In 1823, while the Monroe Doctrine was being framed, John Quincy Adams took care to ensure that while it might warn European powers from territorial acquisitions in Latin America, it would also not prevent the US from snaffling areas like Texas and Cuba should it so choose. Ostensibly a defence of anti-imperialist Republics, it was always intended to assert regional hegemony and carve out a sphere of influence in the true manner of 19th century power politics. While veering and tacking between overt military interventionism and more progressive sounding rhetoric like FDR’s “Good Neighbour Policy” and JFK’s “Alliance for Progress”, the Monroe Doctrine has always sought to keep South America as the US’ political and economic backyard.
Although Latin America in the 20th century had more than its fair share of military dictatorships, the continent has not seen much in the way of inter-state war, and militaries were small and largely directed to internal repression. The militarisation of Latin America is in part a result of the War on Drugs in Colombia (and fears that the chaos and disorder will spread) and in part something that has accompanied democratisation, as states assert what they believe to be in their national interest. Washington seems to have trouble with both trends, as evidenced by its hostile reaction to an arms sale to Venezuela by Spain’s socialist government and its horror that elections in South America are increasingly being won by centre-left or left parties. The big story of the last decade of democratisation is the emergence on the political stage of peasants and indigenous parties (the “Bolivarean Revolution”), and the stabilisation of democratic institutions to the point where alternation of power is a regular thing, and parties not tied to old oligarchies can win and govern successfully. This also implies that attempts to create neat free trade areas, and to dissuade states from alliances with powers such as China are increasingly futile. The irony of course is that governments like Lula’s and Chavez’s are hardly communist or even Castroite, but really just social democratic. Although unlike the old social democratic parties of Europe and Australia and NZ, these movements are actually putting teeth into their ideology - expanding public provision of services and pursuing redistributionist policies. But the US had better get used to a more assertive South America. It’s called democracy.
Joe diMaggio was a great fan of the monroe doctrine
I suspect you’re going to find old Hugo something of a disappointment.
I guess the main thing the US fears with Chavez type populist socialism is the economic refugees when it all turns to manure.
Observa, Doubt it, the US has more jobs than it does workers, the problem is many of these jobs are lower paying than Americans want to take on. An influx of immigrants willing to work for low pay and partake in the American dream would be welcomed by the US.
I suspect this is the real issue; Venezuala is fourth in terms of crude oil imports (2004) and second in terms of petroleum imports (2004). The US is unusually sensitive about oil.
There have been conformed reports that Chavez was sold chemical that could be used to make WMD by the Spanish hard left Government.
The problem for the US is that Chavez promotes further unrest in the region by fanning this so-called Bolivarian revolution the border crossing could get even bigger than it is now. This Bolivarian revolution is not just hard leftist in its ideology; it also shows strong elements of being anti-white, which could be a real problem.
The issue with South America is that the people never seem to tire in doing their very, very best in finding worst Governments they possibly can. There are two types of governments in South America: the hard left and the reactionary right.
Every decade this sink- hole of a place goes out and borrows 10’s of billions of dollars squanders it, then declares technical bankruptcy and starts the process over again.
It’s a joke of a place and a joke of a region.
The only interest the US ought to ever show in Sth America is to ensure its borders against illegal immigration.
I know a little about the place because I used to manage a group of people who traded the regions bonds.
The elite from the region were the worst examples of human beings on this earth. No wonder the poor always wanted to run them out. Almost without exception a clique of 50 families, who spent most of their time in New York or Europe pretending to be royalty and expecting to be treated like that, ran each one of these countries.
Argentina is a good example of what I mean-always borrowing money from the rest of the world and then spending it on useless projects. There are provinces in Argentina where up to 30% of jobs were in the public service in some form or another- and I don’t mean Telstra like firms.
Never a region to and and do the silliest thing possible, a regional meeting has put the boot into the idea of regional free trade in the Western Hemisphere. It would have helped the poor enormously but Chavez and his cronies stopped it dea in its tracks.
Oh, and please, don’t describe Chavez as a socail dem. He is in the process of closing down all opposition.
The shame of it all. The way you talk about Lula and Chavez… it could be somewhere really nasty and hopelessly economically stunted, like New South Wales when Jack Lang was Premier.
Obviously an intractable FUBAR clusterfuck. Shut the borders and open the markets.
Cameron
I suggest you take another look at your view on illegal immigration and the effects it has in the US. The overwhelming majority of illegals are unskilled. Nearly all are of working age and it estimated there are 8-11 million of them doing menial jobs.
