interpretations of interests and ideals. In order to push forward the free trade agenda, Rice and Bush have to convince a divided American public, as well as ensuring that the right signals are sent to other nations. At stake is the credibility of the Bush administration’s economic model and their ability to lead a project for global ‘liberation’. Rice asked the question of the American people: "What signal failure would send to nations across the globe, to friend and foe, ally and enemy alike [?]"

In her address to the Council on Foreign Relations, Secretary Rice stated that the U.S. had to convince their allies of the benefits of the U.S. model of trade. She emphasised that the administration had already demonstrated a commitment to improving the standard of living across the Western Hemisphere. The Secretary invoked a positive evolution in U.S. support of a successful and prosperous Pan-American community that began with the backing of Latin American independence, through the Good Neighbor Policy and the Alliance for Progress, to the administration’s current efforts. Later, she also drew similarities between the Bush administration’s commitment to Latin America and the Truman administration’s assistance in the reconstruction of Europe in the aftermath of war. The authorisation of the new bilateral agreements is essential, according to Rice, to demonstrate that the U.S. model will bring economic benefits to friendly nations

It is not only the credibility of the U.S. model that is at stake, but the reputation of U.S. leadership also. Rice posed the question of what signal the U.S. would send to its democratic partners in the Americas if it were fail to ratify the trade agreements. "It would be a retreat," she answered, "from our responsibility of leadership and a renunciation of our influence in the Americas. It would be a retreat from three democratic leaders, who embody the aspirations of their citizens for social justice, economic growth, and trade with the United States. And it would be a retreat from our historic, bipartisan effort to build a successful Pan-American Community -- united in peace, prosperity, and freedom." Most significantly, a failure to conclude agreements that had been passed in the legislatures of Peru, Colombia, and Panama would "send a signal loud and clear across the region that the United States can somehow not be trusted to keep its promises." Rice made plain the implications for U.S. influence in the region: "After all if we are unwilling to support the success of Colombia, a nation to which we have committed billions of dollars in assistance over many years, others would have the right to ask what chance is there that we would support them."

The message may seem clear to the Secretary of State’s ear, but the words are interpreted differently by others. Rice is not the first official to conjure such a spurious narrative of U.S. leadership in Pan-American progress, but in Latin America the story is getting old. The U.S.’ concentration of resources on the European Reconstruction Program during the early Cold War led to a neglect of the Western Hemisphere that created considerable resentment in the other American Republics. The lack of a comparable ‘Marshall Plan for Latin America’, particularly after the disappointing reality of the Alliance for Progress has created mounting, albeit sometimes simmering below the surface, antipathy towards the U.S. The Bush administration’s focus on the Middle East means that rather than enjoying the postwar ‘liberation’ experienced by Western Europe, the Latin American nations are merely reliving the same neglect. Latin America has sought to pursue its own economic development agenda for decades now and Rice was right to warn that, "we should be mindful that our neighbors are not waiting around for us." The U.S. finds that is has to ‘defend’ the principle of free trade in its own backyard.

The credibility of U.S. resolve in global leadership is being damaged by the ongoing obstacles to U.S. success in Iraq and the domestic debate around withdrawal and ‘lasting the course’. Rice stressed that U.S. support of Latin American allies would send a positive signal across the world "that the United States is completely committed to their success." In an implicit connection to possibilities in Iraq, Rice celebrated "Colombia’s transformation in less than a decade from failing state to thriving democracy [as] one of the greatest victories for the cause of human rights in our world today." The choice of Colombia as a model U.S. ally and exemplar for democracy and human rights must undoubtedly send shivers down the collective spines of both Latin America and the Middle East.

