Hurwitz

Download 1.85 Mb.

Page	5/45
Date	02.06.2018
Size	1.85 Mb.
	#53116

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 45

Latin American Hegemony Bad

Hegemony Backfires – Counterbalancing

American imperialism leads Latin American countries to ally with US enemies- Russia, China, Iran.

Burbach, Center for the Studies of The Americas Director et al. 13

[Roger, Michael Fox freelancer, Federico Fuentes Bolivian Socialist Alliance director, 3/11/13, “Latin America’s Turbulent Transitions”, http://climateandcapitalism.com/2013/03/11/latin-americas-turbulent-transitions/, accessed 7/5/13, ALT]

Anti-imperialism. In addition to regional integration, many Latin American governments look to multilateralism to counter domination and threats from the U.S. and other imperialist powers. They favour trade and diplomacy with all countries, but especially those such as Russia, China or Iran targeted by Washington because they defy Israel or threaten competition over access to oil and other vital resources.

Even Brazil, which has long acted as a “sub-hegemon, or sidekick to the United States in the region,” has, since the election of the PT government, begun “to carve out a new independent foreign policy,” the authors write. It has not just worked to expand the new continental trade and diplomatic alliances but it has played a pivotal role in standing up to U.S. hegemony — for instance, by opposing Washington’s blockade of Cuba, and sheltering deposed Honduran president Zelaya for weeks in its embassy in Tegucigalpa. And it stood behind Bolivia when that country’s eastern agro-business elites launched an attempt in 2008 to overturn the Morales government.
Hegemony leads to the collapse of the American Empire

Cunningham, expert in International Affairs and Masters in Agricultural Chemistry, 13

(Finian, 4/13/13, Press TV, “Iran deals deathblow to US global hegemony”, http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/04/12/297864/iran-key-to-us-global-defeat/, 7/7/13, AL)

North Korea may present an immediate challenge to Washington’s hegemonic ambitions. However, as we shall see, Iran presents a much greater and potentially fatal challenge to the American global empire.

It is documented record, thanks to writers and thinkers like William Blum and Noam Chomsky, that the US has been involved in more than 60 wars and many more proxy conflicts, subterfuges and coups over the nearly seven decades since the Second World War. No other nation on earth comes close to this American track record of belligerence and threat to world security. No other nation has so much blood on its hands.

Americans like to think of their country as first in the world for freedom, humanitarian principles, technology and economic prowess. The truth is more brutal and prosaic. The US is first in the world for war-mongering and raining death and destruction down on others.

If the US is not perpetrating war directly, as in the genocide of Vietnam, then it is waging violence through surrogates, such as past South American dictatorships and death squads or its Middle Eastern proxy military machine, Israel.

That bellicose tendency seems to have accelerated since the demise of the Soviet Union more than two decades ago. No sooner had the Soviet Union imploded than the US led the First Persian Gulf War on Iraq in 1991. That was then swiftly followed by a bloody intervention in Somalia under the deceptively charming title Operation Restore Hope.

Since then we have seen the US become embroiled in more and more wars - sometimes under the guise of “coalitions of the willing”, the United Nations or NATO. A variety of pretexts have also been invoked: war on drugs, war on terror, Axis of Evil, responsibility to protect, the world’s policeman, upholding global peace and security, preventing weapons of mass destruction. But always, these wars are Washington-led affairs. And always the pretexts are mere pretty window-dressing for Washington’s brutish strategic interests.

Now it seems we have reached a phase of history where the world is witnessing a state of permanent war prosecuted by the US and its underlings: Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq (again), Libya, Pakistan, Somalia (again), Mali and Syria, to mention a few. These theaters of criminal US military operations join a list of ongoing covert wars against Palestine, Cuba, Iran and North Korea.

Fortunately, a twist of fate brought about by the Bolivarian Revolution of the late Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez has ensured that much of South America - the primary US so-called sphere of influence - remains off-limits to Washington’s depredations, at least for now.

The question is: why has the US such an inordinate propensity for war? The answer is: power. The global capitalist economy mandates a fatal power struggle for the control of natural resources. To maintain its unique historic position of commanding capitalist profits and privilege, the US corporate elite - the executive of the world capitalist system - must have hegemony over the world’s natural resources.

