Should Obama, If Elected, Make a Clean Break With Bush's Latin America Policy?

In the last decade political change has swept across most of Latin America. Much of the region - including the majority of South America - is now run by left governments. These governments have also become much more independent of the United States - in their foreign policy they are more independent than Europe is. Washington's dream of a hemispheric "Free Trade Area of the Americas" is now dead and buried. The attempt to replace this with bilateral "free trade" agreements is losing steam every day.

Much of this is a result of the democratic choices of the Latin American electorate. In country after country - Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Uruguay, Venezuela - voters rejected the "Washington Consensus" economic policies after more than two decades of unprecedented economic failure. Similarly, by popular demand, the government of Ecuador has announced that the Washington's most prominent military base in the region will close when its lease expires in 2009.

The Administration's reaction to this new Latin American reality has been characterized by denial and hostility. It supported military coups in Venezuela (2002) and Haiti (2004). It has funded opposition groups in countries such as Bolivia and Venezuela, provoking further friction. The United States has clearly been a destabilizing force in the region, undermining democracy.

The Bush Administration has tried to divide the left-of-center democracies into "good left" (Brazil and Chile) versus "bad left" (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and sometimes Argentina). The goal has been to isolate the "bad left," especially Venezuela. But this is a fantasy-based foreign policy.

Brazil's President Lula da Silva, for example, of the "good left" has consistently defended Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez against Washington's attacks, and joined with Venezuela in its major initiatives such as the Bank of the South. Brazil has also recently stepped up its commitment to Cuba, a country with which Lula's Worker's Party has long had ties - more deeply rooted historically, in fact, than Chavez of Venezuela. Cuba is another example of failed U.S. policy toward Latin America. Washington has maintained an economic embargo and other hostilities against Cuba for nearly half a century. This has succeeded only in winning condemnation from the rest of the world, expressed in many overwhelming votes in the United Nations, and sowing more distrust in Latin America.

The "divide and conquer," Cold War strategy in Latin America has only succeeded in further reducing Washington's standing in the region, which is now lower than it has ever been.

Obama would have a chance to make a fresh start. But would he? So far there has been little indication that he would.
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1432/68/

a change in our policy.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Latin_America/LatinAmericaWatch.html

is why he delivered such a DEMAGOGIC speech to the Miami mafia federal welfare crowd, calling Chavez a "demagogue" and sounding like James Monroe, calling for "U.S. leadership" in Latin America, cuz those Latin Americans, ya know, can't lead themselves.

I was appalled at this speech. However, it contained one shining moment of astonishing courage--his delivery of the message to this particularly fascist (death squad loving) crowd that he intends to sit down with Cuban leaders and TALK.

He is the first U.S. politician, to my knowledge, to ever say that in Miami (of all places--or anywhere else, actually). (--the Miami mafia reach is very long.)

So, it gives me hope that Obama policy on Latin America will, at the very least, be SENSIBLE AND SANE, as opposed to Miamian whacko fascist.

And I can only hope that someone like President Lula da Silva of Brazil will set him straight about Latin Americans' ability to provide--and insistence upon--their own leadership for their own self-determined purposes.

South America is swiftly moving toward a South American "Common Market." And, due to the provocative actions of the Bush junta (reconstituting the U.S. 4th Fleet to harry the coast of Venezuela--where most of Venezuela's oil is--and supporting fascist civil wars, coup and assassination plots, and rightwing political groups (all with our tax dollars!)--it was Lula da Silva who recently proposed a South American common defense, in conjunction with the South American "Common Market," neither thing--the common market or the common defense--to include the U.S.

South America has no enemies--save one, the bully to the north. This is understood by the vast majority of South Americans, and Central Americans as well. So they are going their own way. Cooperating, integrating, like-minded leftist governments now cover South America (Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and most recently elected, Paraguay), with only two exceptions (fascist Colombia, and "free tradist" Peru--both very troubled countries). In Central America, Nicaragua has gone leftist, and El Salvador will be next (this year). Guatemala has elected its first progressive government, ever--which is in sympathy with the social justice goals of the South American left. And Mexico came within 0.05% of electing a leftist last time around, and will likely elect a leftist in the next election cycle (because the "free tradist"/Bushite Calderon is fucking with Mexico's Constitutionally protected oil resource, trying to privatize it).

Some of the opinion polls in these leftist countries tell you what's happening: Fernando Lugo, leftist just elected in Paraguay: 92% approval (!); Rafael Correa-Ecuador: 70% to 80% approval; Evo Morales-Bolivia: 70% approval; Hugo Chavez-Venezuela: 60% to 70% approval.