The idea that the U.S. only works with governments of a certain persuasion has not been lost on the Secretary. She stressed on numerous occasions that "it does not matter if you come from the left or right." In questions later however, Rice was more explicit in stating that the U.S. is "working pragmatically and supporting the success of all responsible democratic governments, from the left to the right." [Emphasis added.] The Bush administration, however, undoubtedly considers a responsible government to be a follower of its economic model. The bipolarity of left and right is redundant if all American Republics work within the parameters of the particular economic policies of the ‘Washington Consensus’ and even to universalise them and broaden them "into a new and truly Pan-American Consensus." The United States, Rice asserted, "charges no ideological price for our partnership." Despite this, Secretary Rice revealed that there is a certain persuasion of government that the U.S. will work with, even if it is not defined by left or right: "It doesn’t matter to this President and to the United States where you are. What matters is: were you elected democratically, do you govern democratically, are you open to a good relationship with the United States? I think that may be the single most important evolutionary fact of America's policy in Latin America." The fact that democratic governance and a good relationship with the United States does not always come hand in hand may have been lost on the Secretary.

Nonetheless, the importance of democracy underpinned Condoleeza Rice’s second message to the Council. "If you want democracy," she pronounced, "you want economic development, and trade certainly helps that." Of the proposed trade agreements, Rice asked, "What signal would failure send to the enemies of democracy in our hemisphere?" The Secretary warned that, "When democracies don’t deliver, they give ground for a kind of terrible populist authoritarianism that we see in some places." The U.S. has a duty to prevent the advance of such authoritarianism, she added, which established a "strategic argument" for support of free trade in Latin America. Rice expressed the bilateral agreements in terms of "our national interests, our national interest in this hemisphere, our ability to pursue them effectively, and our capacity to positively influence events in this region."

Hugo Chávez’s vision for Venezuela and Latin America remains for now the most symbolic threat to the American model. The Bush administration however, has continually labelled its model as the way of the future and alternatives as "backward-looking" and enemies of progress. Rice stressed that such ‘authoritarianism’ is "not an alternative vision – because one leads to success, the other leads to failure." She added, that "the real revolution of the Americas today is being led by responsible democratic leaders," who are "deepening the Pan-American consensus on creating opportunity for all through free markets, economic growth and democracy. This is the real story of recent years, not the so-called ‘Left-Turn’ that we hear so much about." The Bush administration has, in fact, been so keen to dismiss the dissenters that it has gone so far as to refuse to publicly acknowledge them by name and are often referred to in terms, such as the "noisy exceptions" to the hemispheric consensus. It is intent on sending a signal to those living under these democratically-elected governments that choose an alternative path, that their course is imprudent and inevitably futile.

So far however, the assertion of national interests has been as ineffective as the appeal to messianic ideals in persuading all the American public of the merits of free trade. President Bush has expressed his concern that "a protectionist sentiment" is "beginning to gain strength in America and in Congress." Despite his own faith in the free trade agenda, Bush admitted in his weekly radio address that, "many of our citizens feel uneasy about competition and they worry that trade will cost jobs and I understand why." The new Democratic-held Congress has not passed any of the Bush administration’s free trade agreements and has refused to renew fast-track authority. Many Democrats are concerned about violations of labor and human rights and environmental law in the new bilateral agreements. However, the growing opposition in Congress has not been confined to Democrats and polls have shown that a majority of Republicans believe that free trade is not in the best interest of the U.S. Bush has tried to coax his part colleagues by declaring that the latest trade agreements, "embody the values of open markets: transparent and fair regulation, respect for private property and resolving disputes under international law." This will be little comfort for those who represent domestic workers fearing that globalisation means loss of jobs at home.

Rice also acknowledged the widespread feeling that globalisation "may not be a rising tide that lifts all boats," but she attempted to assure that, "our diplomats are using every article of law and every tool of persuasion to protect and promote the interests of U.S. workers in the global economy." For those still wary, Rice stressed that, "I consider it my job also to defend economic interests." "I made a strategic argument today for trade," she added, "but I also believe that what our trade negotiators are doing is they're going out and they're cutting the best deal they can for the American economy." Bush urged the public to understand that, "expanding trade will help our economy grow." This will be vital for the American worker as Rice asserted the Bush administration’s dedication to the established approach of improving their lot through enlargement of the economic pie, rather than its redistribution. The message to the domestic audience was underlined again by Rice: The bilateral agreements are judged on, "first and foremost, are they good for America? Are they good for the American worker? Are they good for the American economy?" Those in Latin America who had doubted the sincerity of the U.S. commitment to their standard of living may have been distressed by Rice’s firm commitment to national interests. Opponents in Latin America will point to it as proof of U.S. plans for continued domination in the region. In the modern era, U.S. policymakers have to deal with the fact that their communications are received by unintended audiences. A domestic consensus is necessary for the Bush administration to be able to demonstrate the credibility of U.S. leadership, but persuading the public may send the wrong signals to those in Latin America assessing the credibility of the agenda.