The cold logic of this propensity was articulated clearly by US state planner George F Kennan in 1948: “We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”

In other words, Kennan was candidly admitting what US political leaders often dissimulate with fake rhetoric; that the US ruling elite has no interest in defending democracy, human rights or international law. The purpose is control of economic power, in accord with capitalist laws of motion.

Kennan, who was one of the main architects of US foreign policy in the post-Second World War era, also noted with candidness and prescience:

“Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.”

Thus we see how after the “evil empire” of the Soviet Union collapsed the US has been flailing to contrive a replacement “enemy” and pretext for its essential militarism. The 9/11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent “war on terror” has fulfilled this purpose to a degree, even though it is replete with contradictions that belie its fraudulence, such as the support given to Al Qaeda terrorist elements currently to overthrow the government of Syria.

The present threat of nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula is not really about North Korea or the US-backed South Korean state. As in 1945, Korea was the site of the US flexing its military muscle towards its perceived main global rivals - Russia and China. As the SecondWorld War drew to a close, the advances made by Communist Russia and China in the Pacific against imperialist Japan were a cause for deep concern in Washington with its eyes on the post-war global carve-up.

That is why the US took the unprecedented step of dropping atomic bombs on Japan. It was the most far-reaching demonstration of raw power by the US to its rivals. Russian and Chinese advances on the Korean Peninsula against the Japanese, which were welcomed by the Korean population, were halted dead in their tracks by the twin nuclear holocausts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The partition of Korea in 1945 at the behest of Washington was also part of the post-war demarcation for global influence and staking out control of resources. The American-instigated Korean War (1950-53) and the subsequent decades of tensions between the North and South states afforded Washington a permanent military presence in the Pacific.

Rhetoric about “defending our allies” reiterated again this week by US defense secretary Chuck Hagel is but a cynical chimera for the real purpose and rationale for Washington’s presence in Korea - strategic control of Russia and China for hegemony over natural resources, markets, transport, logistics, and ultimately capitalist profit.

Tragically, North and South Korea are still caught in the cross-hairs of Washington’s geopolitical war with Russia and China. That is what makes the present tensions on the Peninsula so dangerous. The US could gamble that a devastating strike on North Korea is the best way at this historical juncture for it to send another brutal message to its global rivals. Unfortunately, North Korea’s nuclear capability and truculent attitude - amplified by the Western mainstream media - could serve as a superficial political cover for Washington to again take the military option.

Iran, however, presents a greater and more problematic challenge to US global hegemony. The US in 2013 is a very different animal from what it was in 1945. Now it resembles more a lumbering giant. Gone is its former economic prowess and its arteries are sclerotic with its

internal social decay and malaise. Crucially, too, the lumbering American giant has squandered any moral strength it may have had in the eyes of the world. Its veil of morality and democratic principle may have appeared credible in 1945, but that cover has been torn asunder by the countless wars and nefarious intrigues over the ensuing decades to reveal a pathological warmonger.

The American military power is still, of course, a highly dangerous force. But it is now more like a bulging muscle hanging on an otherwise emaciated corpse. Iran presents this lumbering, dying power with a fatal challenge. For a start, Iran does not have nuclear weapons or ambitions and it has repeatedly stated this, thereby gaining much-reciprocated good will from the international community, including the public of North America and Europe. The US or its surrogates cannot therefore credibly justify a military strike on Iran, as it might do against North Korea, without risking a tsunami of political backlash.

Secondly, Iran exerts a controlling influence over the vital drug that keeps the American economic system alive - the world’s supply of oil and gas. Any war with Iran, if the US were so foolish to embark on it, would result in a deathblow to the waning American and global economy.

A third reason why Iran presents a mortal challenge to US global hegemony is that the Islamic Republic is a formidable military power. Its 80 million-strong people are committed to anti-imperialism and any strike from the US or its allies would result in a region-wide war that would pull down the very pillars of Western geopolitical architecture, including the collapse of the Israeli state and the overthrow of the House of Saud and the other the Persian Gulf oil

dictatorships.

