After the Cold War and during the early 90s, U.S. foreign policy went through a serious transformation process. The dissolution of the Soviet Union meant an ideological victory for the U.S. and its version of capitalism, against soviet communism. These ideologies served as examples for the rest of the world to adopt a certain type of life. Both communism and capitalism had their own appealing characteristics to persuade other countries as well as influence the world through their policies.
Throughout the duration of the Cold War, nearly every continent felt the repercussions of the conflict between the two major ideologies. Specifically, Latin America found itself in the center of this battlefield between warring ideals on more than one occasion. Leftist movements rose in nearly every South American country; resulting in military coups and installed regimes that detained, brutally tortured, and killed thousands of people directly due to the ongoing ideological struggle. These awful memories of destructive policy did not vanish with their dissolution, but rather had a huge impact in the political consciousness of the people. Although they were located far away from the real conflict zones and were not part of the most crucial areas for Soviet and U.S. interest, these Latin American countries would periodically come to the attention of United States for fiscal purposes. Every time the U.S. had an economic interest to pursue, the elites in these countries readily ignored the interests of the rest of society in order to help the U.S. get what it wanted. Thus, when we look back into the history of the relationship between South American aristocracy and the U.S. it’s almost impossible to disregard the fact that these relations caused political upheaval, social unrest and inequality in the societies of these countries.
Memories of the Cold War changed the perception of the U.S. in the eyes of common people who suffered greatly to further the interests of the elites in these countries. Therefore, it is very difficult to erase the awful effects of past experiences with the U.S. in these societies. The common perception of the U.S. for most of the people in this region today continues to be strongly bounded with the awful memories of the indirect political abuse employed to satisfy the economic interests of the world’s biggest power.
In analyzing the role of the United States in Latin America after the Cold War years we should always remember that the U.S. will have to carry this burden in its dialogue and relationship with almost every Latin American country, regardless of their own participation in failed U.S. policies.
During the 1990s when the U.S. was trying to conceive a new foreign policy scheme, Latin American countries were also experiencing something very new. Countries such as Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina were having a radical transformation after years of military rule and were suddenly witnessing free elections and democratic regimes. Due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. was at that time very much focused on conflicting zones such as the Balkans. During the Clinton years the grand strategy of foreign policy appeared to be based on the notion of soft power; however traces of containment policy were preserved from the Cold War era. Constructing democratic and free trade zones in the Balkans after the dissolution of Yugoslavia was the main mission for United States. Latin America however, once again became important to U.S. interests because of the Panama Crisis in 1989, Haiti intervention in 1994 and also due the narcotraffic issue, which was causing problems for U.S. security. Apart from these major problems as it was mentioned by Robert Russell and Fabian Calle in their work on the role of the United States in Latin America: La “Periferia turbulenta” como factor de la expansion de los intereses de seguridad de Estados Unidos en America Latina” United States was able to develop a very general policy and agenda which had a positive tone for the Latin American region as a whole. ( Russell and Calle) .
Throughout history, U.S. interest in Latin America was strictly economic, and only in very specific occasions was security an interest. Starting with the Monroe Doctrine, the United States showed her intentions for the region very clearly. From the very beginning the U.S. wanted this region as a “backyard” where economic benefits could be realized through the creation of free market zones. Although the Monroe Doctrine sounded in favor of independence for Latin American countries, it attempted to create another type of economic dependency without the disturbance of European colonial powers. So for this reason it wouldn’t be wrong to state that there is an ongoing tradition in U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America. But due to the drastic changes in global economy, trading between countries became much more easier than in the past. This was the major outcome of what U.S. wished to expand in the world. But again like any other thing, the growing international market economy created its own security problems.
Unlike most goods, some goods cannot always be produced and sold freely, such as illegal narcotics. Producing and selling narcotics are still considered to be illegal in most of the world; despite their rampant consumption all over the world. The production of drugs in Latin America and their sale to Western markets such as United States and Europe became one of the major illegal activities in late 1970s. Max G. Manwaring in his article: Street Gangs: The Newly Urban Insurgency explains how regular street gangs evolve to transnational criminal organizations by selling drugs and kidnapping people and all other sorts of illegal activities in Latin America. For Manwaring the regular street gangs feel obliged to evolve due their geographical parameters in order to expand their commercial and political objectives. And “ As they evolve, they develop into more seasoned organizations with broader drug related markets, as well as very sophisticated transnational criminal organizations with ambitious political and economic agendas. In this connection, they inevitably begin to control ungoverned territory within a nation-state and/or begin to acquire political power in poorly-governed space.” (Manwaring 2005) Therefore when we apply this definition to Latin American street gangs as Manwaring traces the history we would see that most of these street gangs were actually part of the young gangs from California, which moved to Central American republics in the early 1990s. Due to their criminal activities in the U.S. they were directly sent from prisons back to the countries of their parents origin. ( Manwaring 2005) So the evolution of these street gangs into “third generation “ type gangs took place in the countries which today can be easily entitled as weak, corrupted and therefore “failed” due to their inability to stop these criminal acts to get involved with state institutions. Manwaring again explains how today the states can be considered as failed with these words:” The level of corruption of the political, economic, social and security organs of a nation-state is closely related to the degree of weakness of the governmental apparatus, and is a major agent for destabilization and state failure. “One of the major and the first example for a “failed state “ in Latin America was Bolivia. A drug baron named Roberto Suarez Gomez starting from late 1970s till early 1980s ruled Bolivia by controlling every institution of Bolivian government through bribery and threats. And later on a major corruption crisis which leaded a military coup which popularly known as “ Coca Coup” weakened the whole institutions of the state and impede the progress of national economy for a very long time in Bolivia. Bolivia is unfortunately is not the only state who suffers from “third generation” gangs. Today countries such as Mexico and Colombia continue to have weak governments that cannot deal with the criminal activities of these gangs without the financial help of United States. Therefore once again we see United States as a major actor who plays a very important role in this region.