To say as you did- that the US has more jobs that workers is to ignore facts. The US also has an unemployment problem: 5.2% of its workers are looking for work.
More importantly if you really cared about the American poor you would be against this horrible situation. The undeniable truth is that the people who feel the effects of this massive illegal influx is the poor American worker who sees his wages bid down by people who have no business being the country in the first place.
There are 100 million working Americans. The bottom 20% are the ones getting kicked in the butt- 20 Million Americans who have to compete for jobs against illegals. That is the only reason low level wages have not kept pace with the rest of the market over the last 20 years. It is a disgrace supported by both political parties. The left see these hordes as potential fodder for future votes. The right loves them because they keep wages down in the low skilled areas. The American blacks feel most of the effects of the horror.
No political party would stand for this in Australia because they know the Aussie public would never stand for it either: left or right.
Liam
I didn’t say a thing about Lula.
Quite right, I apologise, you didn’t. For the rest of my pathetic sarcasm I demand to stand uncorrected.
“Joe Cambria on 30 November 2005 at 2:18 pm
There have been conformed reports that Chavez was sold chemical that could be used to make WMD by the Spanish hard left Government.”
Give us a break Joe we’re sick of that tune.
Besides, fool us once shame on you, fool us uh….????
The US has WMDs last time I looked.
Lord Cardigan - I’m not holding out Chavez as some sort of lefty god. Certain restrictions on rights and also the undermining of an independent judiciary are concerning, but one could argue that the anti-democratic opposition of oligarchical elements aided and abetted by the US government provides a context.
On the other hand, it would be foolish and churlish to ignore the measures that are being taken (quite moderate really) to improve the life chances and living standards of the great majority of Venezuelans.
For a bit of info on just how “radical” the mainstream Latin American left are:
Particularly when democracy and the market are givens, Washington is left with little scope for decrying states as Communist or whatever - so its power plays are left naked and exposed.
Kim:
Yes, the US the have WMD’s. Is that a problem, or are we going back to the unilateral disarmament debate again? I thought that ended after the fall of the Soviet Union. Anyway a good idea never goes away for long.
Chavez is not an itsi bitsi communist. He aspires to taking over from that other thug, Castro.
I suggest you read up on the state of Venezuela and learn about what is happening to freedom of the press and other media. He is slowly closing down opposition by working through a stacked Supreme Court as it has now become illegal to criticize the fat pig, Il Presidente.
He lost the recent recall election but managed to hang on through massive electoral fraud.
Yes he is spending money on projects he likes. However he is spending the Venezuelan peoples’ money on such things and selling hugely discounted oil to that other bankrupt, Fidel and anyone else he thinks needs his support in the region.
Recently El Presidente enacted a law telling business owners their enterprises would be taken away if they did not produce at maximum capacity. He has also nationalized the banking system or is just about to. Land expropriation has now started as a regular Government program. If you think these are sound polices or you agree with them best of luck to you.
I agree with you on one issue. America ought to stay the hell away from this region. It’s a hell hole and it would be best to avoid because in a few years most of this slag heap of a region will be back milking the world banking system for more loans so they default a few years after that. It’s been going on like this for the last 150 years and it doesn’t look like stopping now.
When the fat pig finally squanders all of the country’s money he will be back to the IMF looking for bridging finance to get him over the hump so to speak.
Pick Lula to support in the region as he does seem to posses some common sense and doesn’t seem to be a pompus areshole like Chavez.
Oh, it may be that Washington is not been left out of this new era. Washington may very well be wanting to say away from a disaster, after all it’s always been easy in the past to blame the gringo for all its faults. Maybe Washington is saying, ‘ok, it your goose. Cook it yourself”.
I think that Chavez could be more accurately described as a “racial democrat”, rather than a social democrat. “A Real Racial Democracy?” was, at any rate the subtitle for NIKOLAS KOZLOFF article on Chavez’s “ideology”.
Now that the grand ideological narrative of the Cold War is over it seems that most national politics are not much about implementing hi-sounding principles anymore, if they ever were.
National politics are now much more ethnological than ideological. We can learn more about the contemporary politics of “who, whom?” from Puzo than Plato.
Some people regard this as a good thing. (Not me.) But it is certainly a thing.
Jack
Chavez himself says that he is attempting socialism to fit the 21st century: a new model, his model. He mightened have the old angry bear to hang out with for a cold vodka or two but it doesn’t mean he isn’t tring to retrofit some old tyres, does it?
This Bolivarian revolution fatso keeps talking about has strong racial overtones. It is hard left and racist. Let’s see where it takes the region.
