U.S.-Latin American Foreign Relations

[Fade the Butcher]

Use this thread to discuss how the United States has brought freedom and democracy to Latin America throughout history. I will start off by giving honorable mention to U.S. support for the Trujillo dictatorship in the Dominican Republic.

[Fade the Butcher]

C'mon. Let's discuss the friends of freedom like Pinochet, Duvalier, and Somoza.

[Thomas777]

C'mon. Let's discuss the friends of freedom like Pinochet, Duvalier, and Somoza.

Pinochet was a great man...he took the fight to the Reds and smashed them without remorse.

Men like President Reagan, Oliver North, James Webb, Eagleburger, etc. understood that "democracy" is not some end in itself.

[Sulla the Dictator]

C'mon. Let's discuss the friends of freedom like Pinochet, Duvalier, and Somoza.

I'm busy replying to all of your posts in the National Socialism thread. :p I'm on a smoke/browsing break. :D

Soon though. :p

[A. Radek]

Let's not forget the liberations of Guatamala and El Slave Adore, where peasants were freed from the shackles of a lifetime of land ownership, so they could live the liberated lifestyle of being casual, seasonal labor on American owned banana plantations, living in cardboard boxes in roadside ditches, so yuppies in LA could save a nickel on bananas to go with their Wheaties every morning.

I understand hundreds of thousands of them died from all the high living and prosperity brought to them by the U. S. Marine Corp and the 'School Of The Americas' at Ft. Benning, where special 'financial advisors' were trained to help them manage their massive new incomes better.

[A. Radek]

Yes. Somoza was a wonderful leader, too. I wouldn't be surprised if the Vatican nominates him for sainthood.

[Fade the Butcher]

Pinochet was a great man...he took the fight to the Reds and smashed them without remorse. Men like President Reagan, Oliver North, James Webb, Eagleburger, etc. understood that "democracy" is not some end in itself.

The overthrow of the Allende government in Chile in 1973 is one of the most well known historical examples that illustrates the hollowness of pretentious American rhetoric about freedom and democracy. In that case, the CIA at the behest of the Nixon adminstration conspired with elements of the Chilean military to overthrow a democratically elected socialist government; going so far as to pay a terrorist group tens of thousands of dollars to assasinate the commander in chief of the Chilean armed forces, General Rene Schneider. The Pinochet dictatorship instituted radical neoliberal economic reforms with the cooperation of the Chicago Boys (disciples of the famous economist Milton Friedman) that destroyed the Chilean economy.

The example of Chile is merely one illustration of a broader historical phenomena, especially in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. The U.S. maintains high level contacts with the militaries of various foreign nations, supports them with military aid, and occasionally calls upon them to overthrow populist regimes that buck the Washington Consensus of neoliberalism. A recent example of this would be the failed Venezuelan coup back in 2002 when the Bush administration conspired with wealthy conservative Venezualeans and elements of the Venezualean military to oust Hugo Chávez from power.

[Generator]

Having had members of my family and their friends murdered by Videla and his "anti-Communist" thugs, I can talk quite candidly about freedom with an American flavour in Latin America. My family were non-partisan professionals, members of the upper-middle class and avowed apoliticals...go figure.

[Generator]

A recent example of this would be the failed Venezuelan coup back in 2002 when the Bush administration conspired with wealthy conservative Venezualeans and elements of the Venezualean military to oust Hugo Chávez from power.
What? That never happened. And if it did, so what? Chavez is evil. He has WMD. He will curtail oil supplies from a hungry market. In short, he is the anti-Christ.

[Generator]

Use this thread to discuss how the United States has brought freedom and democracy to Latin America throughout history. I will start off by giving honorable mention to U.S. support for the Trujillo dictatorship in the Dominican Republic.
Ironic that you should mention Trujillo - he's the one instance in Latin American-US relations where his expiry as an asset was followed through in his own assassination by CIA agents, a la Diem.

[wintermute]

A recent example of this would be the failed Venezuelan coup back in 2002 when the Bush administration conspired with wealthy conservative Venezualeans and elements of the Venezualean military to oust Hugo Chávez from power.

