American Abroad

Latin America Summit leaders bloc US

Latin America is slowly breaking away from its wealthier neighbours, and frankly, it’s about time. The region was one of the first areas in the world exposed to the spectre of colonialism. It began with the arrival of the Spanish conquistadores in the sixteenth century, consolidated through the forced slavery of indigenous peoples and the robbery of natural resources, and ended with more than a few military coups, bloodbaths and social uprisings. If the summit last week- which excluded the US and Canada- is anything to go by, after centuries of imperial interference, the region’s leaders are proving they can go it alone.

On Tuesday the Caribbean Unity Rio Group Summit -composed of 32 countries in the Americas-met in Mexico to approve the so-called Community of Latin American and Caribbean States. The organization aims to provide an alternative to the Organisation of American States (OAS), which has come under fire from a number of Latin American presidents, not least of all Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, for excluding Cuba and allegedly pushing a US-centred agenda. Cuban President Raul Castro unsurprisingly welcomed the move. He described the decision as “historic”, echoing the sentiments of Chavez, Brazil’s president Lula da Silva and Bolivia’s Evo Morales, among others.

But this is not the first occasion Latin American leaders have signalled their intentions to form a regional bloc. The Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), a trading bloc comprised of eight countries including founders Venezuela and Cuba was created in 2004, with the purpose of offering inter-regional trading as an alternative to the US-led Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

But with the advent of an emerging, stronger Latin American market, how will the region’s new makeup affect the international playing field?  And will it set a precedent for other regions in the developing world?

Mark Weisbrot commented in the Guardian last week: “The increasing independence of Latin America has been one of the most important geopolitical changes over the last decade, affecting not only the region but the rest of the world as well.”

Weisbrot cites Brazil’s backing for Tehran to develop enriched uranium and rejection of sanctions as a sign of the region’s shift away from US influence. And the consensus reached at the Summit on backing Argentina’s claim to the Falklands has also demonstrated considerable regional unity.

Today, few commentators will deny that Washington has become less important to the regional economy. A growing number of countries in Latin America have turned inward or toward the East for trade relations, and with the US struggling to combat recessionary woes, this trend is likely to continue. Though, perhaps most interestingly, Latin America has started to look toward markets in Africa and India. This development could signal a growth in trade between countries of the global south, giving rise to a more multipolar world order.

At the very least, the fact that Latin America’s new regional organization was approved by the likes of Mexico’s president Felipe Calderon – the leader of a rightwing administration with ties to the previous US government – should warrant some food for thought. Latin America has hardly yielded in unison to the whims of President Chavez, but the wide spectrum of support from far left to far right is an indication of the region’s growing consensus for sovereignty, with some very real repercussions for its neighbours and the wider world.

Obama support for Honduras Elections proves Chavez right

Obama’s support for the Honduran elections on Sunday makes Hugo Chavez look like a prophet. Tomorrow, the de facto government of Honduras will be holding what the military regime refers to as an ‘electoral fiesta’ to choose the new president of the country. Elected president Manuel Zelaya–overthrown in a military coup in June—has not been invited.

Tired and beaten Zelaya supporters are on the verge of accepting defeat. Months of strategic military repression, curfews and media blackouts have cast a shadow on the prospect of a people’s revolution.

But perhaps the most shocking (or expected, depending on your world view) turn of events has been the about-face of the US government. President Barak Obama has steadfastly condemned the first coup since the dark days of military dictatorships in Latin America. Desperate to shake off America’s reputation as an imperial power in the region, the president joined world leaders in calling for the return of democracy to the small island country.

However, Washington showed its true colours on Tuesday, indicating that the US’s recognition of the election outcome was not dependent on Zelaya’s reinstatement. According to the Guardian, Congressional Republicans have won the argument; supporting the military regime in Honduras means gaining an ally in a region shifting dangerously leftward. Sound familiar?

The strategy is an old one. It dates back to the banana republics of the twentieth century, when American fruit corporations’ interests were protected through intervention, police action and occupation. US troops were stationed in Honduras for two decades to ensure that a democratically elected government would not interfere with a US-Honduran business alliance. Under American president Ronald Reagan, Honduras was even used as an outpost for a military base to overthrow Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista government.

Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez has long criticized American imperial interests in the region. During the Americas Summit in Trinidad and Tobago in April he made headlines by presenting Obama with Eduardo Galeano’s Open Veins of Latin America as a gift. Maybe Chavez should have bothered buying the English version, because it seems that five months later the book has not been read. Obama’s decision to back Sunday’s vote sends a clear message that the US hasn’t learned from its neo-colonial past.

The power-sharing deal in Honduras fell apart after Washington’s announcement, and few are hopeful that democracy will be restored in the country. Honduras will face a tough road ahead. America is one of the only countries to support the elections, and international funding and aid have been virtually cut off.

But if Chavez was proven right on US foreign policy, than it’s certainly worth considering that he is correct on something else too. This time around, Latin America’s slew of leftist leaders will be a much stronger foe.