To suggest there is no ideology here is, well, simply ignoring the obvious.
You’ve completely lost touch with reality, Jack, if you think that supporting the most oppressed and disadvantaged people in the US is “racism”. More evidence of the corruption of your thinking by evil po/mo culturalist theory
Joe - I could make references to Churchill as “fat”. What point does that prove?
Mark
Joe - I could make references to Churchill as “fat”. What point does that prove?
It proves nothing. Just adding a little color to Chavez, that’s all.
I find him a little on the irritating side.
Your comments to Jack
I think you will find that the bottom 10% of the US working population is disproportionally affected by the sea of illegal immigration. Wages for the bottom of US pop would rise materially if something was done to stem this massive onslaught. In fact poverty would be eliminated for the wortking poor. It would mean however that the cost of running full time gardeners and maids would go up. Something that would really get the rich pissed.
isn’t maid in the USA protectionism?
Didn’t neil young say a amn needs a maid
Venezuela’s also selling cheap heating oil to the poor of Boston. How evil.
Greg
Selling oil below the market is simply taking away money that belongs to the Venezuelan people to finance a cheap political stunt.
Oh dear, Joe, we can’t possibly infringe the sacred laws of the market to benefit anyone but buyers and sellers can we?
Pray tell - why not?
Mark:
First of all the sale of cheap oil to the poor in Boston didn’t happen. But let’s say it did happen. It does now because Chavez is helping his old buddy in Cuba by giving it away.
Selling cheap oil, or in fact giving away as he does to Cuba helps Cubans, or more pointedly helps Castro stay in power.
However, you are forgetting that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Venezuela has lots of poor people as well. So what is affect od giving away cheap oil to Cuba’s Castro? It takes away money that really belongs to the Venezuelan people to fund Chave’z political stunts. Taking bread for the table of poor Venezuelans is not my idea of charity.
The oil belongs to the Venezuelan people, it doesn’t belong to Chavez to do what he wants.
Joe is correct.
Selling below market doesn’t help anyone in the big V
Joe, More importantly if you really cared about the American poor you would be against this horrible situation.
American poor, Mexican poor, or just poor people in general? By geographical accident of birth, I am one of the wealthiest people on the planet. Because I have some flexibility in moving between nation-states, I have been exposed to even greater economic oppurtunity. The Australian Diaspora is no different to the Mexican migrant worker.
I dont see why people advocate the uninhibited movement of capital, and then pin down labour with the artifical, and often arbitrary political borders of the nation-state. Countries, through border protectionism, are making labour a closed shop. Most nations have a diaspora of one kind or another, Australia and New Zealand are at the forefront of it. Australia has 5% of its population outside of Australia at any one time, working overseas.
The diaspora is part of a global workforce, that moves around constantly to where their skills are needed. This is no different to Mexicans working the strawberry fields of California. Same process.
Cameron:
What is it you are advocating exactly?
I am not referring to legal immigration. I am talking about 8-11 million people in the US who jumped the border breaking the law.
You think that is OK?
It’s the US poor who are carrying the can on this one. It’s not middle class and above.
If you think unrestricted access of movement is ok then move to change the law. But no one should tolerate such a huge number of people breaking the law of the nation as their very first act.
Nations are like homes. I don’t want an unwanted guest in my homwe pissing on my carpet. Do you?
There is no skill in picking strawberries in the California field. The only advantage an illegal has over Amercians is that illegals are happy doing it for 5 bucks an hour. Owners avoid paying the higher, more appropriate wage to American workers. This is not a global workforce. This is a first world country paying third world type wages for work that ought to be done by Americans at much higher wages!
Honestly, Joe, what kind of freemarketeer are you? If the United States does not have enough people willing or able to pick oranges for five bucks an hour, why shouldn’t willing Mexicans be able to move to fill in the demand? Isn’t this the free market at work? Why are you arbitrarily and irrationally confining cheap laborer to an area where they are in surplus when there is ample demand for their services across an this silly restrictive protectionist line in the sand called a ‘border’?
If one supports free movements of goods,services & capital it is logically inconsisstent not to support free movement of labour unless Andrea Harris
Leinad:
Well yes it is the free market at work. I never said it wasn’t. However if you want to cheapen wages at the unskilled level keep alllowing illegals to take jobs at a low rate.
The US has an unemployment rate of 5.2%, so how tdo you come out and say the US doesn’t have enough people for the jobs it offers?
If you think borders ought to be made meaningless, I would suggest you take that up with the voters and see where it gets you.