"Democracy" and neoliberalism of the Chicago school variety ("the Washington Consensus") do not seem to be reaching a state of happy co-existence in Latin America:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_bears_lair_the_approaching_latin_slum/



The Bear’s Lair: The Approaching Latin Slum

In the late 1990s, Latin America was believed to have adopted a “Washington Consensus” of democratic politics and moderately free market economics. At the end of 2005, it is becoming only too clear that the two parts of the Washington Consensus are in conflict in the region, with the democratic politics leading to increasingly anti-market economics, which will inevitably be followed by decline. It’s worth asking why.

Latin America has had a good 2005. High commodity prices, very low real interest rates throughout the world and declining risk premiums have enabled Brazil to pay off its debt from the International Monetary Fund and the bankrupt Argentina to make a typical exhibition of Latin macho by doing likewise. It should not be assumed however that 2005’s progress is anything more than a flash in the pan; once real interest rates finally inch themselves above zero, the problems of Latin America will resurface, particularly in Argentina where inflation is already above 12 percent and climbing.

Latin America has a lot of elections in the current 12 month period, with Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and Peru going to the polls in 2006, and Chile, Venezuela and Bolivia having done so recently (a Presidential election in Venezuela and a second round of Chile’s Presidential election are also due in 2006.) The U.S. foreign policy establishment, already disturbed by the failure of November’s Free Trade Area of the Americas talks in Buenos Aires, is increasingly concerned by victories such as that of Evo Morales in Bolivia, elected last week on an explicitly anti-American platform. In this context, success for the leftist candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador in Mexico’s July 2006 Presidential election would be particularly disquieting to the George W. Bush administration.

It is however the economic policies of Latin America that are more dangerous in the long run to their own people, and more surprising to outside observers. This is not 1935; hard core Socialism was pretty well discredited worldwide by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and something approaching free market capitalism has appeared to provide a route to prosperity for more and more countries in the last quarter century, including the world’s two largest poor countries, China and India. Yet in Latin America, as the Morales victory in Bolivia and the continuing genuine popularity of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Nestor Kirchner in Argentina has showed, policies of opening to international trade, guaranteeing foreign and domestic property rights and removing government intervention from the productive sectors of the economy have persistently proved electoral losers, and are likely to continue doing so.

Latin America is not a particularly Socialist region, in the old fashioned sense of having a high percentage of its economic output controlled directly by the government. Tax rates are generally moderate and enforcement lax, while government spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product is far below the OECD average of just over 40 percent. Thus in principle Latin America should not suffer the pathologies witnessed in parts of Eastern Europe, where government continues to absorb more than half the economy.

Corruption in Latin America is high by Western standards, but not exceptionally so. Of the major Latin American countries, Chile, Uruguay, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Peru all had scores on Transparency International’s 2005 Corruption Perception Index higher than Poland, which is now an EU member enjoying relatively rapid growth and the beginnings of stable prosperity. China and India had lower scores still, although both scored better than Argentina and Venezuela, the Latin American corruption laggards. Certainly within Latin America the relatively favorable economic performance and good governance of Chile and Brazil and the unexpectedly poor economic performance and governance of Argentina and Venezuela may be explained by this factor, but the overall Latin American malaise cannot be due to it alone.

On economic freedom, the story is somewhat different. Only Chile, at No. 11 out of 155 countries ranks in the “Free” category in the Heritage Foundation’s 2005 Index of Economic Freedom. Uruguay, Bolivia, Peru and Mexico rank 43, 49, 56 and 63, towards the bottom of the “Mostly Free” category. Colombia, Brazil, Argentina and Ecuador, at 88, 90, and tied at 114 are “Mostly Unfree”. Venezuela at 146 is “Repressed.” Given Venezuela’s score, can there be any doubt that Bolivia’s score is due to drop like a rock under Morales, a close ally of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez? Except for Chile, Latin American countries rank on this (admittedly imperfect) indicator well below the level that their income per capita and education levels would suggest. Again however, the rankings of China at 112 and India at 118 suggest that a low score here is not entirely incompatible with economic growth.

When looked at against the rest of the world the one feature of Latin American countries that most stands out is their economic inequality, which can be measured by the Gini coefficient. According to the World Bank database, Latin American Gini coefficients are extremely high, exceeded only by some countries in Africa. Brazil’s Gini coefficient is 61, Chile’s 58, Colombia’s 57, Mexico’s and Venezuela’s 50 and Argentina’s (not estimated by the World Bank) about 55. This compares to Gini coefficients around 40 in the United States, in the 25-35 range for Western Europe and Japan, and varying in the 30-45 range for the emerging Asian economies. Here China and India, which score below most Latin American countries on corruption and economic freedom, differ significantly from the Latin American model; China’s Gini coefficient is 44 and India’s is 38.

