Latin America is now nearly independent. The oligarchies and Army Generals are on the run. The Empire can do nothing and starting more wars is nearly impossible. Afghanistan and IRAQ were suppose to be the easy wars but now it seems they will be the beginning of the END.

Excuse my poor english
René

You are correct in assessing the scope of US trade relations with Latin America, and that some (not all) Latin American nations enjoy excellent trade ties with the US. But there is more to foreign relations than just trade.

A 2001 article I read asserted that “the United States sells more goods to Latin America and the Caribbean than to the entire 15-member European Union,” with Canada and Mexico being the two largest US trading partners. Three of the four top U.S. energy suppliers (Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela) are in this hemisphere. And “no countries have a bigger impact on U.S. domestic issues such as immigration, drugs or the environment than Mexico, El Salvador and Colombia.”

But despite this reality, US foreign policy is directed at Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Latin America is hardly mentioned. And when it is, it’s less as an ally or trading partner, and more in patronizing terms, advancing a one-sided American agenda.

The US lectures Latin America on ideology while pursuing its own interests. The stalled Colombia FTA you mention is a case in point: Pelosi & Co. blocked the agreement on the grounds that there were serious “human rights issues” to be addressed with Uribe’s government. Yet no such concerns arose when Hillary Clinton discussed trade with China, and in fact stated that she would not let human rights issues “interfere” with trade relations. The US engages in trade with dictatorial, communist regimes like China and Viet Nam, but continues to embargo Cuba. The US expects Latin America to follow its lead and embargo a fellow Latin nation to satisfy its own political agenda.

The US sees Latin American relations in terms of open markets for its industrial goods, or cooperation in the drug war and the war on terror. Yet the US is reluctant to open its markets to Latin American agricultural products, or to remove unfair subsidies on its own agricultural goods. It pays lip service to issues important to Latin America, such as immigration or strengthening long term development with projects to help end poverty, foster democracy, or curtail corruption.

In addressing the Wharton School of Business’ 4th Latin American Regional Alumni Meeting in Miami in 2003, former Bolivian president Jorge F. Quiroga said, “It’s a great danger for Latin America because the United States is concentrating on security issues that are not necessarily in Latin America’s backyard… There’s a danger that between the debates for funding and resources that flow for security and the ones that flow for poverty, Latin America … may fall through the cracks.”

The following quote is an excerpt of Quiroga’s remarks (you can find it at
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/printer_friendly.cfm?articleid=816):

“The single most painful issue that Latin America needs to pursue with the U.S. is trade, according to Quiroga. Much of Latin America depends upon exports to the U.S. to improve standards of living, yet the region faces enormous barriers in two of the areas in which it could be most productive: labor-intensive manufactured goods and agricultural products. Labor-intensive manufactured goods face particularly onerous barriers that heavy penalize the very countries that would most benefit from increased trade flows.

Quiroga said that nations in which the average citizen earns over $2-a-day face 6% tariffs on labor-intensive manufactured goods while those countries in which the average wage is less than $2 a day must overcome 14% tariff barriers. At the same time, agricultural subsidies paid by the United States, Europe and Japan to their farmers make similar products from Latin America uncompetitive. Quiroga recalled that when he was trying to negotiate an agreement for textile trade between the U.S. and Bolivia, he was told that Bolivia – a landlocked nation seven hours by air from the United States – would have to use U.S.-grown cotton.
…

Quiroga suggested that the United States might be a little more understanding of Latin America’s struggle to modernize if U.S. politicians were aware of the alternative to improved agricultural trade. Consider cocaine as a cash crop: There are four harvests a year, the resulting product is lightweight and easy to transport, it has high value-added content for the producers and there are no real tariffs or import barriers.”

Great post, but I’m still convinced that the U.S. intelligence agencies are pretty much on top on what the Iranians are doing in Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua. I do not have evidence to prove that, but logic and common sense tells me that Americans operating on their neighborhood have a natural advantage against the Iranians in the intelligence games.

Besides, some if not most of the assets that the CIA recruited during the cold war years should still be around. Now there’s another matter that I also disagree with you:

“I agree the US, to its detriment, has ignored Latin America -particularly in the past 8 years.”

During the last 8 years the U.S. signed and/or procured free trade agreement with each and every Latin American country that wanted one. The Colombia FTA is being held up by the democrats; The FTA with Panama because of that politician that killed a U.S. soldier.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the U.S. is Latin America largest trade and investment partner and that didn’t happen by chance. It happened because both the U.S. and Latin America working to further their own self-interest made it happen.

What exactly didn’t happen during the last 8 years that gave rise to this myth of U.S. neglect of Latin America? O.k., I remember that Condi Rise once cancelled a meeting because some other crisis required her attention somewhere else. I imagine that the Latin American dignitaries that were stood up are still mad about it. Is that it..?

I mean, if we Latin American are to be taken seriously, we have to stop sweating the small stuff and see the big picture. We have excellent trade ties and although nobody speaks about it, we’ve benefited for ages from the U.S. security umbrella. Nobody dares to come to our neighborhood to cause problems because the big, bad Yankee cop lives here.

From the beginning my position was that closing the Strait would be an unlikely, yet devastating scenario. To state that we could take out Iran’s defenses “in hours” is naïve.

I do not minimize Iran’s interests. I do minimize Iran’s threat capacity to the US via Latin America, which you exaggerate. A “domestic attack would end the USA Geo politically as we know it” is a paranoid thought. As terrible as 9/11 was, the nation carried on. The US is still the only global superpower, despite the resources it has expended on security and war.