US planners know this and that is why they will not dare to confront Iran head-on. But that leaves the US empire with a fatal dilemma. Its congenital belligerence arising from in its capitalist DNA, puts the US ruling elite on a locked-in stalemate with Iran. The longer that stalemate persists, the more the US global power will drain from its corpse. The American empire, as many others have before, could therefore founder on the rocks of the ancient Persian empire.

However, the story will not end there. The attainment of world peace, justice and sustainability does not only necessitate the collapse of American hegemony. We need to overthrow the underlying capitalist economic system that gives rise to such destructive hegemonic powers. Iran represents a deathblow to the American empire, but the people of the world will need to build on the ruins.

AT – US Hegemony Key to Stability

Latin America is more independent now – economics, stability, and aid programs prove they can solve their own problems, means no need for US action

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)

In recent years, however, Latin America's growth has begun to translate into more prosperous and developed societies. In countries as disparate as Brazil, Mexico, and Peru, the benefits of democracy and open markets are now finally beginning to trickle down to a citizenry that had lost faith in elected governments. This socioeconomic prosperity, in turn, is legitimizing the democratic system--a sort of virtuous cycle in a region more accustomed to vicious ones. Despite what the fiery rhetoric of leaders such as Chavez might indicate, in today's climate, Latin Americans want results, not blame. Armed revolution is now dead in the region that was once its cradle. In its stead, the region now has a new brand of leaders who have taken office through the ballot box and have striven to provide education, security, and opportunities for their constituents. Human capital and economic competitiveness, not rote anticapitalist slogans, are what occupy the thoughts of these politicians. They point proudly to the fact that 40 million Latin Americans were lifted out of poverty between 2002 and 2008, a feat accomplished largely through innovative and homegrown social programs.

It has long been said that when the United States catches a cold, Latin America catches the flu. This has certainly been true in the economic realm, where jitters in the U.S. economy could quickly undermine Latin America's chronically weak financial and fiscal fundamentals. But during the recent global economic crisis, Latin America remained relatively unscathed. At the time, many predicted that Latin American governments--especially leftist ones suspected of being more predisposed to fiscal profligacy--would turn to the seductive tonic of populism. But leftist governments in Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay, to name a few, responded to the crisis with prudence. They refused to abandon market-friendly policies such as flexible exchange rates, independent central banks, and fiscal restraint. Some countries, such as Brazil and Peru, even continued to grow at almost China-like rates.

In the past, when Latin America was in economic trouble, outsiders prescribed bitter medicine, such as severe fiscal austerity measures. In the last several years, however, the region has shown that it can address its own problems, even exporting its solutions globally. There is no greater example of the region's autonomy in economic policymaking than Brazil's Bolsa Família or Mexico's Oportunidades, conditional cash-transfer programs that give money to poor families if they meet certain requirements, such as enrolling their children in school. As the World Bank has noted, Bolsa Família targets the 12 million Brazilians who desperately need the assistance; most of the money is used to buy food, school supplies, and clothes for children. The program is also credited with helping reduce Brazil's notoriously high income inequality. The Brazilian and Mexican efforts have been widely emulated outside the region, including in the United States. Another example is Chile's creation of a rainy-day fund, filled with national savings from the country's copper production. This $12.8 billion account gave Chile a level of policy flexibility during the recent global economic downturn that the United States and many other industrial economies could only envy. As Latin America's achievements suggest, the region is growing up fast.

US hegemony in Latin America impedes on economic independence and national sovereignty.

Burbach Center for the Studies of The Americas Director et al 13

Although these shifting patterns do not free Latin America from economic dependency on resource exports, they do give its governments more leverage to diversify economic alliances and strategies, develop an independent foreign policy and ward off some of the worst effects of the global economic crisis. It might be added — although the authors don’t say this — that Beijing generally tends to be much more respectful than Washington of the national sovereignty of its trading partners. Its commercial relations, loans and other development assistance come with fewer strings attached.

In recent years, Latin American governments have been able to develop a number of mutually beneficial regional economic and political agreements (MERCOSUR, UNASUR and ALBA, to cite only those), while rejecting Washington’s attempt to foist a continental free-trade agreement, the FTAA, on the region.