This at last provides a clue to the question. Latin America’s problem is not in itself corruption, or even lack of economic freedom – those are only symptoms—but economic inequality itself. Looking at Latin America’s history, it is clear that in a very unequal society economic progress is possible only under an authoritarian regime, such as in the Mexico of Porfirio Diaz (1876-1910), the Argentina of the pre-democracy oligarchs (1860-1912) or the Chile of Agosto Pinochet (1973-89). Chile’s continuing economic progress and relatively favorable scores on corruption and economic freedom are a legacy of the Pinochet era, more recent than the oligarch era in Argentina or the Diaz era in Mexico; Pinochetism has so far remained strong after failing narrowly in two agonizingly close elections in 1988 and 2000. The country can be expected over the long term to fall back to its Latin American neighbors, rapidly if it persists in electing leftist candidates such as Michelle Bachelet, the current expected victor in January’s second electoral round.

The mechanism by which extreme inequality produces economically illiterate outcomes in a democracy can only be theorized about, although deep research by the “political choice” school might be fruitful, but the pattern in Latin America is clear for all to see. One can postulate that in such a society, true progress up the social scale appears impossible for the great majority of the electorate, and the economic and political system appears irredeemably rigged to leave them trapped in poverty. Consequently, promises of an economically better long term future are regarded with deep suspicion, and candidates who promise short term benefits, such as higher welfare payments or jobs with the government, or who promise simply to attack the wealth of the rich, prove irresistible. The majority of the electorate remains trapped in cynical slum-dweller leftism, the politics of Harlem or the rioting French banlieus.

For the rich, political programs that open up their oligarchy to competition are deeply threatening, because they see every day the terrible fate that can befall those who lose their position in the elite. With the penalties for failure so high, any amount of corruption and rent seeking is desirable in order to prevent that failure from occurring. Military coups, too, are entirely acceptable, since the stability of a democratic constitution is far less important to the elite than the threat to their welfare from a Chavez or Morales whom the masses support. The tendency of the electorate to support leftist economic illiterates itself thus creates political instability as well as economic failure, because the threat to the elite from such illiterates is so obvious and extreme. With political life reduced to such a state of cynicism, private property, unsafe from depredations by the left, is then equally unsafe from illegal seizure by the politically connected right.

So what’s the solution? The changes in U.S. and world foreign policy in the 1980s increased the cost to Latin American elites of arranging military coups and abandoning democracy, so to that extent improved the stability of the political systems, even though they eliminated the possibility of an economically benign Pinochet or Diaz (needless to say, most non-democratic Latin American leaders have been nowhere near their quality.) However, they have done nothing to address the reverse problem of democratic electorates legitimately electing economic lunatics. The United States and the world have coped very badly with the problem of Hugo Chavez – a regime that destroys the economy, yet has reasonable or good democratic legitimacy is very difficult for well-wishing outsiders to deal with.

Seizing an opportunity such as occurred in Venezuela in 2002, when Chavez was briefly toppled before he had fully consolidated his power, is essential if such governments are to be removed. However even if the United States can move fast enough (as it didn’t in that case) the problem remains of re-installing a true democracy, minus the destructive regime, at the earliest possible date – the Pinochet solution being no longer available. There is always the danger that the evil leader will remain around, albeit possibly in exile, and will destabilize his successors if anything but rapid and uninterrupted economic progress eventuates. Juan Domingo Peron of Argentina, for example, not only wrecked the economy from 1943-55, but continued to meddle in Argentine politics for the next two decades, and has remained even since his death an icon, luring the electorate towards policies of statist isolationism. The electorate remembers the wealth of Peron’s early years, not realizing that it was largely his policies that destroyed it.

