How the south was lost: US and the Americas

[Garbarsardar]

"I think we have to start by recognizing that this is a region that has come a long way from the period of the '80s, when it was wracked with civil wars and juntas and when nobody thought about ... democracy,"

For a historian as lady Rice often claims to be, there is a suspicious dearth of context in the previous statement,

"There are 34 democracies in Latin America -- a fact that speaks for itself,” Rice said. Those democracies are worth defending, she said, especially since some of them are still fragile and must resist the encroachments of would-be autocrats from both the left and the right of the political spectrum.

Contrary to what some may believe, the United States does not oppose the emergence of left-of-center governments in the hemisphere, said Rice, adding that the United States has strong alliances with many such governments.

"We have very good relations with Chile," she said. "We have excellent relations with Brazil. We have good relations with Argentina. Governments of the left, as long as they govern democratically and are committed to prosperity for their people through free trade and increasingly open economies, [are] not a problem."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4872522.stm

However, difficulties arise when leaders -- of whatever political persuasion -- resort to autocratic measures and abandon government transparency and accountability in favor of corruption and intimidation, Rice said. "Governments ... that come to power and don't govern democratically, and that put pressure on civil society or on the church or on free-trade unions, some of which is happening in Venezuela, or [that] meddle in the affairs of neighbors: that's a problem," she said. "And it's not just a problem for the United States. It's a problem for the region."

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/di...wf-latest.html

When President Bush came into office he declared that Latin America was a priority. that was the opinion of every American president since James Monroe in 1823 whose "Monroe Doctrine" told European nations to keep out of Latin American affairs.

In Monroe's message to Congress on December 2, 1823, he delivered what we have always called the Monroe Doctrine, although in truth it should have been called the Adams Doctrine. Essentially, the United States was informing the powers of the Old World that the American continents were no longer open to European colonization, and that any effort to extend European political influence into the New World would be considered by the United States "as dangerous to our peace and safety." The United States would not interfere in European wars or internal affairs, and expected Europe to stay out of American affairs.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...emocrac/50.htm

In pursuit of American interests, the US has overthrown or undermined around 40 Latin American governments in the 20th Century either by direct intervention or subversion via CIA. It is also true that the US provided support, tolerance or a meaningful silence to some of the most brutal regimes in this part of the world:

After twenty-seven years of withholding details about covert activities following the 1973 military coup in Chile, the CIA released a report yesterday acknowledging its close relations with General Augusto Pinochet’s violent regime. The report, “CIA Activities in Chile,” revealed for the first time that the head of the Chile’s feared secret police, DINA, was a paid CIA asset in 1975, and that CIA contacts continued with him long after he dispatched his agents to Washington D.C. to assassinate former Chilean Ambassador Orlando Letelier and his 25-year old American associate, Ronni Karpen Moffitt.

“CIA actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of Allende,” the report states. “Many of Pinochet’s officers were involved in systematic and widespread human rights abuses....Some of these were contacts or agents of the CIA or US military.”

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20000919/index.html

Venezuela, Bolivia and Peru have elected leftists-natonalist candidates and there is a worrying Chinese influence over the continent:

The flurry of China-Brazil business began less than two years ago after an exchange of visits between Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Chinese President Hu Jintao. Since then China's influence can be seen everywhere in Latin America: oil, gas, railways, ports, steel and - worryingly for the US - defence. In Sao Paulo, Chinese language classes are packed. Not only are students taught how to speak Mandarin, but they are also guided in cultural habits such as attending banquets and singing Chinese folk songs.
"Everything I do is with China now," says one student Priscila Marques, who runs a freight forwarding company. "It's Brazil-China; nowhere else."

"As a nation we need to understand that this Communist dictatorship is a government without a conscience," says Senator Lindsey Graham who has recently been to China."The status quo cannot be accepted and tolerated by this country any more than the Soviet Union's practices were tolerated by Ronald Reagan."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4872522.stm

Well, you reap what you sow...

[gigagaia]

I think that you have presented an excellent article which raises some valid points, and you make an excellent point about her getting history mixed up
But I also don't think that you can use past administrations to judge the shortcomings of another. The past is a useful tool to predict, but not necessairly to judge with. For instance, Nothing actually contradict's Rice's statements about their support for Present-Day Latin-American Democratic Regimes which tend to be left-leaning.
Her point about authoritarian practices is valid, however (and maybe could be applied to the US as well...) and should not be dismissed in whole.

Personally I think Chinese trade is a good thing, though I find it odd that China, with the world's largest population living in poverty is selling a method for reducing/eliminating poverty.

Anyways, I think this is an excellent piece, it is challenging and makes me think about certain things.

[Garbarsardar]

You are correct. It would be dishonest to imply that Dr. Rice is responsible for US policies in the region spanning the last century and further back. But as an historian I would expect her to qualify her remarcs by providing a much needed context. I wonder what the historians of the future upon whose judgement she often relies (During a three day visit to Britain, she said history would judge that the correct strategic decisions were made.http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest...10933/242d9f5a) will have to say about her part in the dealings with the Americas in the previous years.

And as someone said:

It is not "can any of us imagine better?" but, "can we all do better?" The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

Guess who said that