Commentary

Bush Fails to Reassert American Hegemony During Latin American Tour

U.S. President George Bush embarked on a week-long tour of Latin America on March 8, with stops in Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico.  The trip was seen by most analysts as an attempt to reassert American control in the region while undermining the growing influence of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Over the past few years Chavez has been instrumental in establishing regional economic and political alliances which exclude the U.S.

In each country Bush was met by large demonstrations opposing everything from the current American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan to previous military dictatorships set up by U.S. imperialism in the region.  At every stop reporters asked him to comment about what was characterized as growing anger in the region with his government and the extremely pointed criticisms levelled against his regime by Chavez.  Not surprisingly, Bush refused to answer the questions, trying instead to position his visit as an opportunity to build bridges. For example, he declared, “My message to the people in our neighbourhood is that we care about the human condition and that we believe the human condition can be improved in a variety of ways.  One is investment and so the question is how can we have constructive dialogue with our neighbours as to how to spread the benefits of investment.”

In what many Latin American journalists felt was an oblique reference to the massive investments in social spending Venezuela is making in the region, including providing poverty-stricken countries with cheap oil and Venezuelan-trained doctors and educators, Bush told a reporter in Brazil that aid to Latin America from the “generous U.S. taxpayer” has reached $1.6 billion, “and most of the money is aimed at social justice programs, programs like education and health care.”  His visit, he said, was “very constructive and very hopeful and very positive, and the reason why is because we’ve all got so much in common.  There’s a lot more that unites us than divides us.”

However, Bush’s attempts to shore up support for America in the region were largely futile.  While he signed a number of trade and investment protocols and announced some new aid spending, his own State Department admitted that this was largely symbolic.  Signing the first of these agreements, on ethanol and bio-fuel alternatives in Brazil, Bush stressed what he described as “shared values” between Brazilians and Americans.

  Brazilian President Lula, for his part, called on Bush to cooperate in the social development of Latin America while respecting the “political decisions of each state.” Latin America’s relationship with the U.S. will be stronger, Lula said, on the basis of mutual respect.  “Each  [must] respect the sovereign political decisions of each state,” and only then could they work on partnerships together to alleviate poverty.

President Chavez, meanwhile, used the American president’s tour as a reason to launch his own counter-tour, visiting and announcing trade and aid deals in Bolivia, Nicaragua, Jamaica, Haiti and Argentina. In each country he visited Chavez received a hero’s welcome and was greeted by tens of thousands of supporters. 

While in Argentina, Chavez spoke at a massive rally opposing Bush’s trip and announced the creation of the Bank of the South, a regional alternative to the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.  Argentina, Bolivia and Venezuela have already signed on, he told the crowd.  The aim of the Bank of the South will be to break the cycle of foreign debt which has created such economic disaster in the region.  “We have paid a countless amount of resources to pay back foreign debt,” he said.  “In the past 20 or 25 years we have paid more than $2.2 billion [U.S.] in debt.  We have paid back the loans more than three times over.” 

The contrast between the two presidential tours underscored how unable the Americans have been to restore their control over Latin America.  Bush met with foreign leaders behind huge barricades protected by thousands of armed police and soldiers, while Chavez spoke to mass rallies and walked through some of the most wretched neighbourhoods in the region.

History, it appears, caught up to Bush in Latin America.  On the eve of his departure, the White House announced that the president’s tour would promote “peace and prosperity”.  For decades the Americans have claimed that their aim in Latin America has been to bring about peace and prosperity. However, the evidence of close to 200 years suggests otherwise.  Under the Monroe doctrine, the American policy towards the countries of Latin America was openly colonial.  After the Second World War, the approach shifted to a neo-colonial one, under which the Americans trained, funded and kept in place regimes friendly to their interests.  These regimes, including dozens of outright military dictatorships, were known throughout the world for the brutal suppression of their peoples. 

After the collapse of Soviet Union and the end of the bi-polar division of the world the U.S. approach to Latin America shifted once again.  It moved away from supporting military dictatorships to using democratically-elected governments which promised that the adoption of neo-liberal economic policies would bring “peace and prosperity” to the poor and marginalized.  However, the subsequent succession of economic disasters in the region - beginning with the collapse of the Mexican peso in the mid-1990s, followed by the disastrous consequences of dollarization in Ecuador and the recession in Argentina - created a serious credibility crisis for the Americans.  This crisis coincided with the launch by the Americans, during Clinton’s presidency, of the attempt to create the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).  

When Clinton first spoke about the FTAA in 1994 he confidently predicted that the agreement would be in place within the decade.  Instead, the negotiations have ground to a halt and not a single thing the Americans have done has been able to kick-start the process. Rather, America’s former client-states have elected leaders who have openly challenged the neo-liberal prescriptions.  While Chavez has been the most vocal, he has been joined by Bolivia’s Evo Morales, Argentina’s Nestor Kirchner, Ecuador’s Rafael Correa and Paraguayan President Nicanor Duarte. They did not hesitate to make their opinions of the U.S. known during the two presidential tours.

While Bush was being welcomed at an official reception in Mexico, Kirchener told reporters he was delighted to welcome Chavez to Argentina.  “I welcomed the President of the fellow Republic of Venezuela, who acted in solidarity with Argentina; who came when Argentina was in need and helped us.  At a time when big countries did not come forward.” Duarte described Chavez as “the President most willing to help” and, in case his words were not crystal clear, went on to criticize U.S. foreign policy under Bush, calling it “terrible” and condemning the invasion of Iraq and the illegal American concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.  Asked about Bush’s promise to increase investment in Latin America, Duarte replied that he would believe it “when there is technology transfer, when tariff barriers are lifted and when he stops treating our fellow citizens in a miserable way when they try to travel to his country.”