In most circumstances, fortunately, an economically illiterate regime will cause economic collapse, which will lead to its replacement by the electorate (provided the elections remain legitimate, which in Venezuela they have not done.) This however doesn’t address the case of Venezuela today (oil) or Chile in 1973 (copper), when the great bulk of an economy’s wealth is concentrated in a single commodity whose production is controlled by the government. If commodity prices are high, this allows bad governments to cover up their economic incompetence and bribe the electorate, blocking the economic signals that should return the country to sanity.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, the relatively reformist and sensible (by Venezuelan standards) 1989-93 government of Carlos Andres Perez, which followed the Washington Consensus and attempted reform and privatization, was thwarted by the low oil prices of that period and the consequent poor performance of the economy. Perez was impeached in 1993, a poor reward for his sensible 1989-93 government although an entirely appropriate retribution for the corrupt Socialist spendathon of his previous 1974-79 effort, which had nationalized the oil industry.

There are few good solutions. One must pity the people of Latin America for the political/economic trap into which they have fallen. The only action that may help is to preserve the utmost rigidity in the allocation of aid and foreign investment, with governments and international lending institutions refusing money to regimes that pursue policies that destroy property rights, and the private sector refusing to invest or lend there, or to restructure debts that fall into arrears. This will provide the maximum possible incentive for electorates to avoid bad solutions, as distinct from the current system that allows Argentina to return to the capital markets less than 4 years after default, thus rewarding bad behavior.

It is also the best way to avoid losing money in the Latin American slum, a perennial fate for foreign investors since it gained independence in the 1820s.

[Thomas777]

The overthrow of the Allende government in Chile in 1973 is one of the most well known historical examples that illustrates the hollowness of pretentious American rhetoric about freedom and democracy. In that case, the CIA at the behest of the Nixon adminstration conspired with elements of the Chilean military to overthrow a democratically elected socialist government; going so far as to pay a terrorist group tens of thousands of dollars to assasinate the commander in chief of the Chilean armed forces, General Rene Schneider. The Pinochet dictatorship instituted radical neoliberal economic reforms with the cooperation of the Chicago Boys (disciples of the famous economist Milton Friedman) that destroyed the Chilean economy.

The example of Chile is merely one illustration of a broader historical phenomena, especially in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. The U.S. maintains high level contacts with the militaries of various foreign nations, supports them with military aid, and occasionally calls upon them to overthrow populist regimes that buck the Washington Consensus of neoliberalism. A recent example of this would be the failed Venezuelan coup back in 2002 when the Bush administration conspired with wealthy conservative Venezualeans and elements of the Venezualean military to oust Hugo Chávez from power.

I don't care if Allende was "democratically elected"...I care about the security of America, and America was made safer by destroying the cancer of Bolshevism in Latin America.

[Generator]

It's a pretty good article; at the very least it's more objective than the bulk of the pieces written about Latin American socio-economic realities.

[Thomas777]

Its also dishonest to claim that Pinochet "ruined" the Chilean economy. By the time Pinochet (voluntarily) relinquished power, unemployment was under 10% and GDP had risen tremendously.

[raven]

I'm certaintly not a supporter of Chavez, Morales and co. but I at least give them kudos for being defiant towards American Big Interests. The United States and many American Companies have their fair share of crooked business down there. Anyone heard of the Coca Cola rumours? Pretty dodgy stuff. I am very much anti-globalization due to the fact that this free-market capitalist system is crooked, corrupt, takes advantage of people in the third-world, outsources jobs in the first-world, and destroys the cultural fabric of nations (via American neo-Imperialism).

[Generator]

I'm certaintly not a supporter of Chavez, Morales and co. but I at least give them kudos for being defiant towards American Big Interests. The United States and many American Companies have their fair share of crooked business down there. Anyone heard of the Coca Cola rumours? Pretty dodgy stuff. I am very much anti-globalization due to the fact that this free-market capitalist system is crooked, corrupt, takes advantage of people in the third-world, outsources jobs in the first-world, and destroys the cultural fabric of nations (via American neo-Imperialism).
HiG, I thought that you were an avowed anti-Communist.This doesn't seem to square with what you've typed above...Just wondering is all.

[Fade the Butcher]

I don't care if Allende was "democratically elected"...

Me either. I can hardly be counted amongst the fans of democracy. I was just pointing out that American planners don't value 'freedom' or 'democracy' for their own sake, but only in so far as they are useful ideological devices in advancing U.S. interests abroad (which, I should add, are not the interests of the American people, but the private financial interests of the plutocracy that dominates the U.S. federal government).

I care about the security of America, and America was made safer by destroying the cancer of Bolshevism in Latin America.

