Obama's Slipshod South American Policy
The American attitude, unfortunately, toward Latin America has mostly been one of neglect with the proviso that no news is good news. We turn our attention to the region only when the Castro brothers, or an Ortega, Morales, or Chavez become prominent. We don't understand the history or contours of the area, although it is proximate and the source of most of our present generation of immigrants. In turn, Latin America has always had a passive-aggressive attitude toward the United States, one characterized by envy and a jealousy-driven animosity, coupled by a desire to emulate and indeed immigrate to the United States. Our policy should have been a respectful partnership that advocates free trade, constitutional government and free-market capitalism—a message distorted by both the Cold War and the disastrous Latin American embrace of communism and state socialism.
Obama in superficial multicultural fashion thinks he can try to trill an M-sounding archipelago and that will impress Latin Americans that he is a new sort of post-national America; but aside from the embarrassing ignorance of geography, and Obama's blatant efforts to pander for the Hispanic vote by creating de facto amnesty for illegal immigrants, all Obama is doing is showing a new sort of politically-correct American insularity. There are no new Latin American initiatives from the White House; he is slow on trade agreements; and those countries who fear Chavezism feel no sense of support for their increasingly lonely efforts to ensure free and regular elections and the protection of private property and free enterprise. I think, in truth, a Chavez or an Ortega feels that deep down Obama sympathizes with their agendas (cf. Hillary Clinton's Honduras mess, the hug to Chavez, the reply to Ortega that Obama was but a tyke when our government supposedly did such terrible things, etc.), but cannot, for political reasons, openly express such solidarity—an undercurrent that does much to dishearten those governments who want to be natural American allies.
Right now we should be trying to form some sort of North-South American Common Market that is predicated on two or three iron-clad criteria: market capitalism, constitutional government, and human rights—as an alternative to the new creeping Marxism of the Chavez/Ortega sort. If we are not careful, at some point we will wake up to a nuclear Brazil, a civil war in Venezuela, another Argentine invasion of the Falklands, and partnerships between anti-American Marxist governments and Middle Eastern terrorists.
- Comment (5)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Aug '11
Re: Obama's Slipshod South American Policy
Wow, the silence on this topic is rather telling.
I'll be the first to admit ignorance, although I've traveled a very little bit in South America and have read some history. I interact pretty regularly with graduate students in business--a couple have returned to South America to work and I talk with them frequently. The impression I get is that while we remain fairly ignorant of what is happening with our southern neighbors, the reverse is not true. They watch the US very closely. Based on that very anecdotal evidence, I agree that our understanding of (and hence, policy regarding) oboth unfortunate and potentially dangerous.
Feb '12
Re: Obama's Slipshod South American Policy
You're not going to get 'some sort of North-South American Common Market' while Obama is in the House because Chavez and Ortega are his kinda guys. Check the photo of O with Kirchner in the WSJ O'Grady piece 'Doing biz in Argentina' He's yukking it up and not because he got the Malvinas confused with the Maldives.. He's at home down there..
Feb '11
Re: Obama's Slipshod South American Policy
Brazil and Columbia are natural allies of the U.S. Brazil has felt ignored (rightly) and Columbia insulted (staunch in support of the drug interdiction program and cold shouldered on a free trade agreement). We run guns into Mexico to change our Second Amendment attitudes. Do we know how huge opportunies are south of the Rio Grande? 110 million in Mexico, 205 million in Brazil and another 50 million in Columbia; these three countries alone have more than 85% of the population of Europe.
Brazil is the 5th most populous country (China, India, U.S. Indonesia). It is a treasure trove of resources, hard working people and sophisticated leaders, many of whom have graduate degrees from American universities. It is closer geographically than China, India and Indonesia and shares much cultural history with the United States. Mexico and Brazil probably contribute more legal and illegal immigrants (many hard workers) to the U.S. than anyone else and deserve our attention.
They (and Columbia) should be on the top of our list for friends to embrace. Democracies all. Don't confuse Argentina and Venzezuela with the heart of Latin America. We have friends there waiting to be respected and befriended.
Jun '11
Re: Obama's Slipshod South American Policy
Our enemies are on the move in this hemisphere. And elsewhere.
Strength is the only deterrent.
Right now, the USA is back peddling. The USA is weakening itself.
Jul '11
Re: Obama's Slipshod South American Policy
I'd like to compare this slipshod South American policy with the slipshod North American policies, slipshod Middle Eastern policies, slipshod...etc. How does one guy get so many things so abjectly wrong? From things like Keystone with Canada, removing missile defense from Poland, embracing highly questionable and dictatorially-minded South Americans, to offering up cookies to North Korea (again) - all of these things seem to run counter to American interests in both the short and long term. It's quite true that a North/South economic and political alignment would absolutely have a positive economic effect in both hemispheres, but we cannot seem to get out of our own way to make positive things happen.
Instead, we embrace enemies, snub longtime economic and political allies, and point at artificial bogeymen to justify high gas prices. Laughably transparent, simple, and cynical - yet it will always sell to those who have been raised in a culture of entitlement, or "them vs. us".