Latin America is against US hegemony – even counternarcotic operations are seen as hegemonic in nature and elicited backlash

Cárdenas, Brookings Institute Director and Senior Fellow, and Casas-Zamora, Brookings Institute Senior Fellow, 09

(Mauricio, Kevin, 9/15/09, Brookings Institute, “Between Hypocrisy and Narcoterrorism in Latin America,” http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2009/09/15-colombia-cardenas, accessed 7/9/13, IC)

The recent spat over the use of Colombian military bases by the U.S. armed forces poses crucial questions about the future of U.S.-Latin America relations. The agreement between the United States and Colombia will give the U.S. military access to seven existing facilities in order to carry out counternarcotics and counterinsurgency operations. This would allow the United States to retain a presence on South American soil after the closure of its military base in Manta, Ecuador.

Predictably, the agreement’s announcement has met the wrath of Venezuela’s President, Hugo Chávez, who has even threatened to sever diplomatic links with Colombia. Less predictably, however, it has been received with uneasiness by other South American governments, notably Brazil. Brazilian President Lula prominently brought it up in a recent conversation with President Obama. In the meantime, President Uribe, of Colombia, felt compelled to do a whirlwind tour of South American capitals to allay regional fears, an unusual diplomatic gesture with mixed results.

There are lessons that the United States would do well to extract from this debate. Counternarcotics policies are the first motive invoked by both the United States and Colombia for the agreement. However, as the situation in Mexico and Central America shows, this is not just a bilateral issue. The Latin American countries are justifiably anxious about the dire implications of the U.S.’ "War on Drugs" for the region. Numerous organizations and individuals, including the Brookings Institution’s Partnership for the Americas Commission and the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy, have called for a change in the current strategy which emphasizes forced eradication of illicit crops.

Hence, if the United States is to have operational capacities in Latin America for its counternarcotics efforts, it should at least call for a proper dialogue between producing, consuming and transshipment countries. It is high time to have a meaningful hemispheric conversation to deal with a problem whose solution lays not just in the jungles of Colombia, but also on the streets of Washington, Los Angeles and Chicago.

A second lesson is as much about form as it is about substance. This agreement was abruptly announced and seems not to have been preceded by the diplomatic groundwork to prevent the chilly reaction it elicited from trustworthy U.S. allies, such as Chile and Brazil. By all appearances, they were caught by surprise. If a respectful partnership with Latin America is to be shaped, as announced by President Obama at the Summit of the Americas, U.S. diplomacy must do much better than this. In particular it has to show some awareness of the sensitivities of an emerging power, like Brazil, that sees itself playing a key role in the security of South America.

Yet, Brazil and the rest of South America must understand a few things too. Brazil ought to realize that with power comes responsibility. If its security interests are to be taken seriously, not just by the U.S. but also by its South American neighbors, Brazil ought to step up significantly its security cooperation with the rest of the region, and support the Colombian government in its legitimate struggle against the FARC, a terrorist organization. Under Brazil’s complacent gaze, the recent South American Union’s Summit in Argentina failed to condemn FARC or admonish the countries that have been supportive of it. For Brazil to become a regional leader it needs to start playing a more decisive role.

By the same token, the rest of the region must understand that it cannot have it both ways. It may regard the struggle with FARC as a purely Colombian problem on whose solution is not willing to assist, in which case the Colombian government can form whatever security alliances it sees fit. Alternatively, it can regard it as an international problem, on whose solution unequivocal regional cooperation and support are to be committed. In the latter case, and only in it, the rest of the region would deserve to be informed and consulted on security matters by Colombia. Given that the security fallout of the FARC’s presence has been traced as far as some Central American countries, not to speak of Venezuela and Ecuador, it is clear that the Colombian government has a fair claim to robust international support in its struggle.

A new partnership between the United States and Latin America, including on security matters, will need significant adjustments in the mind frame of both parties if it is to succeed. The insensitivity, hypocrisy and sense of entitlement shown by key actors in the current row about the Colombian bases are not promising signs.