The biggest threat to the security of America has never been socialism or nationalism abroad (the two often run together), but the corruption of our political process by unrestrained capitalism at home, which is best articulted in it's loudest mouthpiece, The Wall Street Journal.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007740

[raven]

I thought that you were an avowed anti-Communist.This doesn't seem to square with what you've typed above...Just wondering is all.
I'm definately not a free-market capitalist either. I would like tariffs to be placed on foreign products, for NAFTA to be eliminated (or at least revised), for jobs/wages to stay here and not go off to India or China, etc. My problem with Communism is that it is wide open for corruption and a society has to have some sort of economic stratification in order to encourage productiveness. Not everyone can make the same pay (and it shouldn't be that way). Though personally (and this is quite a left-wing view I hold but within reason) I think its ridiculous there are CEOs making billions while the poverty line over here for eg. is approaching 20% or something over here.

I would never support Communism... my parents' country was almost swallowed whole by Communism (the pinkos had so much influence in the country after the Carnation Revolution thus causing the country to open the borders to the african refugees and getting significant electorial success) The Estado Novo and the Commie radicals in the country were at two extremes... two evils. I remember browsing this forum and there were all these young (like around my age I guess) Estado Novo supporters and I found it strange considering how these idiots haven't a clue what living under that regime was like (neither do I but my parents did leave the country at the time for a reason).

[Thomas777]

The biggest threat to the security of America has never been socialism or nationalism abroad (the two often run together), but the corruption of our political process by unrestrained capitalism at home, which is best articulted in it's loudest mouthpiece, The Wall Street Journal.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007740

I agree with you, Fade...that said, it would have been a disaster to permit the establishment of Soviet proxy states in America's backyard.

I am not naiive, and I do not accept hook, line and sinker that all of America's meddling overseas during the Cold War era involved immediate security concerns...but the fact is that the USSR was a grave threat to America's security and they were actively trying to usher in the establishment of hostile, Bolshevik regimes within our immediate sphere of influence.

[Fade the Butcher]

I agree with you, Fade...that said, it would have been a disaster to permit the establishment of Soviet proxy states in America's backyard.

It is important to keep the context in mind here. The sympathy of Latin Americans for the Soviet Union was in large part a reaction to the age old attempt by the United States to dominate the region and exploit its natural resources for the benefit of American investors and other powerful private interests. The U.S. had long been propping up corrupt dictatorships and unpopular oligarchies throughout region. Cubans, for example, had every legitimate reason to fear the United States, as did Nicaraguans, in light of the numerous American interventions in those countries throughout history. I don't find the desire amongst Latin Americans for a more equitable distribution of their own natural resources, a higher standard of living, or some measure of independence in their internal affairs particularly distressing. Those are entirely legitimate aspirations, as any true nationalist would acknowledge. Why should Venezualans or Mexicans live in poverty in the midst of plenty?

I am not naiive, and I do not accept hook, line and sinker that all of America's meddling overseas during the Cold War era involved immediate security concerns...but the fact is that the USSR was a grave threat to America's security and they were actively trying to usher in the establishment of hostile, Bolshevik regimes within our immediate sphere of influence.

The threat posed by the USSR was wildly exaggerated entirely out of proportion. What threat the USSR did pose was more of a consequence of the unrelenting antagonism by the United States towards the Soviet Union than anything else; the announced goal of our belligerent foreign policy being to "rollback" and "contain" communism -- on the behalf of international capitalism, of course. You have to look at this from the perspective of the Russians.

The USSR had just a few years before been attacked by Nazi Germany which was at the spearhead of a similar attempt to "rollback" communism; this being the second such attempt by the West in twenty years, the Cold War the third. Tens of millions of Russians lost their lives in that conflict. In the immediate postwar period, the United States formed a hostile military alliance (i.e., NATO) on the doorstep of the USSR, quadrupled military spending, began to rearm Germany, crushed the fledgling socialist movement in France, Italy, and Greece, and began to systematically encircle the USSR from Europe to the Middle East (Turkey) to East Asia (Japan) with enemies. This is in addition to dropping the atomic bomb twice on Japan at the end of the war just to "show the Russians that we mean business."