Good dictators? That’s an invention of the conspirators.

2007-10-05T10:23:00.000-07:00

Good dictators? That’s an invention of the conspirators.

In last week’s Observer, the British conservative historian, Andrew Roberts, was asked the question, “Are dictators ever good?” “Very, very rarely, but occasionally,” he replied. So who was the example that he wished to refer to? Pinochet, he argued, had been useful in preventing the takeover of Chile by a Marxist-inspired movement and eventually presenting the country with a democratic system. Roberts did add the caveat that dictators “almost always carry on in office well after the initial need for them has gone, however, and their record on human rights is generally terrible.” Just a gentle reminder Andrew, General Augusto Pinochet led a military coup against the popularly elected government of Salvador Allende in 1973 and then proceeded to brutally rule Chile, first as head of a military junta and then as President for the next 16 years. Only popular pressure forced Pinochet to implement a provision in the Chilean constitution for a referendum on his office. It was then, after defeat in this referendum that Pinochet finally called elections, which he duly lost, but took up positions, firstly as the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and then later, as ‘Senator-for-life.’ As for a “generally terrible” human rights record, the list of charges against the Chilean dictator are too long to mention in detail, but the crimes of the ‘Caravan of Death’ are among the best documented. Exactly 44 years on from the ‘Caravan of Death’ executions, which were carried out shortly after the military coup, human remains have been found this week in the town of Lautaro that appear to be related. “Human Rights?” Pinochet once rhetorically asked CNN en Espanol. “That’s an invention of the Marxists.”

Pinochet’s human rights record was so “terrible” that his own daughter, Lucía Pinochet Hiriart, even described his use of torture as “barbaric and without justification.” Along with other members of her family and Pinochet’s inner circle, Lucía now remains in police custody after Judge Carlos Cerda ordered their arrest yesterday on the charge that they had hidden and benefited from millions of dollars that the former dictator had fraudulently amassed. Even a year on from his death, the widespread anger caused by Pinochet’s evasion of any conviction will undoubtedly add fuel to this fiery situation. Having to deal with this heat is the current President, Michelle Bachelet, who is amongst the many who experienced the cruelty of the Pinochet regime first-hand. For now, she has not sought to become too involved in the proceedings and has continued to emphasise the country’s recent progress.

One person, who shares this positive view of the ‘new’ Chile, is Bachelet’s latest luminary visitor, Robert Gates. Making his first visit as the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Gates called into Santiago this week as part of a five-day trip to Latin America. “Our bilateral relationship,” he stated during a press conference at the Chilean Ministry of Defense, “is strong because it’s based on our shared values of democracy, market economy and a commitment to social justice and human rights.” But is this not the same Robert Gates, who was more than willing to foster a strong bilateral relationship with the Pinochet regime during the early years of the Reagan administration? Not only had “Pinochet saved Chile from communism,” as Reagan suggested, but also provided a brutal ‘stability’ that allowed for the implementation of ‘neo-liberal’ economic reforms under the El Ladrillo plan, that were later described by Milton Friedman as the “Miracle of Chile.” The relationships that Gates and other senior policymakers have sought to strengthen over the years have more often been due to shared interests as they have shared values.

