|
Americas at odds
Jiang Shixue
DURING his presidential
campaign, Evo Morales said his election would be a “nightmare” for the
United States. The Bolivian president honored his words. On September
10, Morales declared U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg “persona non grata”
and asked him to leave the country after Goldberg met with a Bolivian
governor whose province is seeking autonomy. The United States expelled
Bolivian Ambassador Gustavo Guzman the next day in retaliation.
Surprisingly, on the same day, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez ordered
U.S. Ambassador Patrick Duddy to leave within 72 hours. He supports
Morales and the Bolivian people in their struggle to maintain
territorial integrity, Chavez said.
Double standards
The United States always applies double standards to Latin American
governments. It protects pro-U.S. Latin American governments even if
their leaders are autocratic and unpopular with the public. For example,
Anastasio Somoza Debayle, who ruled Nicaragua for 20 years from 1936 to
1956, was a genuine dictator. Nevertheless, the United States maintained
close relations with the Somoza regime in order to build an alliance
against the Soviet Union and communism in Central America, turning a
blind eye to its dictatorial rule. At the same time, the United States
goes out of its way to topple hostile governments. After taking office
in 1951, Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz Guzman initiated a land
reform program, under which the government confiscated uncultivated land
owned by the U.S.-based United Fruit Company. In June 1954, U.S.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized the Central Intelligence
Agency to cooperate with Guatemala’s armed forces in a coup d’etat that
overthrew the Arbenz regime.
Salvador Allende, who became Chilean president in 1970, harmed U.S.
economic interests in Chile as he tried to restrict foreign capital. In
an effort to overthrow the Allende regime, the United States provided
economic assistance to Chile’s opposition and assisted General Augusto
Pinochet in the military coup against Allende on September 11, 1973. In
the late 1980s, de facto Panamanian leader Manuel Antonio Noriega
refused to conduct negotiations with the United States to revise the new
Panama Canal Treaty and exposed U.S. violations of the treaty. The
United States invaded Panama on December 20, 1989, capturing Noriega and
bringing him to court in the United States.
Morales, elected in December 2005, is the first indigenous president of
Bolivia. The United States has demanded that Bolivia and other Andean
countries prohibit the growth of coca, the raw material for cocaine.
Morales, however, has called for legalizing coca production. He has also
taken a series of measures to restrict foreign capital. As a result, the
United States considers Morales a thorn in its side. Bolivia’s domestic
turmoil presents a good opportunity for the United States to topple the
Morales regime. Economic development between eastern and western parts
of Bolivia is highly unbalanced. Morales has called on the Central
Government to take control of regional treasuries and transfer resources
from the relatively rich east to the west. In response, some eastern
departments have held referendums on autonomy. Morales declared the
referendums illegal, causing spiraling conflicts between the Central
Government and the eastern departments seeking autonomy.
The United States secretly supports the separatist activities in east
Bolivia. In early September, amid mounting anti-government protests,
Goldberg met with Ruben Costas, Governor of the pro-autonomy Santa Cruz
Department and a staunch Morales opponent. “[Goldberg] is conspiring
against democracy and seeking the division of Bolivia,” Morales said
when he announced the expulsion. The U.S. State Department called the
allegations “baseless.” In a show of moral support, Chavez ordered the
expulsion of the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela. This move was easy to
understand. First of all, Chavez himself is a victim of Washington’s
attempted subversion. In April 2002, he was ousted from the presidential
palace for 48 hours during a coup, in which the United States appeared
to at least be complicit, if not actively involved. Small wonder then
that Chavez not only criticizes the United States in Venezuela, but also
called U.S. President George W. Bush “the devil” on the UN floor.
Chavez, Morales and former Cuban leader Fidel Castro are considered the
three core figures in the “anti-U.S. axis” in the Western Hemisphere.
Chavez and Morales are acknowledged worldwide as leftist leaders. The
two men enjoy good personal relations and their countries have close
ties as well.
Still the U.S. backyard
The emergence of the anti-U.S. axis in the Western Hemisphere has led
some analysts to the conclusion that Latin America is no longer
“America’s backyard.” This view is questionable. Anti-U.S. sentiments in
Latin America are certainly strong. Some opinion polls have shown that
Bush is one of the most disliked foreign leaders there. Moreover, Latin
American countries dare to challenge the United States on some major
issues. Nonetheless, Latin America remains the U.S. backyard mainly
because of geopolitical factors. As the only superpower in the world,
the United States is bound to play a dominant role in international
relations in the Western Hemisphere.
Furthermore, Latin American countries are in no position to end their
economic dependence on the United States, their largest export market
and main source of foreign investment. Large numbers of legal and
illegal Latin American emigrants pour into the United States every year.
Their remittance is a major source of foreign exchange for many Latin
American countries. In some Central American countries, remittance from
the United States accounts for up to 10 percent of the gross domestic
product. De-Americanization will never occur in Latin America. It is
interesting to note that, for all Chavez’s verbal attacks against Bush,
Venezuela continues to export large amounts of oil to the United States.
Likewise, although Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva often
finds fault with U.S. foreign policy, relations between the two
countries remain sound. When Bush visited Brazil in November 2005,
pictures showing Lula and Bush shaking hands with big smiles were all
over Brazilian newspapers and websites. In conclusion, cooperation and
confrontation are both basic features of U.S.-Latin America relations.
A focus of attention
Many international observers believe that the prime reason for the
disputes between the United States and Latin American countries in
recent years is that the United States neglected Latin America as it
adjusted its global strategy after the Cold War. Others argue that the
United States, which shifted its diplomatic focus to antiterrorism
following the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, has little time
for the relatively peaceful Latin America. Given the lack of U.S.
attention, Latin American leftists reemerged to forge an anti-U.S. axis
in the Western Hemisphere.
During the Cold War, especially after the Cuban missile crisis in 1962,
the United States gave top priority to guarding against the communist
influence from the Soviet Union in its security strategy for the Western
Hemisphere. It took a series of measures to control Latin America. For
example, President John F. Kennedy established the Alliance for Progress
to provide economic assistance to Latin American countries. The United
States used military means to overthrow hostile regimes, replacing them
with pro-U.S. dictators to curb leftist forces. It also sold U.S.
culture and Western-style democracy to Latin American countries by
exporting Hollywood movies, books and magazines, promoting U.S.
consumption patterns and enrolling Latin American students.
Of course, substantive changes have taken place in relations between the
United States and Latin America since the end of the Cold War. As the
Soviet Union no longer exists, the United States has shifted its focus
from security to the economic field. U.S. leaders frequently visit Latin
American countries to engage in dialogue on major issues such as
immigration, antiterrorism, the anti-drug campaign, and trade and
investment. It has reached bilateral free trade agreements with many
Latin American countries in recent years. Since the early 1990s, the
United States has held four Summits of the Americas with Latin American
countries. In addition, the United States uses multilateral mechanisms
such as the Organization of American States to exercise its influence in
the Western Hemisphere. Latin America is sure to get further attention
as the United States consolidates its sphere of influence, no matter
which party gains control of the White House.
—The Daily Mail-Beijing Review Articles Exchange Item
Military operation in Sri
Lanka – India’s loyalty on test
Afshain Afzal
THE ongoing Sri Lanka’s military intensive operation against Liberation
Tamil Tiger Eelam (LTTE) strongholds produced negative impact through
neighbouring India. Tamil parties in Indian Parliament voiced against
the military action in Sri Lanka and called New Delhi to intervene to
stop genocide against Tamils in the Northern Sri Lankan war zone.
Legislators from the Southern Tamil Nadu state, where the LTTE was once
trained and still has strong political influence, have threatened to
quit the ruling party and Parliament if Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
does not stop the war within two weeks. India has generally been
reluctant to become directly involved in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs
after a disastrous military intervention in the 1980s that led to the
assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi by allegedly LTTE
cadres. But officially India has put the Tamil Tigers on their
respective terrorist lists. Many among India’s Tamil population,
particularly in Tamil Nadu state, support or sympathize with the LTTE
cadres. Although Indian Intelligence agencies especially RAW (Research
and Analysis Wing) secretly aide LTTE and other separatist groups but
India’s geopolitical concerns have prevented it from exerting undue
pressure on Sri Lanka to halt the ongoing operations against LTTE. India
is aware of the fact that if it distances from the Sri Lankan
government, Sri Lanka would bend towards China, Pakistan, and Iran.
Growing Chinese and Pakistani influence in Sri Lanka has already raised
alarm in India.
As DMK continued to mount pressure on the Sri Lanka Tamil issue,
government summoned Sri Lankan High Commissioner to India, C R
Jayasinghe on 24 October, 2008 and told him that Colombo should address
New Delhi’s concerns over the humanitarian situation in the island
nation and stop harassing and killing Indian fishermen. Foreign
Secretary Shivshankar Menon told Ambassador C R Jayasinghe that India
was gravely worried over the situation arising out the conflict in Sri
Lanka and wanted Colombo to address these concerns. The Foreign
Secretary specifically told Sri Lanka that India wanted that Colombo
should find a negotiated political solution to the ethnic problem rather
than look for a military victory. In another development, Indian
authorities arrested LTTE stanch supporter and political leader, V.
Gopalswamy, also known as Vaiko. He was arrested by Indian Police on
charges of making seditious statements, after threatening to take up
arms in support of the LTTE at a rally where he accused India’s
government of backing Sri Lanka’s army. Vaiko and other Tamils in India
are of the view that if India gives arms to Sri Lanka in name of
safeguarding its sovereignty they cannot keep quiet and would take up
arms against Indian government. India provides weapons to Sri Lanka and
share intelligence that has helped Sri Lanka intercept Tiger boats. The
arrest of V. Gopalswamy alias Vaiko brought a wave of anger in the
southern Tamil Nadu state, which is not only the home to the majority of
the world’s 77 million Tamils but also epicenter of pre-election
pressure on Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s ruling coalition.
This time India cannot take a bold step and intervene in the internal
affairs of Sri Lanka as it wants to project herself on international
canvas as a refined state opposed to all forms of terrorist activities.
Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government is confident that it
can win coming elections as it has gained military and political
momentum with advances deeper into LTTE cadres held territory but to
continue with the operations against LTTE cadres, Sri Lanka requires
regular supply of arms and ammunition. Sri Lankan President Mahinda
Rajapaksa’s brother Basil, who is Advisor to the government reached
India on October 26, 2008, while his other brother Gotabhaya, who is
Defence Secretary is due to visit Pakistan during this week in pursuit
of continuous weapon supplies. It is pertinent to mention here that
Pakistan is one of Sri Lanka’s major weapons suppliers and if India
government under the pressure of the Parliamentarian from Tamil Nadu
refuses or delay weapon supply to Sri Lanka, Pakistan or China card
would be open to Sri Lanka. India cannot afford that Pakistan or China
takes its place because India’s long awaited ambition of inclusion of
Tamil land into Indian federation are attached with interference in the
Sri Lankan internal affairs and continuous presence of diplomatic,
intelligence and no diplomatic forces in Sri Lanka.
India’s hypocritical moves till today are hidden from the international
community. On one hand it is officially branding LTTE and other such
groups, which have taken arms against the legitimate government of Sri
Lanka as terrorists but on the other hand is secretly aiding the same
elements who she considers terrorists. The well wishers and sympathizers
of LTTE cadres in India’s Tamil Nadu state are members of Indian Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh’s ruling coalition. In other words, Singh’s
government, which has designated LTTE a terrorist group, also counts
pro-LTTE Tamil politicians among its political allies. Does this means,
the ruling India government is in collation with terrorists. There is no
doubt that Sri Lankan Tamils claims that they are subjected to decades
of marginalization by successive governments dominated by the Sinhalese
majority still remains unaddressed. These problems should be addressed
through political dialogue so that peace remains restored. Nevertheless,
in case of poor Tamils who had been armed and trained by Indian
Intelligence but when they become powerful to snatch their rights, India
betrayed them and stared supplying arms and real time intelligence to
their opponents for mere own vested interests. India is facing
difficulty in fulfilling its commitments with LTTE cadres and Sri Lankan
government as its game plan appears exposed. The people and governments
of many South Asian countries including Sri Lanka are looking for other
partners as India has proved that its own ambitions are more important
than the peace, sovereignty and very existence of rival communities and
countries.
Trouble with economics
Guy Dammann
I’VE often wondered why
economics was labelled a “dismal science”, and now I know. In most
sciences, there’s an element of mastery such that the more you know your
subject, the better you get at it. But with economics, the reverse seems
to be the case. Thus, while even though all of us
lowest-common-denominator joe-schmoes have known that the economy has
been heading for recession for some time, it’s taken until this week for
the news to reach both the governor of the Bank of England and the prime
minister. When Brown’s faithful replacement as chancellor called time on
growth way back in August, he was roundly criticised from every quarter.
The problem, of course, is that because the science of economics is not
only dismal but soft, the credibility of those whose power is rooted in
economic analysis rests not on solid findings but on something like a
credit scoring system. To the extent that they guess right, or gamble
successfully, they build up credibility, or creditworthiness, and
because no-one can hold anyone to account on the basis of the facts of
the matter - because, by and large, there aren’t any - then their credit
rating is, again by and large, pretty much all they have. But in the
case of figures like Brown and Mervyn King, there’s so much credit
invested in them by virtue of their position that they’re left with few
options but to oversell everything that they do announce, or - in cases
such as the present one, where the bottom has fallen out of whole system
- simply come clean after the fact in a kind of credibility correction.
Now we’re in this mess, of course, it doesn’t help to have people like
me poking fun at the whole thing, any more than it helps to have what
Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins the other day called “Guardian writers”
pretending that capitalism has eaten itself. Capitalism is more likely
to eat us before it eats itself. But there is one interesting absence in
the melee of commentary on the recession, which is that there don’t seem
to be any Marxists left to take a moral stand. You’d think, to continue
the economics analogy, they’d stand to profit from the situation, buying
up dirt-cheap political stock in what must surely be a bear market for
anti-capitalist ideology. But while there has been slight increase of
the visibility of Socialist Worker sellers amid the usual swarms of
London Lites, of high profile told-you-so-ing there has been little
sign. Even Brendan O’Neill has kept quiet, perhaps preferring to cry for
alms rather than arms. It has been said often enough, since the Soviet
bloc crumbled into nothingness during the early 1990s, that Marxism has
been thoroughly “discredited”. Yet, in its absence, as the pragmatics of
free-market capitalism have, in various guises, filled the ideological
vacuum, I wonder if we don’t miss it.
—Khaleej Times
|