Even today, the unrelenting hostility of the United States towards Russia continues: expanding NATO to Russia's frontier, supporting anti-Russian political movements in Ukraine and Georgia, building military bases literally in the midst of ethnic Russians in Central Asia, bombing Russia's allies like Serbia and Ba'athist Iraq, supporting secessionist movements in Chechnya and accusing Russia of gross inhumanity for oppressing such terrorists, pursuing missle defense systems to compromise Russia's nuclear shield, supporting the corrupt Jewish oligarchs that have feasted on the carcass of the USSR like buzzards. How else should Russia respond to such provocations?

[Donny the Punk]

Poor Russians. Let's all forget the Russo-Polish war of 1919-20, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and plunder of Poland in 1939 and the Winter War. Lamentable Soviets, always being kicked around by an uncaring West just because Russians put their citizens in the Lubyanka for not wanting to starve to death.

[Generator]

I agree with you, Fade...that said, it would have been a disaster to permit the establishment of Soviet proxy states in America's backyard.

I am not naiive, and I do not accept hook, line and sinker that all of America's meddling overseas during the Cold War era involved immediate security concerns...but the fact is that the USSR was a grave threat to America's security and they were actively trying to usher in the establishment of hostile, Bolshevik regimes within our immediate sphere of influence.
What analysts tend to do while appraising the level of the Soviet threat is cast the net quite wide, and usually too much so. "Latin America" as a political entity is usually considered a large homogenous mass, both politically and socially. What this ignores are the fundamental nuances in realpolitik inherent to most nations within Latin America, which would have made true Stalinist Communism more attractive/feasible in some, and a distinct political impossibility in others (at different points in time.)

Nonetheless, American Cold War politics trained its vicious eye upon Latin America categorically, as if the spectre of Bolshevism had all but imbued itself into the continent's entire social fabric. As trite as it sounds, the approach taken by the US in fulfilment of its foreign policy was imperialistic in design, with an immutable Bolshevist handmaiden ever present to justify its actions.

While I agree that there was an immediate threat in numerous theatres, one must be careful not to generalise when assessing the validity of the US's many interventions, in full flagrant disregard for the norms of national sovereignty and diplomacy.

[Kodos]

The overthrow of the Allende government in Chile in 1973 is one of the most well known historical examples that illustrates the hollowness of pretentious American rhetoric about freedom and democracy

The Pinochet coup illustrated a disconnect between freedom and democracy... it was good for freedom bad for Democracy.

[Fade the Butcher]

Poor Russians. Let's all forget the Russo-Polish war of 1919-20, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and plunder of Poland in 1939 and the Winter War. Lamentable Soviets, always being kicked around by an uncaring West just because Russians put their citizens in the Lubyanka for not wanting to starve to death.

Poor Polaks. Let's all light candles for the brave Polish men who rid Poland once and for all of the menace of German and Ukrainian women and children during and in the aftermath of the Second World War.

[Donny the Punk]

Poor Polaks. Let's all light candles for the brave Polish men who rid Poland once and for all of the menace of German and Ukrainian women and children during and in the aftermath of the Second World War.
Oh? As for Volksdeutsche, they got everything they deserved.

And no one's whining about anti-Polonism like a girl, you know. :p

[Generator]

It is important to keep the context in mind here. The sympathy of Latin Americans for the Soviet Union was in large part a reaction to the age old attempt by the United States to dominate the region and exploit its natural resources for the benefit of American investors and other powerful private interests. The U.S. had long been propping up corrupt dictatorships and unpopular oligarchies throughout region. Cubans, for example, had every legitimate reason to fear the United States, as did Nicaraguans, in light of the numerous American interventions in those countries throughout history. I don't find the desire amongst Latin Americans for a more equitable distribution of their own natural resources, a higher standard of living, or some measure of independence in their internal affairs particularly distressing. Those are entirely legitimate aspirations, as any true nationalist would acknowledge. Why should Venezualans or Mexicans live in poverty in the midst of plenty?



The threat posed by the USSR was wildly exaggerated entirely out of proportion.

Your first point rings true, although it must be said of Latin Americans that they are their own worst enemy - the aspirations for a share of the "plenty" which you refer to are scuttled by an inability to genuinely foster and retain nationalist leaders of sentiment pure and everlasting. I once read a quote by Cesar Vallejo which stated that democracy in Latin America is the midwife delivering dictatorship from nationalism. How true.

Your second point is in effect what I was trying to convey in the prior post.

[Fade the Butcher]

Oh? As for Volksdeutsche, they got everything they deserved.