Hegemony Bad – Democracy

Sustaining US hegemony in Latin America requires suppressing democracy

Shariati, Kansas City Kansas Community College Sociology Professor, 8

[Mehdi S, 11/25/08, “Latin America's march of democracy as a challenge to hegemon: The struggle against the containment of democracy”, http://www.payvand.com/news/08/nov/1252.html, acessed 7/9/13, ALT]

A New Dawn in Latin America has begun. Enormous challenges and opportunities confront the region in the Face of a crushing and vengeful neo-liberalism of global capitalism and all of its supportive economic, military and political institutions. This paper examines those challenges and opportunities particularly as they are related to the possible loss of U.S. hegemony and the attempts at containing democratic aspirations and strategies in Latin America.

Contemporary challenges faced by Latin countries are no less determining than what they were confronted with in the decades following their independence. From the rise of Bolivarian ethos to the struggles for liberation and autonomy waged by guerrilla leaders such as Che, Castro and the Sandinista of Nicaragua to democratically elected Socialists such as Arbenz of Guatemala, Allende of Chile, to the contemporary democratically elected governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, and the quasi-populist De Silva of Brazil, the struggle remains not just a political and an economic one, but rather an existential one.

The Latin people for most of their history have struggled for democracy and had they been free of imperialistic interventions aided by domestic comprador, they would have achieved much more in the social, economic and political arena. This has been a very long and sordid history. Any attempt at liberation and autonomy has been forcefully confronted and decapitated. Peron was discredited, Che was murdered, the Cuban revolution has been effectively contained within its shores, Arbenz was overthrown and murdered, so was democratically elected President of Chile, Salvatore Allende, the Sandinista government of Daniel Ortega was overthrown through a bloody Contra group carved out of the body of Sandinista revolutionaries and aided by some of the Latin governments (Argentina, Honduras, and El Salvador among others involved in the "dirty war"), various organs of the United States governments, Christian Fundamentalist, World Anti-Communist League and Omega 7 (Armony, 1977).

Since independence, Latin America as a region had experienced over 160 coups, and during the same period their powerful neighbor to the north often presenting itself as a benevolent imperial protector of its backyard by intervening when its interests warranted. In the words of former United States Senator George P. McLean, it is an "imperialism of science, peace, and justice (Congressional Records, 1927, cited in Smith 1981:66). United States has maintained its hegemonic control through regional treaties, agreements and support of the elite dominated regimes nourished through social, economic and military means. Today those countries which have opted for democratic socialism or are struggling against globalization, and neo-liberalism are engaged in a desperate struggle to sustain themselves in the face of a very destructive and dangerous form of terrorism -monetary terrorism.

Drawing on historical parallel may not be as significant in conveying much about the future, but historical experiences ought not to be readily discarded, particularly if the motives and reasons for the past experiences are as valid today as they were then. There may be a lesson if anyone cares to learn. What do the learned Latin Americans think of the Monroe Doctrine, Clark Memorandum, The Platt Amendment, Roosevelt Corolary, The Panama Canal (1), Venezuela, the Big Stick Policy, the Good Neighbor Policy, Mexico, the Rio Treaty, The Alliance for Progress, Kennedy Round, Dominican Republic, Che Guevera , The "Banana Republic", The School of the Americas, Arbenz, Allende, Contras, El Salvador, Haiti, Caribbean Basin initiative, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), The Summit of the Americas, Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA),and Free Trade Areas of the Americas (FTAA)? In the mind of the Latin American masses, there is no ambiguity with regards to the cultural disdain towards them. In their view the technologically advanced, militarily strong, and economically imperial North has always had a fear of true democracy and the people consciousness about their condition as prelude to revolution. They do recite the struggles of their forefathers and the consequences of those struggles and in the end speculate as to what went wrong and how not to repeat the mistakes that brought them defeat. Social scientists theorize about them, theologians reoriented eschatological tenor, philosophers debated ontological concerns and the Latin masses for the most part (except for some segment of the Church) remained outside of the discourse. Today, Latin America has entered a new phase of existence and is attempting to forge a new identity. They are proving that they do understand and that realization is being communicated through democratic process and alliances.

