The ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya has provided Latin America with a revelatory moment. Beginning with the Monroe Doctrine--and extending through countless invasions, occupations, and covert operations--Washington has considered the region its backyard. So where was this superpower these past few months, as Honduras hung in the balance? More or less sitting on its hands. The fact is that the United States is no longer willing, or perhaps even able, to select who governs from Tegucigalpa, or anywhere else in the region for that matter. Looking back at the history of the hemisphere, this fact is remarkable--and certainly transformative. For the first time in centuries, the United States doesn’t seem to care much what happens in Latin America.
The roots of the diminishing U.S. presence can be found in the end of the cold war. It’s not that the rivalry with the Soviets was the only factor driving U.S. involvement in Latin America. Clearly, James Monroe and Teddy Roosevelt didn’t plunge their country deep into the hemisphere out of an anti-communist impulse. But the conclusion of the long struggle with the Soviets sharpened a question that may have long lurked in Washington’s subconscious: What national interests, exactly, did the United States have in Latin America?
Of course, it is tempting to view this possible retreat from the region as further evidence of Barack Obama’s realist foreign policy. But consider the approach of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. During their administrations, America’s grandest policy moves in the hemisphere were in the realm of economic policy--NAFTA, the Mexican bailout of 1995, CAFTA. And, when the United States did exert itself militarily, it did so in concert with regional allies--as was the case in Haiti and with Plan Colombia. But since George H.W. Bush’s invasion of Panama, there have been no unilateral military interventions, no coup plots or new embargoes, not even the propping up of decaying regimes.
To understand this new passivity, we can examine the two events that have most riled the old critics of imperialism: the Bush administration’s alleged complicity in the botched military coup against Hugo Chávez in 2002 and the plans to build a wall along the Mexican border. Both of these events are partly real and largely idle. Even if the coup plotters in Caracas had the tacit approval of the United States, they were almost certainly acting on their own, and sloppily. Meanwhile, the fence has yet to be completed. Recession has abated the human flow northward--and policymakers surely know that a wall will be futile once the economy eventually recovers.
At first, in the case of the Clinton years, this attitude of benign neglect made Washington popular. But then, for reasons having more to do with Iraq and Afghanistan, that popularity evaporated. And, in the end, the rise of anti-Americanism in the region didn’t make much of a difference. Chávez has not stopped selling oil to the United States; Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa rants against imperialism but maintains the dollar as his country’s national currency, with the Fed’s quiet acquiescence.
Of course, the United States still has its critics. Some--the left, mainly--would prefer that it play even less of a role: a unilateral end to the Cuban embargo, immigration reform, voiding the military basing agreement with Colombia. Others--the right, chiefly--have called for further confrontation with Chávez. But, by and large, a strange and centrist hemispheric consensus has emerged in support of U.S. indifference. Therefore, this policy will persist, unless things get nasty.
Print
It's an intriguing piece, with many a good insight.
But I have to note that the only SPECIFIC instance Dr. Castañeda mentions to sustain his argument "world events do not seem likely to permit an indefinite U.S. disengagement from the region, nor would that be desirable" is the possibility of Ollanta Humala winning an election in Perú. It is, without a doubt, a very worrying scenario...especially for Peruvians, as Humalá is both highly skilled in the art of demagoguery and a Chávez-scale lunatic. But what, specifically, is the US meant to do about it? Funding his opponents would break Peruvian law and come with a very high risk of back-firing, anything more intrusive would seem so comple ... view full comment
It's an intriguing piece, with many a good insight.
But I have to note that the only SPECIFIC instance Dr. Castañeda mentions to sustain his argument "world events do not seem likely to permit an indefinite U.S. disengagement from the region, nor would that be desirable" is the possibility of Ollanta Humala winning an election in Perú. It is, without a doubt, a very worrying scenario...especially for Peruvians, as Humalá is both highly skilled in the art of demagoguery and a Chávez-scale lunatic. But what, specifically, is the US meant to do about it? Funding his opponents would break Peruvian law and come with a very high risk of back-firing, anything more intrusive would seem so completely out of step with the Zeitgeist it's impossible to imagine the Obama administration trying it.
This suggests some very dark days ahead for Peru. But it's also true that the hard-left moment in the region is flaming out of its own accord. Chávez is too crazy and the Castro Brothers too scary to inspire widespread immitation in the region, and their alliance with FARC hitches their brand to the bad old days of cold war violence that virtually no one in the region sees as a way forward. The economic inviability of 21st century socialism for countries without massive oil reserves is clear, and the results of more incrementalist regimes in Brazil and Chile are becoming more and more attractive to people throughout the region more interested in solidifying the very tenuous hold they have on a middle class lifestyle than in overthrowing the capitalist order. These trends have not needed Washington intervention to play themselves out over the last decade and - again, but for Peru - seem likely to stabilize over the years to come.
Thanks for including this article. The Obama Administration may be neglecting Latin America, but as someone who has lived there and has an ongoing interest, I am glad that TNR is not.
Thanks for including this article. The Obama Administration may be neglecting Latin America, but as someone who has lived there and has an ongoing interest, I am glad that TNR is not.
