Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 Hegemony Core Brovero/Verney/Hurwitz

Expanding markets, drug trade, and immigration all mean that Latin America is a strategic region for the US, and increasing global presence makes it key to global hegemony

(Laura, Tom, 2/10/06, Americas Program, “U.S. Hegemony Or Global Good Neighbor Policy,” http://www.countercurrents.org/sa-carlsen100206.htm, accessed 7/6/13, IC)

The following policy review of U.S.-Latin American relations examines the salient new developments in Latin America and the Caribbean and U.S. policy in the region. It concludes with general guidelines for a more coherent and constructive U.S. Latin American policy in the region, along the lines of the “Global Good Neighbor Ethic for U.S. Foreign Policy.”

I. Why Latin America Matters

Over the past five years, the United States had paid relatively little attention to Latin America. Since September 11, policymakers, media, and the U.S. public have kept the focus on the Middle East and Muslim countries. With the invasion of Iraq in 2003, foreign policy, while gaining greater public attention, has become nearly synonymous with the debate over the occupation of that country and the deteriorating conditions for peace in the Middle East.

The United States still retains a special sense of hegemony over its “near abroad” or backyard. But in an age of the global war on terror, global economic integration, and global communication, geographical proximity has reduced relevance in prioritizing international relations. As the only remaining superpower since the disintegration of the Soviet bloc, Washington has come to regard the entire globe as its natural domain.

One result of this global reach is that less importance is attached to relations with Latin America than to nations with more strategic resources, especially oil, more profitable investment locations, geopolitical importance, and those that offer expanding consumer markets.

The problem for Latin America is that the lack of coherent policymaking has led to stopgap and piecemeal policies, far more reactive than pro-active. These policies, while generally falling under the erroneous framework of the National Security Doctrine, are not based on a comprehensive and careful analysis of the region; nor do they take into account the needs of the countries themselves. Moreover, between the distinct policy areas—counternarcotics operations, development aid, anti-terrorism, immigration restriction, trade liberalization—they frequently contradict each other and fail to consider broader policy objectives in the region.

Historically, the reasons for Latin America 's relevance to U.S. interests—as defined by the governing elite—have changed. Latin America and the Caribbean were traditionally linked to the United States by geography. In the early 19 th century the U.S. government instituted the Monroe Doctrine to ensure that the Western Hemisphere would remain outside the dominance of colonial powers and mercantilists. In this way it asserted both its interest and its hegemony over the region. The purpose was not only to pull the new nations of the hemisphere into its sphere of influence but also to keep other countries out. This served both security interests and economic objectives.

The Cold War dictated a new set of objectives oriented toward eliminating what were defined as communist threats. But since the end of the Cold War and the beginning of the “global war on terrorism,” Latin America has taken a back seat in U.S. foreign policy in relation to other parts of the world. The former rationales of proximity, defeating communism, and maintaining regional hegemony have fallen away to new, more complex forms of involvement.

For many who have analyzed or experienced firsthand the U.S. policies that fomented civil wars, supported military dictators, or helped overthrow elected governments, neglect may seem a positive development in U.S.-Latin American relations.

But the United States continues to exercise strong hegemonic ties in the region, whether through its expanding military presence, NAFTA-style trade agreements, or the dictates of U.S.-dominated international financial institutions. Latin America is still a crucial area for the United States. Moreover, recent political trends have placed it squarely in the center of major debates on the future of U.S. foreign policy and the course of globalization. Latin American nations have called into question the U.S. government's efforts to militarize international relations under a counter-terrorism agenda that does not reflect the reality of the region and have increasingly protested the neoliberal model.

At this juncture, to base alternative U.S. policy in the region on a negative agenda—what the U.S. should not do in Latin America—would be short-sighted, and ultimately would be only a defensive position. Although regional attention has been spotty, conservatives developed a long-term and cohesive foreign policy agenda centered on U.S. global hegemony over a decade ago. To counter that agenda of military presence, intervention, corporate privileges, and deepening rifts between the rich and the poor, we too must develop a more comprehensive agenda.

What's clear is that in today's globalized world, the United States and Latin America remain inextricably linked—and in some ways even more so. The large U.S. market, expanding Latin American markets for U.S. goods, the international drug trade, immigration—all underline the strategic relationship that exists between the two regions.

It is also clear that many countries in Latin America are taking bold steps toward addressing some of the worst inequities of corporate-led globalization and their colonial heritage. A U.S. foreign policy that supports, rather than counters, these initiatives and that resolutely respects the right to self-determination could bring our nations into a shared community of values based on sustainable development, inclusive democracy and peace.

II. Continental Drift: Trends in Latin America

Despite the more dramatic developments in other parts of the world, Latin America has drawn world attention on an increasing number of occasions. This time it has not been due to major crises, such as the economic crashes that rocked the continent with Mexico 's peso devaluation in 1995 or the implosion of the Argentine economy in 2001. Instead, the region has made headlines for its new and unexpected political leadership that in some cases extends to the global stage.

Latin America is key – it’s the US traditional backyard, has a booming economy, specifically Brazil, and is of interest by China, a potential hegemonic rival – means any shift in power represents a global shift

(Alexander, McEwen-Fial, Susan, University of Mainz Department of Political Science Lecturer, Muno, Wolfgang, University of Erfurt Visiting Professor of Political Science, Hoffman, Andrea Ribeiro, University of Erfurt Willy Brandt School of Public Policy Lecturer, 4/12, University of Mainz, “BRICs and U.S. Hegemony: Theoretical Reflections on Shifting Power Patterns and Empirical Evidence from Latin America,” http://international.politics.uni-mainz.de/files/2012/10/mpiep04.pdf, p. 2-3, accessed 7/6/13, IC)

Although the authors might disagree about the implications for such activism regarding the status of China as a regional hegemonic contender – in terms of its calculus as well as its perception in the eyes of key U.S. policymakers (e.g. Paz 2006; Cala 2011) – it should be clear that the alleged (coming or already existing) hegemonic rivalry between the U.S. and China on a global scale serves as a backdrop to such thoughts. In this regard, it is not by chance that both diagnoses often go in tandem: the “rise of China” is seen as part of the “U.S. decline”. 3 In that sense, if the ascendancy of the BRICs is to be interpreted as the rise of contenders to U.S. hegemony, developments in Latin America should give us a grasp on the emerging form of contestation as well as efforts on behalf of the United States to manage such attempts.