What do North Americans by and large think of the history of United States/ Latin America relations and/or the contemporary issues regarding that relationship? Is there sufficient number of people with the knowledge and concerns for their country's relationship with Latin America to warrant such question? And to what extent can one conclude that the United States foreign policy is governed by the democratic process if the answer to the first question is "very few"? How many of them can identify countries to the south of Mexico and how many of them bother to ask pertinent questions? Much is done in the name of the American people and yet we are constantly reminded that not many of them know or care to know about the very regions their political, economic and social elites are operating either in the form of war or exploitation. How many of them understand that under the despotic regime of global capitalism, all of the developing countries are forced to compete for foreign investments, effectively relinquishing their control over their economies to the agents of global finance. And that accumulation is the modus operandi, the alpha and the omega of the dynamics of global capitalism. Accumulation on a global scale does not allow prosperity for the majority including North American masses. It endorses and breeds dispossession. It effectively lowers wages and reduces or eliminates social services as part of the crushing austerity measures administered by one of its powerful agents-the IMF. Accumulation and privatization are symbiotic processes in the global capitalist system. Long term hegemonic plans are designed to reinvent themselves in each specific historical period. Accordingly, the socio-economic and political control in each specific period demands specific means. But what remain constant is the common practice of privatizing the gains and socializing the cost associated with global capitalist transactions from free trade to all aspects of globalization. Thus, it is imperative that imperialism both in its external dimension and its internal dimension (social imperialism) is successful.

AT – US Hegemony Key to Democracy

The US will oppress Latin America in the name of hegemony

Marshall, Project manager for The People’s Book Project, 11

(Andrew Gavin, 12/14/11, “The American Empire in Latin America: “Democracy” is a threat to “National Security”, http://thepeoplesbookproject.com/2011/12/14/the-american-empire-in-latin-america-democracy-is-a-threat-to-national-security/, 7/7/13, AL)

Thus, the NSC-144 document listed a number of “Objectives” for the United States to undertake in this highly threatening situation where the poor masses of an entire continent no longer wanted to be subjected to the ruthless domination of a tiny domestic and foreign minority. These ‘objectives’ included: “Hemisphere solidarity in support of our world policies, particularly in the UN and other international organizations,” which, in other words, means towing the line with the United States in regards to American foreign policy around the world; “An orderly political and economic development in Latin America so that the states in the area will be more effective members of the hemisphere system and increasingly important participants in the economic and political affairs of the free world,” which can be roughly translated as supporting the development of a Western-oriented middle class which would support the elites and keep the lower classes – the masses – at bay; “The safeguarding of the hemisphere… against external aggression through the development of indigenous military forces and local bases necessary for hemisphere defense,” which implies allowing America to establish military bases throughout the continent – naturally for “defensive” purposes – in offensively defending America’s resources (which happen to be in other countries), as well as establishing local military proxies through which America can exert regional hegemony. Further objectives included: “The reduction and elimination of the menace of internal Communist or other anti-U.S. subversion,” which equates to purging and liquidating the countries of dissenters, a patently fascistic policy objective; “Adequate production in Latin America of, and access by the United States to, raw materials essential to U.S. security,” which means that American corporations get unhindered access to exploit the region’s resources; and “The ultimate standardization of Latin American military organization, training, doctrine and equipment along U.S. lines,” which implies making every country’s military structure and apparatus of internal repression dependent upon U.S. support, and thus, it would ensure a structure of dependency between domestic elites and the American Empire, as the domestic elites would need the military and police apparatus to repress the “masses” whom they rule over and exploit. Therefore, America would need to essentially subsidize Latin America’s systems and structures of repression.[3]
US hegemony deprives Latin America of progress

School of the Americas Watch, 5

(School of the Americas Watch, 7/1/5, “Mission Creep? In Latin America? US Southern Command’s New Security Strategy”, http://www.soaw.org/category-table/2514, 7/7/13, AL)

Since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 the United States has regarded the Western Hemisphere as its own domain. The intent of this foreign policy doctrine was to prevent foreign powers—European colonizers, mercantilists, and financiers in the 1800s—from exercising influence that challenged the U.S. stake in Latin America and the Caribbean. The policy undermined economic development and political progress in the region for over a century. However, the precepts of the Monroe Doctrine have ensured that the Western Hemisphere remains a region that harbors no military threats to U.S. national security, albeit at great cost.

