Al-Jazeerah History
Archives
Mission & Name
Conflict Terminology
Editorials
Gaza Holocaust
Gulf War
Isdood
Islam
News
News Photos
Opinion
Editorials
US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)
www.aljazeerah.info
|
|
Obama's Test:
Democracy or Chaos in Latin America
By Ramzy Baroud
ccun.org, October 9, 2009
Latin America stands at the threshold of a new era: one that
promises a return to political uncertainty, violence and chaos or one of
political stability and economic prosperity. Honduras is a crucial
indicator. The possible outcomes of the Honduran crisis are likely
to define the coming era for Latin America and the US future role in that
hemisphere, and, in fact, beyond it. Indeed, the story is much more
elaborate than a daring president holed up in a foreign embassy in his own
country. In her second visit to Asia as US Secretary of State,
Hillary Clinton declared on July 21 in Bangkok, “The US is back.” The
declaration was disconcerting to many Asian countries, despite Clinton’s
indistinct qualifications afterwards. Asian countries, exploring regional
unity and economic cooperation are well aware of the subtle meaning of the
term. However, it’s unlikely that politically stable and economically
prospering Asia countries would allow for unwarranted outside interferences,
especially with the growing Chinese regional influence and the election of
Yukio Hatoyama the prime minister of Japan. But how would Latin
America feel about the US interference? The outcome of the Honduran coup
should sufficiently answer this question. Since the
introduction of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, the politics and economic
structures of Latin American countries subsisted as a component of US
foreign policies, regardless of who presided in the White House. The
region’s economies seemed, at times, a laboratory for economic theories
hatched at various US academic institutions. Many Latin American countries
existed, and a meager existence at that, between US interventions,
self-seeking local oligarchy and wilderness and chaos wrought by military
dictatorships. In many instances, these three components were intrinsically
linked. But US influence in that region, as in the rest of the
world, began to fade. The neoconservative wars in the Middle East and South
Asia were but desperate, now failed attempts at salvaging some of the
dwindling influence. The former Bush Administration left Latin
America to its own devises as US military adventures elsewhere took a toll
on the country, militarily, economically and politically, at home and
abroad. But as Clinton promised a return to Asia, the Obama administration
attempted a return to Latin America as well, a region that is significantly
different from yesteryear, as a new form of popular socialism was taking
hold (in Venezuela, Bolivia, and elsewhere) without wholly disturbing the
economic patterns that long governed these countries. While many didn’t
welcome President Hugo Chavez’s outspokenness, few in Latin America, except
for a few remaining US allies, considered him a threat. To the contrary, the
new age has promised greater cooperation among all economic sectors between
Latin American countries than any other period in the past. A new Latin
America was making its debut, more equitable than before, politically
stable, and economically promising, if not, in some cases, prosperous.
Indeed, the US returned to a different reality, a return that, at first was
welcomed, even by Chavez himself. Obama spoke a language that soothed much
fears and fostered a sense of promise. “At times we sought to
dictate our terms. But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership.
There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations; there is
simply engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and shared
values,” declared Obama on April 19, at the Summit of the Americas, to the
pleasure and relief of his audience. Did that mean no more coups,
military interventions, economic sanctions, political intimidation and all
forms of coercion that defined much of the two hemispheres’ relationship of
many years? Certainly, Latin American leaders, or most of them, hoped so.
But then, the democratically elected President of Honduras, Manuel
Zelaya was overthrown on June 28. It was a classic Latin American junta
move. The popular leader was escorted in his pajamas and deported to another
country. The coup leader, Roberto Micheletti lead a series of draconian
measures, starting with the installation of a new government of allies and
cronies – with the blessing of the local oligarchy – and ending with the
declaration of emergency decree limiting civil liberties. After several
attempts and many dramatic episodes, Zelaya returned to his country and was
holed up in the Brazilian embassy, in Tegucigalpa, surrounded by a military
that merely represent the very poor country’s very rich rulers: the
oligarchs and the generals. In some way, the coup in Honduras
helped highlight the new order in the continent, as displayed in the unity
of many Latin American countries, the steadfastness of its regional
organizations, and the growing influence of the democratically elected
governments. But it also highlighted the precarious position of the US
administration: condemning the coup on one hand (as did President Obama, and
clearly so) and condemning Zelaya’s courageous action (as did Hillary
Clinton, and clearly so.) Clinton described Zelaya’s action as “reckless.”
She was not alone, of course as the U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of
American States, Lewis Amselem said Zelaya’s return was “irresponsible and
foolish.” Zelaya should stop “acting as though he were starring in an old
movie,” he counseled. Worse, US Republicans, who see the coup leaders as
trusty allies reminiscent of their allies of the past, are flocking to the
Honduran capital in dangerous attempts at validating the coup leaders as
legitimate statesmen. Between Obama’s anti-coup stance, and his own
Department of State’s anti-Zelaya rhetoric (and Republican giddiness over
the prospects of their country’s ‘return’ to Latin America), the US position
lacks clarity, a dangerous notion at a time when Latin America expected a
clear US divorce from the past, and “engagement based on mutual respect and
common interests and shared values.” President Obama may be sincere, but he
must ensure that he acts upon his promises, not for Latin America’s sake,
but for his own country’s future relationship with that part of the world.
As for Latin America itself, the repercussions of the Brazilian embassy’s
siege, and the future of democracy in Honduras will either set a terrible
precedent in an age of hope, or serve as further proof that the ghosts of
the past will no longer haunt Latin America, no matter how much the reviled
generals toil. - Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net)
is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been
published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His
latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's
Struggle" (Pluto Press, London), and his forthcoming book is, “My Father Was
a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story” (Pluto Press, London), now available
for pre-orders on Amazon.com.
|
|
|