Latin Americans Give Bush Frosty Welcome in Argentina

The Summit of the Americas is a photo-op posing as an international conference where things get done. The truth is that summits exist largely to ratify agreements made at the foreign minister level or lower, or they have no meaning beyond helping leaders escape from domestic troubles. It has been so since the word “summit” entered the diplomatic vocabulary in the 1970s. So, when Mr. Bush met with every head of government in the Western Hemisphere, save pariah Fidel Castro, over the week-end, the fact that nothing happened was nicely covered by the anti-Bush riots in Argentina. It isn’t just the blue states that dislike Mr. Bush.

The relationship of the US and Latin America has never been an easy one. Starting with the Monroe Doctrine of the 1820s, the US has essentially told the world that Latin America is its backyard where it will do as it wishes. President Monroe failed to consult with the other American republics. The Mexican-American War didn’t help, nor did the Spanish-American War, nor did the constant US occupations of places like the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Nicaragua, or Panama. For their part, the Latin American generals made it easy for the Yankees to move in because generals don’t have the support of the people so much as bayonets upon which to sit. Cuba’s relationship with the US is a hyperbole of the awkwardness.

That said, there have been some efforts aimed at improving this relationship over the years. The Peace Corps and the Panama Canal handover were both excellent examples of US interests meshing with those of its southern neighbors. And free trade and development aid do have benefits – ask the Chileans and the Mexicans.

However, Mr. Bush, who does speak some Spanish and who as Governor of Texas actually dealt with the Mexican government before being president, failed to impress the Latins. Teddy Roosevelt’s policy of walking softly and carrying a big stick always struck a raw never south of the Rio Grande; Mr. Bush’s brag loudly and carry laser-guided missiles fares even worse. Historically, a Yankee willingness to use force as a first resort, as many see Iraq, makes the rest of the hemisphere nervous, wondering who’s next?

Mr. Bush played his role about as well as he could, arguing for democracy and economic growth through free trade. But his attack on Iraq and the history of the US in Latin America undermines his argument. This is something his administration has never understood. Even if Iraqi turns into a liberal, bourgeois democracy like the US, it has happened in such a way that many countries don’t trust Washington. Add to that the fact that the free trade prescription he’s pushing makes entire economies better off while harming some of the people within it, and it's no wonder there were demonstrations. But few Americans "get it."

The entire problem can be summed up with the response of Jack Cafferty, a CNN reporter of excellent repute, to the events over the week-end. He condemned the rioting and the burning of property in Argentina. Protesting is one thing, but when property is destroyed, he said, it’s rioting and it can’t be tolerated. And from south of the border comes the question, “So what was that Boston Tea Party all about?” The US needs to aid its fellow republics in the New World, but perhaps, it should ask how it can help before it embarks on a policy, and perhaps, it should pay attention to how events elsewhere look to its southern neighbors. One man’s building of democracy may look like Yankee imperialism to people who have already heard and seen the Marine come ashore in their own countries.



© Copyright 2005 by The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.
Produced using Fedora Linux.


Home