This is no small accomplishment. At least part of America’s superpower status today stems from its own geographical security—its isolation from other great powers, the absence of weapons of mass destruction in the “near abroad,” and its effective hegemony over its own hemisphere.

But this hegemony has come with a high price, predictably for the subjects of the hegemon. Even a quick glance at the political and economic conditions of some the United States’ closest neighbors—Haiti, the border cities of Mexico, Central American nations— belies the benefits of U.S. “benevolent hegemony.” In these countries, clearly geographical and political proximity to the world’s greatest power failed to yield even a minimal standard of progress.

In the name of security—both U.S. national security and the security of nations within U.S. hegemonic reach—the United States has repeatedly obstructed political and economic progress in Latin America and the Caribbean. Nearly two centuries of U.S. hemispheric hegemony has left a blood-stained legacy—one marked by a tragic history of gunboat diplomacy, military occupations, counterinsurgency campaigns, economic exploitation by companies like United Fruit and Anaconda, and support for dictators and military regimes.

If regional stagnation, instability, and growing contradictions between the United States and Latin America are the result of years of hegemony, then it is past time to find a new approach. In the search for less ideological and more effective security policies, it is worth recalling U.S. policies that offered more positive elements for a new model of constructive hemispheric relations. One such model was Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor Policy of the 1930s, and more recently certain aspects of constructive engagement by the Clinton administration.2

Latin American Hegemony Bad – Neoliberalism

US hegemony leads to suppression of regional growth, development.

Shariati, Kansas City Kansas Community College Sociology Professor, 8

What frightens the Washington block is the formation and reproduction of a philosophy that puts people before profit. In the context of home grown regional integration the preoccupation with high profit margins cease to exist. By the very definition, regional integration strategies would eliminate intraregional competition and expensive solicitation for foreign investment from the imperialist zones. Indeed economic democracy is possible only when deregulation (regulation favoring big business) is replaced with long term regional planning at the national level and in conjunction and association with long term regional planning predicated on cooperation rather than competition. Within the context of regional common market in which each member is an equal player, elimination of tariff and other barriers are appropriate. In this context an arrangement by which all members decide all the rules and they all play by the same set of rules, then development and growth (as measured by all the indices of social inclusion) are possible and both the gains and if need be all losses are socialized.

It is within a vibrant regional association that in addition to economic integration, a political as well as military (defensive) integration is possible. The task of establishing a regional economic power house in Latin America ought to be much easier than any other geographic region. For one, there are very strong cultural ties (though diverse in ethnic and racial identities) between the countries of the region and second the impulse of building a common market much stronger since they have collectively experienced outside intervention and still feel very vulnerable. The struggle to create a common market of truly independent members operating on the basis of a charter which puts human dignity, social development, economic democracy, and political accountability, has been, is and will be challenged by the powerful politico-military establishment that serves the transnationals.

AT – US Hegemony Benign

US uses hegemony for its own interests

Inter Press Service, 12

(8/11/12, Inter Press Service, “New Threats, Same old US Hegemony”, http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/10/new-threats-same-old-u-s-hegemony/, 7/9/13, AL)

PUNTA DEL ESTE, Uruguay , Oct 11 2012 (IPS) - Although it admits that it cannot be a long-term solution, Washington insists on strengthening the armed forces in Latin America, to confront “new threats,” including citizen insecurity. But activists argue that it is only another means of maintaining control over the region.

The new U.S. military strategy is all too familiar to many activists. “What the government of that country is seeking is to use the armed forces of Latin America as it always has: for its own interests, and not for the security of the people,” human rights defender Adolfo Pérez Esquivel told IPS by telephone from Buenos Aires.

In the past, Washington evoked the phantom of communism. But now, in a region where many of the governments are left-wing, it uses as a pretext common problems like drug trafficking to strengthen its predominance, said the Argentine activist and 1980 Nobel Literature Prize-winner.

Directory: rest -> wikis -> openev -> spaces -> 2013 -> pages -> Gonzaga -> attachments

Download 1.85 Mb.

Share with your friends:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 45