Gates’ trip has further pertinence, as he may also have a personal interest in dealing with the Bachelet administration. The Secretary of Defense has yet to convince everyone of his innocent role in the arms-sales scandals that plagued the Reagan administration. Although there has not been enough evidence to condemn Gates, he still faces unanswered questions about his connections with the Chilean arms-seller, Carlos Cardeon. He has been accused of meeting with Cardeon in Chile (his recent visit is his first as Defense Secretary) during the 80s to encourage the sale of arms, such as cluster bombs, to Iraq. This is allegedly part of a wider plan that he and his superior, CIA Director William Casey, had authorised to ensure that Saddam Hussein received enough munitions to prevent his impending defeat in his war against Iran. Cardoen faces criminal charges of illegal arms sales, but as these charges were brought against him in Miami, he remains a free man in Chile. “This is a country,” Bachelet expressed in response to the Pinochet family arrests, “where no one is above the law,” but following the protracted affairs surrounding Pinochet’s own extradition process, she may not be too keen on the attention that would be brought by handing Cardoen over to the U.S. for trial. Certainly there will be few in the Bush administration, Gates in particular, who will be grateful for the political cluster bomb of renewed discussions of the Reagan administration arms-scandals.

Despite the lack of evidence about Gates’ involvement in the arms to Iraq scandal, it has continued to follow him, albeit without official allegations, throughout his career. It may be somewhat ironic then that Gates used his time at the Chilean Ministry of Defense as an opportunity to speak to reporters on the current need for the U.S. to deliver weapons to Iraq more quickly. Without adequate supplies of arms and munitions from the U.S., the Iraqi military has begun approaching other countries. It appears that the U.S. military has concerns that they would not be able to track arms bought by Iraq from other countries and fear they may get into insurgents’ hands. On this matter, Mr. Gates may know what he is talking about. Either as a ‘democracy’ or a dictatorship, the U.S. has certain shared interests in ensuring that Iraq does not succumb to Iran.

A Platform in Latin America?

2007-10-02T03:01:00.000-07:00

A Platform in Latin America?

Following Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s controversial visit to New York last week, the Iranian President continued on to La Paz and Caracas before returning to Tehran. The Bush administration’s new #1 enemy received a much warmer welcome in Latin America than he had done at Columbia University. Ahmadinejad’s visit to La Paz marks the establishment of diplomatic relations between Iran and Bolivia. Plans have also been announced for expanding cooperative development projects, such as Iranian assistance in developing the Bolivian oil industry and there are already possibilities that a Bolivian delegation could visit Tehran for further negotiations in the future. “The people of Iran and Bolivia,” Ahmadinejad declared, “have decided to build their countries together, hand in hand.” Evo Morales’ emerging relationship with Ahmadinejad is sure to unsettle many U.S. political leaders, who fear that the Bolivian President is following in the footprints of his Venezuelan counterpart.

Whilst the Bush administration has continued in its attempts to build international pressure against the current Iranian government, Hugo Chávez has continued to increase ties with Ahmadinejad. Receiving the Iranian President outside the Miraflores Palace, Chávez used the occasion to praise his guest as their ‘representative’ against ‘U.S. Empire’. Numerous U.S. leaders have already expressed concerns about Iranian-Venezuelan relations and few will be heartened by Ahmadinejad’s declaration at Caracas that, “When we stand together, without doubt we multiply our powers.” Connie Mack, the Republican Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee from Florida and outspoken critic of the Venezuelan leader, cautioned that Chávez “wants to allow Iran a platform in Latin America to influence and intimidate the US, the same way that Castro did with Russia but I think the stakes are much higher.”

The Bush administration’s concentration of U.S. resources in the Middle East has left an opening that has allowed Iran, as well as other powers like China, to increase their influence in Latin America. These growing contacts are not responsible for the recent ‘pink wave’ in the Western Hemisphere, but if the leftward trend continues there will certainly be elements in the U.S. that will draw further links to ‘external’ threats in order to undermine the credibility of this progress. U.S. leaders would not have far to look. Ahmadinejad himself expressed that the American Republics of Bolivia and Venezuela, as well as Cuba, Nicaragua, and Ecuador were united with Iran in an international revolutionary movement. Daniel Ortega and Rafael Correa, who were elected as presidents of Nicaragua and Ecuador only last November, have already expressed intentions to develop relationships with Tehran. The assertions from Latin American leaders however, are that they have the right to maintain relations with any nation and can do so whilst following their own path. Nonetheless, any further progress towards socialism in these American Republics will continue to bring charges of foreign interference. Only on Sunday, Correa had to face accusations that he was allowing Ecuador to be dragged along the same path as Bolivia and Venezuela, after his party, Alianza Pais, won a majority in the new Constituent Assembly that would draft a new constitution. Bolivia began slow moves towards drafting a new constitution last year and a final debate for constitutional reforms in Venezuela is expected to begin next week. Correa hopes that the Assembly would chart a course for a socialist Ecuador, but he has insisted that, “No one is seeking totalitarian projects, even worse, foreign projects.” Connie Mack will undoubtedly be following developments very closely.

Next on the Bill

2007-10-01T07:00:00.000-07:00

Next on the Bill…

A detour on the ‘Axis of Evil’ tour?

Last Tuesday, the Cuban delegation dramatically walked out on George W. Bush’s address to the United Nations General Assembly. In a subsequent statement, the Cubans declared that they had left as a “sign of profound rejection of the arrogant and mediocre statement” made by Bush on Cuba. The U.S. President had criticised the U.N. Human Rights Council for not focusing on the abuses by regimes “from Havana to Caracas to Pyongyang and Tehran.” As a prime target of Bush’s call for an international “mission of liberation,” the Cuban delegation hit back at the current U.S. administration’s record in Iraq and Guantánamo. The retort has been picked up by the international media, but it is the reaction however, of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Bush’s speech that has caught more interest. Indeed, with Hugo Chávez’s decision not to attend this year’s Assembly, a year on from his infamous comparison of Bush to the devil, it was Ahmadinejad’s stage to denounce the ‘Great Satan.’ Without specifically naming the U.S., the Iranian President remained true to form and condemned the foreign policy of the U.S., particularly its actions through the U.N. Security Council. Symbolic of the Bush administration’s emerging approach to Iran, the U.S. delegation refused to be present during Ahmadinejad’s speech.

The world continues to monitor developments in U.S.-Iranian relations, even as debate continues in the U.S. over strategy in Iraq. The U.S. presidential candidates are well aware that after Iraq, Iran is becoming a major campaign issue. The front-runners in both parties have emphasised a willingness, of at least some degree, to make Iran the next foreign policy commitment. But will Iran be the next stop on Bush’s ‘Axis of Evil’ tour? Many still hope that a diplomatic solution can be found, but the tourbus is picking up momentum. There may however, be an unscheduled stop. What if Castro were to die? The next presidential administration could be focusing on involvement in Cuba.

Cuba at the U.N.

It may yet be prove emblematic that it was Felipe Pérez Roque, the Cuban Foreign Minister, who followed Iraqi Prime Minister, Nuri Kamel Al-Maliki, on the bill of the general debate at the U.N. Following his statement as Chair of the Non-Aligned Movement, Pérez again used the opportunity to criticise the U.S. on its human rights record and inability to emulate Cuba’s election to the Human Rights Council. He was even more incensed by Bush’s suggestion that the administration was waiting for its opportunity to act in Cuba:

“In Cuba, the long rule of a cruel dictator is nearing its end. The Cuban people are ready for their freedom. And as that nation enters a period of transition, the United Nations must insist on free speech, free assembly, and ultimately, free and competitive elections.”

Pérez attacked the “intoxication of imperial power” of the world’s policeman and its undermining of the sovereign equality of states. Pérez noted that Bush should have already learned that “the determination and courage of the peoples should not be underestimated when it comes to defending their rights!” Coming from a hardliner in the Cuban Government, Pérez’s remarks could probably be taken as a poorly-veiled warning to the Bush administration that the U.S. should expect similar resistance to intervention in Cuba that they have experienced in Iraq.

Is this the End?

Is the long rule of Fidel Castro really coming to and end? It was only last week after all, that the 81-year-old Cuban leader emerged from his media isolation for an interview on Cuban state television. The obvious issue that the Bush administration and the U.S. presidential candidates have to deal with however, was clearly expressed by Cuba’s Líder Máximo: “Well, here I am,” Castro declared, “nobody knows when they will die.” Nearly all of the presidential candidates have stated their position on dealing with a Castro-led Cuba. All are well aware that Hispanic issues will be important in the next election and the Democrats even went so far as to recently hold a debate in Miami broadcast on a Spanish-language television network. As expected, they are split between those supporting the Bush administration’s attempts to bring the downfall of the Castro government through a containment policy centred around the embargo and those who prefer more engagement as a means for reform. Florida is again likely to be a key Electoral College state, but outside of the Cuban-American population centred in Miami, the Cuba issue will not be the central focus of the Hispanic vote. The candidates have thus far been able to avoid taking divisive positions on post-Castro policy, but in the event of his death this would undoubtedly change.

Bush and Post-Castro Cuban Democracy

The Bush administration has already made clear its preference for actively promoting democracy in a post-Castro Cuba. The Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Thomas A. Shannon, reiterated a short while ago in Miami that the U.S. would commit to working towards a transition towards democracy. For a more detailed plan, one has only to look at the reports of the State Department’s Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba. They underline the U.S.’ policies, if asked, to assist in a “genuine Cuba transition government.” In reality however, it is almost certain that any Cuban transition government would only be considered legitimate if it did ask for U.S. involvement. In such a situation, the Cuban people may well relive some of the experiences of the Iraqis under their Transitional Government. The Bush administration would only be satisfied that ‘free and fair’ elections could take place until it had negotiated certain concessions and made political arrangements, perhaps similar to those under the Iraqi Transitional Administrative Law. Immediate democratic elections would bring concerns that the Cuban majority, who have lived through the Revolution would not be prepared to fully abandon it. For many of the island’s people, Cuban ‘revolutionary democracy’ has offered them a real sense of grassroots participation in government. The Bush administration would have to ensure that opposition groups could unite under a viable banner capable of defeating the old guard. If not, the administration could find, as it has done on numerous occasions, that the introduction of ‘free and fair’ elections will not be sufficient to foster their ultimate goal of promoting a broader liberal-market economy democracy. Outlines of this wider plan for a ‘democratic’ Cuba can be drawn from the reports of the Cuban Transition Project at the University of Miami, which has carried out extensive research under the sponsorship of the U.S. Agency for International Development. As in Iraq, the central focus is expressed in terms of private-American involvement. “Cuba should not,” they suggest, “restrict foreign participation in privatized enterprises, particularly those in strategic sectors.” The incoming U.S. president will have to commit many years towards Cuban nation-building to ensure the credibility of U.S. involvement. The policy of the best part of the past 50 years has been to prevent the realisation of the Cuban ideal. It would be imperative that the U.S. commit the resources required to demonstrate a positive example of the American model to the world. It is a decision that will not be difficult for any candidate or future president.