The second section outlines a more differentiated concept of hegemony. Such an account allows us to infer political intentionalities as well as politically relevant implications of changing patterns of action among a set of actors. This is not to say that a more traditional reading of, let us say, military capabilities, trade volumes, monetary reserves and financial flows is of no use. But a rather simple talk about shifting trends in figures and relative shares within some sectors is either misleading (Strange 1988) or just “not enough” (e.g. Nye 2011: esp. 153-204) if one is to assess political consequences in terms of power shifts or alterations in the patterns of influence. In other words, to speak about quantifiable trends might constitute an important aspect of any assessment of hegemony and hegemonic rivalry, but obviously omits key facets as well.

US global heg hinges on its economy – Latin America’s booming economies, geographical proximity, and strong trade ties makes it a key partner

(Sergio, 9/11, Inter-American Dialogue, “Latin America and the United States: Looking Towards 2020,” http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/LAtheUS2020.pdf, p. 2-3, accessed 7/6/13, IC)

In speeches in the three countries he visited, President Obama recognized the emergence of a new multipolar world. As in Egypt and India and at the 2009 Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, he proposed new alliances for the pursuit of global governance and, as a result, new partnerships among countries. Speaking in Santiago to the entire region, Obama used the word partner or partnership 24 times and repeated a phrase he had said in Trinidad: “There are no senior partners and there are no junior partners, there are only equal partners.”

Obama’s vision clearly differs from that of his predecessor. While President George W. Bush employed similar terminology, he carried out a markedly unilateral and militaristic policy based on the premise of a hegemonic power, which was divorced from the current reality. The data supporting this new reality are eloquent. The United States has accumulated an unprecedented debt that will limit its ability to wield global influence for many years, particularly in the coming decade. The recent financial crisis deeply shook the US economy and the international financial system, raising questions about the capacity of the United States to properly regulate its banking and financial sectors. The US military is over-extended, fighting wars on three fronts at the same time, and seems uncertain about how to deal with Chinese expansion.

Against this backdrop, the US administration appears to be advancing a new vision, one that maintains that the country will continue to be the leading power—but its power relative to others will decline. This vision recognizes that military muscle alone is not enough to maintain order, spread US values, and advance strategic interests. Instead, it reaffirms that the basis for renewed US power lies in the strengthening of a competitive economy, which is the only way to sustain its global influence.

For such a concept to take hold greater austerity in the US domestic economy will be required and new alliances to regain influence will need to be pursued. That thinking was reflected in President Obama’s State of the Union address in January 2011.

Meanwhile, emerging economies keep upsetting the balance of economic power. In a February 2011 talk at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, Indian economist A. Virmani projected that the size of China’s economy (measured by per-capita income, adjusted for purchasing power, and multiplied by the population) would overtake that of the United States by 2020, while India and Brazil would surpass Japan and France, respectively, by 2015, and Russia would surpass Germany shortly after 2020.

China keeps growing at a pace that shows no signs of slowing. Its saving rate is more than 40 percent, the world’s highest. Its consumption level in recent years has been less than 40 percent of GDP, while Europe’s is 60 percent and the United States’ exceeds 70 percent.

Its domestic market has a tremendous potential for growth, fueled by the rapid expansion of the middle class. The domestic market and strong public spending enable China to protect itself from the vagaries of external demand and keep growth rates up. That middle class will keep driving demand for commodities and food, along with new goods and services. China’s economy is nimble and competitive. In this decade, it risks a slowdown only if growing pressure for a political opening and more freedom and participation prove unmanageable for the ruling Communist Party.

India, likewise, is seeing continued growth that will make it a stronger influence in global and hemispheric affairs. In this context, it is plausible that in coming years Latin America will continue to move towards Asia. After all, Asia’s share of new global demand will be greater than those of the advanced economies, and the region will also offer new export markets and investments in Latin America.

The two giants—China and India—will join Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, and Turkey in posting growth rates that exceed those of the developed nations and therefore accounting for a larger share of world GDP.

The world that is taking shape will be multipolar and more interconnected and interdependent than ever before. The United States will be its largest shareholder, though a minority one—and it will have to come to terms with these new circumstances.1 Latin America, for its part, faces a new window of opportunity that it should take advantage of. It is well positioned for a forward push to pursue substantive reforms in the coming decade. The United States cannot underestimate the importance of a region whose current population of 500 million is expected to reach 600 million by 2020.

National differences aside, Latin America’s democracies have spread and will continue to deepen. The progress achieved should be viewed in light of the changes underway in the Middle East. For the most part, Latin America has little risk of armed conflict among countries. Its key challenge is to defeat the violence and organized crime that threatens democratic institutions, especially in northern Central America.

Speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on March 18, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emphasized just how important Latin America has become for the United States. More than 40 percent of US exports go to the region; the United States sells more to Chile and Colombia than to Russia; and Brazil is a global power with a growing economy and deepening democracy that will play a greater role in the energy field. Clinton underlined that geography was an important factor to maintain and improve the close link between the United States and Mexico and Central America, to work jointly with new initiatives to address serious crime and drug issues.