Compare this to Bush-Cheney--under 20% approval--and our Democratic Congress--single digit approval (!). South America has transparent elections (by and large). Central America is improving. We do not have transparent elections. We have rightwing Bushite corporations 'counting' all our votes with 'TRADE SECRET' PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls. By contrast, Venezuela, for instance, has OPEN SOURCE code in its voting system--no 'TRADE SECRETS'; anyone may review the code by which the votes are tabulated--and they handcount a whopping 55% of the votes, as a check on machine fraud. Know how much we hand-count? 0% in many states (about half), and a miserably inadequate 1% only in the best states. Some experts say we need to handcount a minimum of 10% to detect electronic fraud. We don't even come close to this MINIMUM necessary audit.

That is why we are ruled by Global Corporate Predators, and South America is largely ruled by governments who FIGHT global corporate predators, on behalf of their people, who advocate for the poor, and who attend to the rights and general welfare of their entire societies.

I am of the opinion that Barack Obama, if he were free to speak his mind--and was not running for president in fascist coup conditions--would approve of Latin America's transparent vote counting, real leadership and social justice governments. I don't think he's free to do that. The global corporate predators who are running things here have too many ways they can whack him, from outright assassination, to character assassination in the corpo media, to Diebold & brethren easily--EASILY!--stealing the election. All of our leaders--the good, the bad and the ugly--are being bullied, blackmailed, threatened, intimidated and/or silenced, and, one way or another, squeezed by these fascist fuckwad billlionaires who have taken over our voting system and our media, who are dictating to our government and who have hijacked our military for a corporate resource war. They are "the Deciders"--not Bush, and not the people of the U.S.

I don't know whether we can restore democracy here in the immediate future. I do know that transparent vote counting has been the critical factor in South America. And thus, I think that restoring vote counting to the PUBLIC VENUE should be our first priority here. (It's still feasible at the state/local level.) And I also know this: we must try, and we must never, ever give up on our right to vote, and on our commitment to peaceful, progressive change. We are likely in for a long struggle--such as the good people of South America have had to wage. It is not going to be easy, whether we are able to put Obama in the White House, or not. I think we can do that--and the Corporate Rulers may permit it to happen, if the vote is overwhelming enough, but they will seriously shave his mandate and give him a difficult 'Blue Dog' Congress. They are not through with looting us, whatever happens in November. It is their untoward power that we must systematically, smartly and strategically attack, over the long term, beginning with their 'TRADE SECRET' code voting machines.

Only when the people are back in control of our voting system, our PUBLIC airwaves and the uses of our military, can we begin to implement a policy of fairness, equality and respect, and mutual benefit, with Latin America.

--I have not seen the "Chavez is a dictator" trollers lately. I guess even they were sickened by their own hate, lies and bs.

I worry about Jamaica and especially Haiti, but have hope that the progressive surge in South and Central America will be able to extend to them also.

Our policy has been bass ackwards. There, and other places, for a long time. The corporate-predator death-squad mentality needs to go. And here too.

The Repub policies and way of thinking are really just a corporate "style" of re-colonializing - our country, just like the others.

You might want to post these thoughts separately for wider distribution--who knows where it could lead?

Latin America has democraticly elected leftist governments. Good for them and we should be willing to deal with those governments in the same way we would with any other. Free trade is mostly off the table but trade generally is still possible.

Sadly, the US attitude that "we are entitled to interefere with anyone we disapprove of" still dominates Washington and I don't like Obama's chances of changing that even if he wanted to (which is questionable).

One of the worst things BushCo did was reflexively do a 180 on policies just because they had been Clinton's.
I'm not sure if there is anything worth keeping from the Bush administration, but I don't think Obama should
follow the Bush precedent. As much as I would like to dump everything, I think it would be wrong. I also don't
believe, however, that Obama should take forever to make a decision.

Fulminate, wave fists in air, and fume? That's the best kind of policy for Latin America!

Get ass handed to you all across a continent, even in your so-called "client state" Colombia?

Lose what a century of intervention and corporate corruption gained for you?

No, let's keep that kind of policy in place for a generation or two....

One of them is that our treatment of Latin America has been immoral, destructive and now, finally, self-defeating. I hope that when and if Obama is elected, he will tone down the rhetoric, and perhaps quietly make clear to Latin American governments that he does not intend to stand in the way of their political and economic progress.