The activities of major drug cartels and transnational criminal organizations in this region especially in Mexico and Colombia caused the second most important threat; after Islamic fundamentalism for United States. After 9/11, the U.S. security departments were mostly dealing with Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations in the Middle East; however they also decided to help both Mexican and Colombian governments in their fights against drug cartels and criminal organizations. For Mexico the program of Joint Strategy to Fight Organized Crime (Plan Mexico) was created and later on ratified by both Mexican and United States parliaments. Due to the tendencies of Mexican society, both of the governments decided that the U.S. army would not be part of this plan. So only economic support was decided to be given by the U.S. government to the Mexican state. The reason why the U.S. was so eager to help the Mexican government is clear. First, the U.S. and Mexico share a border; therefore protection of this border is important for the security of United States. Not only illegal immigration flow through this border but also drug trafficking is a major threat for United States. México unfortunately cannot deal with this problem on alone. Robert Russell and Fabian Calle explain the significance of this new joint plan against the drug traffickers in their work: “ The adaptation of this plan by Mexico and United States, is a recognition of the incapacity of a country to face her own turbulences alone for example the insufficiency of the recent offensive operation leaded by Mexican military against drug traffickers in the north of the country. “(Calle and Russell)
The significant existence of United States not only can be seen in Mexico but also in the security affairs of Colombia too. Colombia unlike Mexico not only fights against drug traffickers but also revolutionary guerrilla forces such as FARC (Las Fuerzas Arrmadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) and ELN (Ejercito de Liberacion Nacional). But U.S. involvement in Columbian security affairs became visible due to the drug trafficking issue, which both countries suffer. In order to control this problem the U.S. soon decided that it was necessary to deal with the problem at its origin; which, in the eyes of the U.S. was Columbia. In a document, which explains the situation in Colombia in detail, Commando Sur clearly shows the concern of the U.S. about the recent explosion in the activities of drug dealers in this region: “Drug traffickers are constantly developing new means of preventing interference with their illegal narcotics activities. As we modify our tactics, drug producers and traffickers find innovative methods to develop the drugs and alternate trafficking routes. The drug traffickers of yesterday have become much more lethal today, and this trend is expected to continue. Narcoterrorists and a number of extremely violent gangs do not operate within traditional nation-states boundaries. They live among and terrorize the populace, and take advantage of ungoverned and under-governed spaces across the hemisphere. “
The Plan Colombia, which was ratified by U.S. government in 2000 was aiming to give Colombia both financial and military assistance. With this plan almost 700 million dollars were transferred to fight against narco-terrorism. This number shows us how seriously the U.S. government takes the situation. Russell and Calle again explains the significant role of the U.S. government in Latin America by reminding us that until the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Latin American countries were the second biggest recipient of U.S. military help in the world. (Calle and Russell) Therefore both plans Plan Mexico and Plan Colombia that were financed and supported by the U.S. clearly shows us that the role of United States in this region changed slightly.
During the Cold War era the main threat for the United States was Soviet Union, and as an ideology: communism. Therefore any leftist movement or government in any region was considered to be a major threat, which can cause a “domino effect” and spillover to other regions. So the only aim of United States during these years was to prevent leftist governments to take power. But after the Cold War, the threat of expansion of the Soviet Union was no longer a possibility; the communism threat was vanished. So new challenges such as terrorist groups, criminal gangs were the new enemies; and the threat was no longer coming from a sole enemy.
Therefore in order to preserve the status quo, United States should be able to act willingly to work together with national governments. This should not only mean that United States should only finance the programs to prevent criminal organizations to continue their activities. Financing and military help many times do not bring successful results. Increasing the financial aids and building bigger military bases in the region would only cause a weakened image of these countries. If United States wants to prevent the ongoing transnational threats coming from narco-terrorists, criminal organizations and guerilla movements first of all it needs to give assistance to improve the institutions of these states such as Colombia and Mexico. Undermining the corruption level in these governments would not only worsen the situation in these countries but also weaken the credibility of United States in its war with these criminal organizations. Alienating the opinion of the public, focusing only on hard power would not be sufficient enough to prevent these criminal activities. The perception of the United States for the people of Latin America can only change if United States would change its traditional foreign policy towards this region. In order to build healthier relations with Latin American countries, the U.S. should be more open to dialogue. The ideological differences should not be an obstacle for the United States. Ignorance and hostile policies would only worsen the way Latin Americans perceive the United States as a result. As Manwaring explains “If the United States concentrates its efforts and resources elsewhere and ignores what is happening in Latin America and the Caribbean, the expansion of gangs, of “lawless areas,” and of general instability, as well as the compromise of effective national sovereignty and security could easily destroy the democracy, free market economies and prosperity that have been achieved in recent years.” (Manwaring 2005)
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder