WEEKLY SERIES

THOUGHT LEADERS

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES

INTERNATIONAL INSIGHT

MIND AND MATTER

SPECIAL SERIES

PROJECT SYNDICATE

Yankee Bases Go Home

Arthur Ituassu

English Spanish Russian French German Chinese Arabic
Share
2009-09-08

RIO DE JANEIRO – Last month, the leaders of all 12 countries of South America (except one) gathered in Quito, Ecuador’s capital, for the summit of the Union of South American Nations. UNASUR or UNASUL (depending on whether one speaks Spanish or Portuguese) was established by the twelve presidents in Brasília in May 2008 with the aim of furthering economic and political integration. Instead, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez hijacked the Quito meeting to propagate his Bolivarian Revolution and expound his own ideas for the continent’s future as independent of the United States.

Thanks to America’s recently announced military agreement with Colombia, Chávez’s ideas got more of a hearing than might have been expected. For, instead of infrastructure plans, commercial or environmental treaties, or even multilateral action against such common problems as violence and poverty, the issue that dominated both press accounts and the speeches at the gathering was the new US-Colombian military agreement, announced less than a month before the summit.

To no one’s surprise, Chávez dominated the criticism of the pact. He claimed that the “Winds of war are blowing,” and that the announcement of the military agreement “can transform itself into a tragedy.”

Unfortunately, Colombian President Álvaro Uribe was absent from the meeting. Colombia and Ecuador broke diplomatic relations in March 2008, after Colombia’s army pursued FARC guerillas, who have been fighting Colombia’s government for decades, into Ecuadorean territory. So Uribe could not defend the new military agreement.

This left the floor open to Chávez to isolate Colombia and preach against the US. In a continent where anti-Americanism remains both very popular and an effective way to consolidate national cohesion and political power, Chávez’s attacks found a ready audience. In addition, Uribe’s absence allowed Chávez to avoid responding to Colombia’s accusations that Venezuela and its ally Ecuador support the narco-Marxist FARC.

One week after the summit, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to calm the continent’s fears about the US-Colombia agreement, explaining that it is merely a minor revision of the Bill Clinton-era Plan Colombia, an American program to support the government against the drug cartels. But her words did little soothing.

Nor did it seem to help that even most local military analysts say that the agreement does not represent any major change in the US military position on the continent. The simple fact is that the timing of the announcement of the pact was terrible, and gave a platform for Bolivarian rants that will not be without consequences.

Indeed, the ongoing fallout is likely to remain very negative. By raising anti-American suspicions and strengthening Chávez’s position across the continent, the agreement weakens the influence of Brazil. Recently, Brazil had been differentiating itself from the rest of the continent through its stable economy and vibrant democratic political system, both of which were helping the country’s poor. So the spread and strengthening of Chávez’s so-called Bolivarian Revolution was not in Brazil’s interests, even though some of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s officials appear to be fans of Chávez and his administration.

The terrible timing of the US-Colombia military agreement also gave Chávez and his allies a reason to build up their armies against the “evil imperialist ianque .” After all, one must remember, the Bolivarian Revolution’s supposed “enemy” is the US, and no one else. So the agreement may legitimize and produce an arms race in South America, which is in no one’s interest.

Another unexpected consequence of the US-Colombia military agreement may be a further heightening of tensions between Venezuela and Colombia. The radical polarization of the Andean region between those two countries will create difficulties in building regional consensus and security problems in the Amazon, as well as weakening the Brazilian project for South American political and economic integration.

Finally, another major consequence of the US-Colombia deal are the doubts that it has created in Latin America about President Barack Obama’s administration, and about the future of relations between the US and South America, especially Brazil, the main regional power. The agreement revived the perception that US diplomacy lacks sensitivity where the region is concerned.

If Obama wants to encourage moderate and democratic politics in South America, and to bolster Brazil’s efforts to foster stability and economic progress against the region’s radical and undemocratic forces, it must take greater care in not appearing to undermine those the US claims to support. For Chávez is showing that the old cry of “Yankee go home” still resonates.

Arthur Ituassu is Professor of International Relations at the Pontifícia Universidade Católica, Rio de Janeiro.

You might also like to read more from Arthur Ituassu or return to our home page.

English Spanish Russian French German Chinese Arabic

You must be logged in to post or reply to a comment.
Please log in or sign up for a free account.


rmkeryan 06:55 16 Sep 09

I see that you like to take a supposed, balanced view of what is happening in Latin America's relation to the U.S. I am quite surprised to hear you speak of Clinton's approaches as though it is a truthful voice - the voice that helped create NAFTA. I am a U.S. citizen and I recognize that my country only wants Latin America for profits and no more. Are we to forget the Monroe Doctrine, the plans for the American Century, and all of the U.S. backed coups? Sure, you have a point, arms building helps no one. But it can protect many, especially from the world's strongest imperial empire.


Donovan 02:07 21 Sep 09

I agree with rmkeryan. Especially since the Reagan administration also created his own 'war of terror', its just that he called it the 'war against drugs'. This war was used as a pretext to spread US neo-colonial practices and its security blanket on South and Central America. To refer to the pact as just a minor adjustment so as to fight drug cartels, is to swallow whole the propaganda. Read Noam Chomsky on this for a more balanced view.