It is interesting to observe how unhinged TNR's coverage of Latin America has become since Chavez came to power. I guess it must be the Iran connection, as tenuous as that is. We seem to get an unending series of propagandistic pieces, all attempting to set us a-tremble at the fearsome prospect of Chavez's "anti-Americanism" including this ridiculous piece by a "distinguished professor" that reads like a poorly sourced undergraduate paper. Is TNR angling for a Carlos Slim bailout or something?
"So where was this superpower these past few months, as Honduras hug perfunctory protests at the manner (though not really the fact) of Zelaya's ouster. As things ng in the balance? More or less sit ... view full comment
It is interesting to observe how unhinged TNR's coverage of Latin America has become since Chavez came to power. I guess it must be the Iran connection, as tenuous as that is. We seem to get an unending series of propagandistic pieces, all attempting to set us a-tremble at the fearsome prospect of Chavez's "anti-Americanism" including this ridiculous piece by a "distinguished professor" that reads like a poorly sourced undergraduate paper. Is TNR angling for a Carlos Slim bailout or something?
"So where was this superpower these past few months, as Honduras hug perfunctory protests at the manner (though not really the fact) of Zelaya's ouster. As things ng in the balance? More or less sitting on its hands."
What did you think the US was going to do? Reinstate Zelaya who enjoys bipartisan revulsion in DC because he is "close" to Chavez? Or overtly support the coup against him? Neither, of course. Zelaya is now gone with the US having "covered" itself by lodging a perfunctory complaint and then letting events take a satisfactory course. This was a fairly skillful (though totally repulsive) way of handling the issue.
"But the conclusion of the long struggle with the Soviets sharpened a question that may have long lurked in Washington’s subconscious: What national interests, exactly, did the United States have in Latin America?"
Again, sloppy non-analysis. The issue of our interests in Latin America is not in question. The relative urgency of the many global policy problems (many self-imposed) the US faces IS the issue. Restructuring Eastern Europe, the re-emergence of Russia, the ascendancy of China, 9/11 and the War to Forcibly Reform Islam in the ME/South Asia have all jumped in line ahead of Latin America. How hard is it to see why?
"But since George H.W. Bush’s invasion of Panama, there have been no unilateral military interventions, no coup plots or new embargoes, not even the propping up of decaying regimes."
What a laugh. What about the support of the failed Venezuela coup in 2002 and the "rescue" of Aristide and subsequent depositing of the Haitian President in the Central African Republic in 2004? And of course, our "acceptance" of the Honduran coup of 2009. Granted, we're not quite as "busy" as at some points in the 80's, but it's the same inclination.
"But it’s Chávez’s foreign activities that could prove most menacing. For now, his partnership with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is more bluster than substance. The idea that the two dictators’ countries can truly help each other, given their economic similarities, is far-fetched."
What nonsense--both Chavez and Ahmadiinejad, whatever their shortcomings as heads of state, and whatever factional violence their states may be suffering, the two WERE, in fact, elected by majorities in their respective countries, and are not dictators. Exit poles, approval ratings, and election monitors have substantiated the elections and referenda of the two leaders. I see that TNR is becoming "progressively" more Pravda-like. Anti-Chavez good. Pro-Chavez bad. (Four legs good, two legs bad). How pathetic.
"Chávez has already shown a penchant for mischief, particularly within Latin America. So far, he has meddled successfully in the electoral processes of smaller countries..."
Oh, I see...when the US issues overt threats to vote against the FMLN in El Salvador, it's OK, but Chavez is guilty of unspecified "meddling": "On February 6, 2004 the Assistant Secretary of Western Hemispheric Affairs for the U.S. State Department, Roger Noriega, said: "I think it is fair to note that the FMLN campaign has emphasized its differences with [the U.S] concerning CAFTA (Central America Free Trade Agreement) and other subjects. And we know the history of this political movement, and for this reason it is fair that the Salvadoran people consider what type of relations a new government could have with us."
And on 29 October 2006, prior to the 2006 Nicaraguan elections, [the Nicaraguan newspaper] La Prensa published an editorial by Otto Reich, former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, in which he accused the FSLN of maintaining ties with terrorist groups, a claim that Reich does not attempt to substantiate. Though Reich did not hold a position in the U.S. government at the time, he wrote as if he did, stating, “If the Sandinistas control the government of Nicaragua, there will be strong pressure in Washington to review all aspects of the bilateral relationship, including remittances.” But, of course, it's shameful for anyone else to try and emulate our bully-boy tactics.
"Peru, the more likely candidate for [Chavez's] meddling, will hold elections in 2011 under highly adverse circumstances, with its (unjustly) unpopular ruling party and no viable centrist alternative to the Chavista, Ollanta Humala."
Hmm..."unjustly unpopular". Now, what does Commissar Castaneda really mean? That the people are on the verge of choosing poorly and may have to be severely chastised for their lack of political wisdom?
"Building up infrastructure, stabilizing currencies, and establishing effective and transparent antitrust institutions are tasks that countries cannot carry out alone, given their integration with the U.S. economy."
Ha--another laugh! The US has quietly spent over a trillion dollars to bail out its corrupt, incompetent banks in complete contravention of the "advice" that we have been giving to Latin America and others for decades. We are in the process of debasing the dollar--and actually becoming "Latin American" in that sense--in order to inflate away the insurmountable debt we have built up. We can do this because we borrow in our own currency. We are no model for the Latin Americans. If they want to learn how to develop, they should look to China.
Wow--how can one article be so bad in so many ways??