RSS
Home
American policies in Latin America decidely un-American
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Commentary: American foreign policy is not based upon the democratic principles that we as a society are supposed to represent. We are supposed to be a people who respect each other’s views, opinions, and ways of life. We are supposed to stand for human rights, limited government intrusion in private life, and numerous other freedoms. Whether or not our government actually provides these rights domestically may be debated, but what cannot be disputed is the fact that American foreign policies are not governed by these principles. In reality, American administrations are hypocritical. Instead of being friendly towards democratically elected governments who have similar political values there are other issues guiding American policies abroad. In Latin America this hypocrisy is manifested by American posturing against Bolivia.
Traditionally, support for regimes in Latin America has been based on the willingness of these states to open their countries to neoliberal (open/free market) economic policies. The US has wanted the removal of economic barriers so that capital-rich American companies could take advantage of and exploit the local economies in Latin America to turn a profit (always to the detriment of the local peoples). US support for governments was based not on adherence to democratic principles but on the willingness to comply with US corporate desires. This changed some with President Bush’s response to 9/11. Now, US policies are guided by economic interests as well as a need to stop terrorism and drug distribution. Under Bush, the US supported any government willing to allow free reign for US companies and to crack down on terrorism and drugs. There was no consideration of the actual domestic policies being implemented by these regimes and this resulted in the US supporting harsh, oppressive regimes and shunning democratically elected and socially conscious governments.
For instance, the US has been very hostile towards the government of Evo Morales in Bolivia. In official government positions and the media, Morales is portrayed as an evil socialist dictator who violently oppresses his people who do not want him in power. In reality, Morales has done great things for Bolivia. He is a democratically elected leader, having garnered more support (over 60%) than any recent US President, who fights for the rights of the poorer indigenous populations. Morales has proposed reforms that will help these poorer farmers who make up the majority of the population by decreasing the wealth disparities and funneling foreign aid into the mountainous regions of Bolivia where these people tend to live.
Yet there have been extensive US efforts to destabilize the Morales government. One example was American ambassador to Bolivia Manuel Rocha warning the Bolivian people that US economic aid would be taken away if Morales was elected. Another example has been the US giving financial and military support to a breakaway region of Bolivia that was willing to give the US unfettered access to natural gas resources. This group has also attempted to assassinate Morales, which was portrayed throughout American mainstream media and government publications as a good and heroic deed.
Much of this has happened because Morales has been willing to stand up the US and implement policies that would be beneficial to Bolivians and not Americans, an action justifiable under any moral code except the US government’s. Morales nationalized the natural gas resources in order to keep profits in Bolivia to help the majority of the population remove itself from dire poverty. Also, Morales has not been willing to implement the US’s misguided drug eradication policies. In Bolivia, the main cash crop is coca. It is the lubricant of the local economy being used in tea, soap, and other products, and has significant cultural importance. Locally, the coca leaf is not used in its refined state (cocaine). Morales sensibly proposes that coca still be allowed to be grown because of its cultural and economic importance as a leaf, but that there should be a greater attack against cocaine and the places that refine coca into cocaine (generally outside Bolivia). His policy is “yes to coca, no to cocaine.” But the US government does not seem to understand this, and has pushed for total eradication of the coca plants. This makes the US wildly unpopular throughout Latin America, effectively destroys what little livelihood many farms did have, and, as the supply decreases and demand and price for coca increases, actually gives farmers more incentive to grow coca for drug purposes.
If the US truly wanted to follow its own democratic ideals or, more realistically, wanted to have more sway over Latin America both politically and economically, policies like these towards Bolivia would be changed immediately. Instead, we should be supporting a government like Evo Morales’ and helping implement sensible economic and political policies that would decrease poverty in Bolivia as well as crime and drug use in the US.
