Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 Hegemony Core Brovero/Verney/Hurwitz
Download 1.85 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- US power has lead policies, checked violence, and secured the region
- Democracy
- US hegemony in Latin America has historically been beneficial—human rights
- AT – Regionalism Solves Vacuum
Latin American Hegemony GoodStabilityLoss of American hegemony in Latin America will lead to regional violence and instabilitySabatini, senior director of policy at the Americas Society and Council of the Americas, 13 (Christopher. senior director of policy at the Americas Society and Council of the Americas. "Will Latin America Miss US Hegemony." Journal of International Affairs 66.1 (2013): Print. JMR) The United States' reduced ability to unilaterally get what it wants in the hemisphere is already shaping Latin American countries' calculations of domestic and foreign policies and the formation of multilateral alliances. The last ten years have witnessed the emergence of regional and multilateral powers seeking to assert regional diplomatic power, if not to specifically reduce the role of the United States in intra-regional diplomacy. The most obvious and pointed example is the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of our Americas (ALBA) formed by former President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez, which includes Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela among others in a bloc vowed to oppose a now-defunct plan to establish a hemisphere-wide free-trade agreement. At the same time, as its economy rebounded quickly and strongly from the 2007 global financial crisis until 2012, Brazil has sought a greater regional and even global role, exerting its new found diplomatic and economic muscle, often as an alternative to U.S .influence in matters as diverse as the threat of political upheaval in Venezuela to the UN drive to sanction Iran for its nuclear ambitions. Yet, there may likely be a down side to the retrenchment of U.S. leadership and prerogative in the region. While there are multiple tragic examples of U.S. intervention and a long history of abuse by U.S. power that have thwarted the political and economic development of countries such as Guatemala or Haiti, U.S. leadership and power have also brought benefits. For example, governments have long relied on U.S. leadership to champion specific causes, at times "passing the buck" to have U.S. support serve as a foil for a general principle or policy that they support but do not want to lead publicly. Similarly, recent cases of U.S. technical assistance and cooperation helped focus national attention and energy on addressing violence and crime in countries like Colombia and Mexico. Moreover, countries in the region have long benefited from the security provided by being in the U.S. diplomatic and military sphere of influence. This security has helped states struggling with violence and instability and contributed to intra-regional peace. Will a shift in U.S. power weaken these hemispheric public goods? US power has lead policies, checked violence, and secured the regionSabatini, was the Latin America and the Caribbean at the National Endowment for Democracy Director, 13 (Christopher, Spring-Summer 13, Questia, “Will Latin America Miss US Hegemony?”, http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-330143504/will-latin-america-miss-u-s-hegemony#articleDetails, 7/6/13, AL) Yet, there may likely be a down side to the retrenchment of U.S. leadership and prerogative in the region. While there are multiple tragic examples of U.S. intervention and a long history of abuse by U.S. power that have thwarted the political and economic development of countries such as Guatemala or Haiti, U.S. leadership and power have also brought benefits. For example, governments have long relied on U.S. leadership to champion specific causes, at times "passing the buck" to have U.S. support serve as a foil for a general principle or policy that they support but do not want to lead publicly. Similarly, recent cases of U.S. technical assistance and cooperation helped focus national attention and energy on addressing violence and crime in countries like Colombia and Mexico. Moreover, countries in the region have long benefited from the security provided by being in the U.S. diplomatic and military sphere of influence. This security has helped states struggling with violence and instability and contributed to intra-regional peace. Will a shift in U.S. power weaken these hemispheric public goods? DemocracyLoss of US hegemony in Latin America leads to authoritarian and socialist expansion.Crandall, Davidson University Political Science Associate Professor, 11 (Russell, May/June 2011, The Post-American Hemisphere, Foreign Affairs, Volume: 90 Issue: 3, Academic Search Complete. Accessed 7-6-13. RH) WITH THE end of U.S. hegemony in Latin America, the region's authoritarians--Venezuela's Chavez, Cuba's Fidel and Raul Castro, and Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega--have taken the opportunity to expand their own influence. Chavez, the Castro brothers, and Ortega form part of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), a band of leftist governments led by Venezuela. Contending that Latin America remains shackled by the imperial United States and its lackeys at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, members of this group remain committed to a nonaligned diplomacy and seek friendships with the governments of such countries as Iran, Russia, and, to some extent, China. With the United States less involved in the region, the ALBA bloc will continue to play its cherished role as diplomatic spoiler and its members will face far fewer constraints on how radically they transform their societies. Take Bolivia, whose military recently declared itself "socialist, anti-imperialist, and anticapitalist." This declaration is no surprise, given that the Bolivian government has gone to great lengths to reduce U.S. influence in the country, especially in the armed forces. Cuban and Venezuelan military advisers have replaced U.S. ones. The consequences of such a shift within Bolivia's military will not be known for a while, but it is unlikely to be good for Bolivia's fledgling democracy. Thus far, the Chavez-led spoilers have been enabled by their more democratic counterparts. Although the democratic leaders enjoy the benefits of elections, a free press, and other signs of democratic vigor in their own countries, they are unwilling to confront other governments that undermine such rights. Many of the otherwise impressive leftist democratic governments in the region, such as those of