Besides the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, can you point to any successful foreign terrorist attack on US soil? (Besides the 1976 car bomb assassination of Orlando Letelier perpetrated -to my embarrassment- by the Chilean secret police.)
The fact is virtually all terrorist attacks on US soil have domestic roots: the 1984 cult bioterrorism attack, the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Centennial Olympic Park Bombing, the 2001 Anthrax letter attacks, the Unabomber, assorted ecoterrorists, Puerto Rican nationalists, Black militants, Viet Nam War protests, and even lone Islamists, like the 2002 Beltway Sniper attack, were all home grown.

The other attack Al Qaeda attempted in the US was the 2000 LAX bombing plot, where the suspect tried to enter the US through Canada, not Mexico.

But all this is not to say I’d ignore a potential threat. SLOHomemaker’s excellent article posted above shows how porous our southern border is, and how imperative it should be to seal it. It’s amazing to think over 1,500 illegal immigrants are caught at the border every day, not to mention the ones that get through.

I agree Iran and the Latin American hard Left are not aligned in ideology, but merely in the common interest of harassing the US. And it’s for this reason that Daniel & Co. would not risk their countries being used as a launching pad for major offenses into the US. It would not be in their interest to be seen as the home of Islamist terrorists, as the U.S. does not treat these homes kindly.

I agree the US, to its detriment, has ignored Latin America -particularly in the past 8 years. When it wasn’t ignoring Latina America, it was lecturing it on how to stop the drug trade, foolishly thinking the drug problem could be contained by stopping supply abroad, while there was persistent demand at home.

But you can’t pin all of Latin America’s problems on the US. The rise of the Latin American hard Left is, on many occasions, the product of decades of inept or corrupt governance by the local political elites. The repressed, impoverished masses grew tired of these elites, and opted for “change.” Demagogues like Chavez tap into the poor’s frustrations, and have used democracy to dethrone these elites, in countries like Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia. Little do the poor know that what they’re getting is often worse than what they had before.

I agree that the US has to stop imposing ideology and look for mutual interests. Carter withdrew support of Somoza’s dictatorship, and we ended up with something worse, just as how his withdrawal of support for the Shah ushered in the mullahs. But at the same time, it would be hypocritical of the US to completely disregard ideology and openly support dictatorial regimes simply because of “interests.” How hypocritical did Hillary Clinton sound when she stated that she would not let the Chinese human rights record “interfere” with US-China trade relations? Of course, if George Bush would have said that, the Left would be howling.

Finally, your personal opinion is to trivialize the US alliance with Israel, the home to the 4th largest US expatriate community (after Mexico, Canada, and the UK), with over 150,000 US citizens living in a country the size of New Jersey. US tendency to turn around and forsake its one-time allies is precisely one of the reasons many nations distrust the US.

And I don’t understand why you have to CAPITALIZE YOUR PHRASES. La razon no se grita, porque la razon convence.

Ulises Jorge – Having said all the above, I would not put all my faith in the possibility that “the CIA has the mullahs where they want them.” The US intelligence community was unable to warn us of 9/11, provided data that “conclusively” proved Saddam Hussein still had WMDs, and is still unable to provide the whereabouts of Bin Laden. There hasn’t been another attack on US soil since 9/11, but this may have more to do with deterrence than intelligence. And deterrence is factor that may have shifted dramatically now that we have a rookie from Chicago in the White House.

And all that red down crap… have any Latin American country ever attacked the U.S.? The U.S. is Latin America largest investment and trade partner, far above China and Europe. How do you guys think that came along?

Did you guys know that even during El Salvador war in the 80′s, American soldiers who were there assisting the government could walk freely on the street, with no escort whatsoever…? As it happens, there was a deal between the U.S. and the guerrillas that they would not attack American soldiers as long as they limited their activities to providing training for Salvadoran soldiers.

You guys really need to hit the books, the web or whatever and learn a little bit more about your neighbors in the south before making fools of yourselves with “Red Down” conspiracy theories…

Regards,

Ulises

P.S. I repeat, don’t mind Nicaragua.. The CIA has the mullahs where they want them…

Maybe by the press, but not by the CIA. You know, is easier for American spies to hide in Nicaragua than for the Iranians. What do I mean, you say? That a gringo spy won’t stand out in Managua and a dark haired Iranian will? Yes, that’s what I mean.

Americans could pose as tourist or retirees, since that country is the latest retirement haven for not so wealthy Americans. Backpackers and scuba divers are found everywhere. Iranians? As soon as they open their mouth they’ll be identified as “turcos” (in Latin America every middle eastern is called a “Turk” no matter where they come from).

So I bet you that U.S. intelligence agencies have the mullahs on their sights in Nicaragua, in Venezuela and in Bolivia. Hell, they probably know by now what are they up to. The MSM is not looking into the matter? You think the CIA needs the publicity..?

Regards,

Ulises

really this is the same error FDR made in regards to japan. we worried that they were tyrants and dictators and ignored our mutual interests. it costs us dearly in ww2. read newt’s 2 historical novels on pearl. often it is a novel that fleshes out the cultural and political realities better than political texts themselves. anyway you slice it, ignoring interests in favor of ideology es muy muy peligroso. if we had looked for mutual interests instead of trying to impose ideology in Latin America we would have a different hemisphere. Now apply that to Iraq and our pseudo democracy building with boots on the ground miniter.

you know when things are not working out the way you want em to….. maybe you need to examine you, not them.