Venezuela-Colombia dispute will be a bumpy ride

The destruction of two pedestrian bridges on the border between Venezuela and Colombia is the latest move in an un-neighbourly dispute that edges ever closer to the boiling point.

Venezuela’s firebrand president Hugo Chavez announced last week that the Venezuelan military should “prepare for war” to ensure peace between the rival nations. Tensions between the Andean neighbours have risen considerably after right-wing Colombian president Alvaro Uribe signed a deal to extend US access to Colombian military bases.

Chavez accused the Colombian leader of being a US pawn. Claiming that the US aims to start a proxy-war with Venezuela, he is readying the troops.

The Venezuelan leader could be accused of opportunism, attention-grabbing, and even deep-seated paranoia. But then again, he does have history behind him. The US has a long tradition of interference in Latin America, dating back to the CIA operation that unseated democratically elected president Salvador Allende in Chile.

Lately, however, America’s backyard has been left to grow wild while the US concentrates on foreign wars in the Middle East. A number of leftist leaders have come to power, including Evo Morales in Bolivia, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, and Rafael Correa in Ecuador. These charismatic presidents are calling the shots, asserting their sovereignty, and taking a decidedly anti-American approach to foreign policy.

So is the US looking to flex its muscles and re-assert its political and economic interests in the region? Possibly. But again, Afghanistan is nowhere near a done deal, addressing the recession at home is an electoral must, and peace in the Middle East continues to take centre-stage in the battle for hearts, minds and oil.

While considerably annoying, like a pesky gnat buzzing in one’s ear, Chavez is not likely to become the next target of US combat operations. So what does that mean for the emerging conflict between Venezuela and Colombia?

The Guardian reports that full-scale war is unlikely, but there is potential for “a bloody border clash”. A senior European diplomat told the newspaper: “Things are so tense it’s definitely possible. Alarm bells should be ringing.”

If fighting breaks out there is no doubt that the US will back (however clandestinely) its Colombian ally. But a further escalation will have significant repercussions in a region that, despite a propensity for civil wars, has seen comparatively few interstate conflicts.

Colombia has said that Venezuela’s destruction of the pedestrian bridges is a violation of international law. Defence minister Gabriel Silva says Bogotá will make a formal complaint to the United Nations and the Organisation of American States, but Colombia will not allow the incident to lead to an armed conflict.

For their part, Venezuelan officials say that the action was taken to prevent the walkways being used by illegal armed forces and drug traffickers.

If the US administration’s reaction to the coup attempt against Honduran president Manuel Zelaya earlier this year is anything to go by, American president Barack Obama will be reticent of appearing to meddle in internal regional affairs. But this doesn’t mean that just because the guns-blazing George Bush tactics have been shirked, there won’t be quiet maneuvering behind the scenes. War between Colombia and Venezuela might be off the table, but Latin American leaders should brace themselves for a bumpy ride.

Media freedom threatened in Latin America

Most journalists in Latin America are worried. There are few countries where reporters receive admiration or even respect. But the abuse thrown at the world’s watchdogs in this region has grown alarmingly. In many Latin American countries today the media is treated with suspicion, and journalists are perceived as enemies of the state.

During my time freelancing in Venezuela I was struck by the polarization of the country. In interviews with government officials, academics and civil society groups it became evident that a sharp dividing line between government supporters and critics coloured even the most arbitrary issues. In Venezuela opposition parties are weak, and the private media is the strongest voice of criticism of the government. This has put the national media on a collision course with Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. Chavez has repeatedly accused the private media of attempting to dismantle the government, and his frequent televised addresses against the press have exposed journalists to vigilante violence from Chavista groups.

The government-led war against the media is not without its justifications. It is well-documented that the national broadcaster Radio Caracas Televisión Internacional (RCTV) played a major role in the coup attempt against President Chavez in 2002. But this has led to the collective punishment of the press. To date, the Chavez administration has shut down 34 radio stations and two television networks, and the licences of a further 210 local radio stations and 40 television stations are under threat.

Similarly, in Mexico, reporters who attempt to cover the illegal drugs trade or human rights abuses by the state face intimidation and even death. Journalists who refuse to be silenced through bribery or threats often end up in a body bag. According to a 2008 International Federation of Journalists survey on the deadliest countries for reporters, only Iraq and India topped Mexico.

What sets Latin America apart from many parts of the world is a vibrant civil society. Decades of opposition against military juntas that ruled much of Latin America throughout the late 60s to the early 80s have instilled a deep respect for democratic rule. But the strength of civil society can also be seen as a threat. A past rife with political upheaval looms large in the minds of Latin American leaders, and fearful heads of state worry that an oppositional media has the power to unseat them.

As in Venezuela, there is no doubt that the media does not always act as a constructive democratic force. But while measures should be taken to ensure responsible journalism, removing the media entirely is a step in the wrong direction. Media freedom is often the first causality in an all out war against democratic freedoms. Governments forfeit their claim to democracy when they inhibit this fundamental right.

The New Statesman

Hugo Chavez may be a self-proclaimed feminist, but Venezuela still has a shocking record on domestic violence. Article available on the New Statesman website:
Chavez is failing women