former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet and Lula, have been wary of raising the subject, especially regarding Cuba and Venezuela. These leaders and others like them have been reluctant to speak out because they still share some sort of revolutionary solidarity with Chavez and the Castros and they remain overly sensitive to concerns about violating another nation's sovereignty. US hegemony in Latin America has historically been beneficial—human rightsSabatini, senior director of policy at the Americas Society and Council of the Americas, 13 (Christopher. senior director of policy at the Americas Society and Council of the Americas. "Will Latin America Miss US Hegemony." Journal of International Affairs 66.1 (2013): Print. JMR) Here, we turn to the last two provocative sources of soft power: moral leadership and aspirational leadership. While the United States may have cloaked national interests in the rhetoric of shared principles, there have been times--such as those discussed earlier--when its actions have helped to ensure positive political change and the reinforcement of human rights norms and standards in the region. The call of a common history, of democratic independence, and of a shared commitment to government by the people, while hard to quantify, remains powerful. Even those who have established themselves as opposed to U.S. influence and democracy, such as Presidents Chavez and Morales, defined their movements and governments as expressions of democratic participation and inclusion in the region. And as the United States advances its own processes of democratic inclusion--in areas of race, gender, or sexual orientation--its efforts remain an inspiration and source of support for citizens in these countries. U.S. leadership on issues of civil rights, gender equality, and more recently lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights have helped to give voice to once-discriminated groups and have pressured governments directly and indirectly into addressing those concerns. Similarly, the aspirational aspect of U.S. power remains strong. Whether it is the desire to immigrate to seek work or to pursue higher education in the United States, the ineffable allure of the "colossus of the north" remains important. And, as personal ties between the United States and Latin America grow--through immigration, culture, education, and integration--so too will the importance of people's sense of personal and cultural connection to the United States. Loss of American hegemony in Latin America leads to collapses of both democracy and defense of human rights—action must be taken soonSabatini, senior director of policy at the Americas Society and Council of the Americas, 13 (Christopher. senior director of policy at the Americas Society and Council of the Americas. "Will Latin America Miss US Hegemony." Journal of International Affairs 66.1 (2013): Print. JMR) Inarguably, Latin American countries have developed more scope for independent diplomatic activity in the last decade. Certain countries challenge U.S. interests and the democratic and market-oriented consensus of the post-Cold War era. The question is the cost this will have for the overall region and for the region's citizens over the long term. One such area is human rights. President Chavez pulled Venezuela out of the esteemed Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Presidents Correa (of Ecuador) and Morales have sought to reduce the independence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights--two regional human rights bodies nominally under the OAS. In its fifty plus years of history, the inter-American system of human rights has protected citizens and defended human rights against unelected tyrants and unaccountable elected governments. Unfortunately, much of the region remained silent as countries have tried to gut these institutions. At the same time, the much-lauded advances in electoral standards that ushered in the longest history of democracy in the region and led to greater levels of political and social inclusion are at risk of being rolled back. In countries like the Dominican Republic in 1994 and Peru in 2000, after sitting presidents attempted to deny citizens their right to vote to choose their leaders, the United States helped to catalyze the regional coalitions that ultimately ensured that those citizens' demands and rights were recognized. The standards that the United States supported and U.S. leadership are now being eroded, as governments like Venezuela and Ecuador are refusing to invite electoral missions. Today, in a direct challenge to this history and to the legacy of the United States, UNASUR has announced its intention to form a body to observe elections, pushing aside many of the multilateral organizations and NGOs that have been doing it for decades. But without the technical capacity or the clear international normative or legal framework for conducting the complex task of pre-election monitoring and election-day observation, the effectiveness of UNASUR in protecting the right to vote and free and fair elections remains to be seen.
Subregional groups are not ready to take over hegemonic responsibilitySabatini, senior director of policy at the Americas Society and Council of the Americas, 13 (Christopher. senior director of policy at the Americas Society and Council of the Americas. "Will Latin America Miss US Hegemony." Journal of International Affairs 66.1 (2013): Print. JMR) Diplomatically, the region has become more contentious for the United States, but a greater willingness to challenge U.S. positions on drug policy or question the wisdom of its Cuba policy should not be mistaken for broad-based opposition to the United States. These are legitimate points of debate--as was seen at the 2012 SOA in Cartagena, Colombia. They may require more diplomatic footwork but they are discussions largely among allies. At the same time, the emergence of the new subregional groupings such as the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) that pointedly exclude the United States, manifest a desire for the region to resolve intra-regional issues--including security and human rights--independently of the United States. But are they up to the task? While ALBA remains a thorn in the side of the United States, even before the death of Chavez, the Bolivarian Republic's petroleum-fueled vote buying had already started to weaken--especially as countries confronted their own internal challenges. And while UNASUR and CELAC are ambitious diplomatic initiatives, both remain for now just a roving series of presidential summits, with no institutional or normative basis or infrastructure Download 1.85 Mb. Share with your friends:
|