Dealing with a Successor Regime

The real and likely problem for candidates will occur, however, if Cuba does not immediately pledge to make the transition towards Western-style ‘polyarchy’ following Castro’s death. The need to consolidate domestic legitimacy may push any successor, including Rául, to claim to be Fidel’s heir apparent and defender of the Revolution through continuation of current policies. Such a delay to transition would escalate U.S. domestic tensions over strategy for Cuban ‘liberation’. Many policymakers would demand a continuation and intensification of the isolation of Cuba through the embargo that has been employed by successive administrations. Supporters not only refer to the precedent in U.S. diplomatic history for this containment strategy, but also assert that it conforms to American principles of promoting freedom and democracy. But these principles are also used to rationalise a conflicting strategy of engagement that has found increasing support in recent years from U.S. political leaders that include the likes of Barack Obama, as well as business and agricultural interest groups. If the embargo missed the opportunity, presented by Castro’s death, to produce the ‘inevitable’ collapse of Cuban Communism, there would almost certainly be a renewed call in the U.S. for undermining the regime by bringing the Cuban people into more direct contact with the American way of life. Engagement with Cuba may encourage Rául, or any other willing reformer in the Cuban Communist Party, to implement economic liberalisation measures. Critics of engagement argue however, that the strategy would not only legitimise the Cuban regime, but would also allow it to maintain popular support for the Revolution through improving living standards. Any liberal reforms would not reduce pressures in the U.S. for coercive action against a successor regime. Indeed, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996, commonly known as the Helms-Burton Act, ensures that any Presidential administration would not be able to normalise relations with Cuba if Rául were to succeed his brother. Furthermore, the majority of the Cuban-American community, most vocal through the Cuban-American National Foundation, will not be willing to accept any successor regime, even if it adopts the ‘China-model’. Drawing on U.S. rhetoric of liberation they have also positioned their cause as consistent with the American Messianic tradition and have lobbied successive U.S. administrations for a more direct regime change. They have patiently waited for their chance and are unlikely to hang on after Castro’s death.

'Dealing' with a Successor Regime

American ideology provides domestic legitimacy for a policy of engagement, containment or liberation, but U.S. policymakers would have a more difficult time in gathering international support for any direct action. The Inter-American Democratic Charter, adopted on September 11th 2001, has demonstrated that there is a general consensus on the standards that Cuba should be held to, but it also demands that American Republics comply with the long-standing commitment to non-intervention that has been codified in the Organisation of American States and the U.N. Charter. Some U.S. policymakers may not have been deterred by this in the past, through intervention in Cuba or elsewhere, but most recognise that the Monroe Doctrine has long been multilateralised and any overt display of unilateralism would undermine regional stability and invite an international backlash. The U.S. would need to build a solid case that a Cuban successor regime was threatening the safety of the Cuban people or wider regional security, in order to gain support for action. Such a campaign would have a certain sense of familiarity. Previous U.S. administrations have used a manner of means to build such a consensus, lawful and underhand, against the likes of Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Grenada. The U.S. may well utilise its vast network of influence to incite insurrection in Cuba and provoke a successor regime into cracking down on dissidents. There is also the possibility that U.S. officials could point to external interference in Cuba, with Hugo Chávez as a likely scapegoat. One thing for certain is that the U.S. will find it more difficult to build such a campaign in the future. The Iraq War has slowly bled the U.S. of credibility.

Next on the Bill…

Cuba may provide a far easier opportunity for the U.S. to restore its standing within the international community than another venture in the Middle East to take on Iran. It may be up to the next president however, as to what form of credibility that the U.S. will seek to restore. Those hoping to demonstrate the U.S.’ preponderance of power to emergent rivals and maintain a unipolar moment based around military supremacy will relish the opportunity to show the potential of the transformation strategy against a strong Iran. There is increasing domestic pressure within the U.S. for action against Iran before it is capable of nuclear weaponry. Only this week, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, reiterated a plea for military action against Iran, sooner rather than later. Without a significant increase in security threat through ties to other ‘rogue states’, few, if any, in the U.S. will have a similar urgency in dealing with Cuba. In his previous role as U.S. Southern Commander, General John Craddock was quick to suggest that non-military means took priority in dealing with Cuba. At the same time however, the Western Hemisphere would probably present a more appealing prospect than the Middle East for the U.S. to reassert its commitment to multilateralism and highlight the efficacy of the international order that it has worked hard to build. Rather than the active internationalist tradition that intervention in Iran would signify, involvement in Cuba would symbolise the secondary, but long-standing, U.S. practice of gaining international influence through example. After Iraq, the U.S. desperately seeks a working model of regime-change and nation-building. The Bush administration and its successor will have to decide what time, if any, is right for such a foreign policy commitment in Iran. The Cuban American National Foundation will continue to push for similar action closer to home. “Today Iraq;” they recite, “tomorrow Cuba!” The timing, however, is out of their hands.