It takes a brave Polish man to stick it to elderly German and Ukrainian women.

[Donny the Punk]

Ah yes, it was elderly Germans who were moving east into the abandoned homes of murdered Slavs to start new lives. :rolleyes: The picture of virtue, that lot. Those who would grow fat on human butchery merit everything they recieve at the hands of their victims.

As for the Ukrainians?

[Felix the Cat]

What is the racial makeup of Chile?

[Fade the Butcher]

Dr. Brandt sends his regards. :D

http://www.pudzian.pl/foto/307.jpg

[Atlas]

What is the racial makeup of Chile?

http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Chile.html

Ethnic groups:

Mestizo (white-Amerindian) 72.4%,
white 20.8%,
Araucanian (Mapuche) 4.7%,
European 1%,
other 1.1% (2000

[Felix the Cat]

Hm. Chile may be an exception, but normally in such countries "Democracy" means "Tax the White people until they flee the country, then have a civil war when the economy collapses"

[A. Radek]

Pinochet was a great man...he took the fight to the Reds and smashed them without remorse.

I love sarcasm.

Men like President Reagan, Oliver North, James Webb, Eagleburger, etc. understood that "democracy" is not some end in itself.

All they understood was that there was big money in using American tax dollars to murder unarmed peasant farmers who had been minding their own business for the last two centuries, as a favor to big banks, arms peddlers, and other assorted multinational corporate swindlers. Campaign contributors always come first, long before we ever get to 'Truth, Justice, And The American Way'; the former being Number One With A Bullet, the latter somewhere well below 'I Need New Shoelaces' ...

[Jimbo Gomez]

The overthrow of the Allende government in Chile in 1973 is one of the most well known historical examples that illustrates the hollowness of pretentious American rhetoric about freedom and democracy. In that case, the CIA at the behest of the Nixon adminstration conspired with elements of the Chilean military to overthrow a democratically elected socialist government; going so far as to pay a terrorist group tens of thousands of dollars to assasinate the commander in chief of the Chilean armed forces, General Rene Schneider. The Pinochet dictatorship instituted radical neoliberal economic reforms with the cooperation of the Chicago Boys (disciples of the famous economist Milton Friedman) that destroyed the Chilean economy.

The example of Chile is merely one illustration of a broader historical phenomena, especially in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. The U.S. maintains high level contacts with the militaries of various foreign nations, supports them with military aid, and occasionally calls upon them to overthrow populist regimes that buck the Washington Consensus of neoliberalism. A recent example of this would be the failed Venezuelan coup back in 2002 when the Bush administration conspired with wealthy conservative Venezualeans and elements of the Venezualean military to oust Hugo Chávez from power.

Fuck you, bolshevism has to be smashed, and noone smashed it better than Pinochet.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Poor Polaks. Let's all light candles for the brave Polish men who rid Poland once and for all of the menace of German and Ukrainian women and children during and in the aftermath of the Second World War.

It's not as if the Germans treated them like human beings during the war either. You get what you give Fade, especially if you end up losing a war you started yourself (and yes, I am aware that technically, it was England who declared war, but this has been discussed to death, resurected as a zombified corpse, and then discussed to the grave again multiple times on the Phora).

Vae Victis. :D

[A. Radek]

Corporate dictatorships precede 'Bolshevist' threats in Latin America by several decades. Most of what the Wall Street Journal and the CIA called 'communists' down there weren't, any more than the Viet Cong was made up of Maoists or Leninists. Most Nicaraguans are much better off now than they were under the Somoza family, even during the American trade blockade after Ortega took over. Not to mention asking why Marxists would be any threat in the first place if these people were doing so damn well under the generals? Ditto for Russia under the Czars. Just for the benefit of college students who get hypnotized by 'free market' factoids, 'per capita income' doesn't mean shit if 95% of the income goes to 25 families in a country of 20 million.

[Thomas777]

All they understood was that there was big money in using American tax dollars to murder unarmed peasant farmers who had been minding their own business for the last two centuries, as a favor to big banks, arms peddlers, and other assorted multinational corporate swindlers. Campaign contributors always come first, long before we ever get to 'Truth, Justice, And The American Way'; the former being Number One With A Bullet, the latter somewhere well below 'I Need New Shoelaces' ...

Pure agitprop.

RealPolitik is not the place for self-indulgent moralizing. The security of my country and the safety of my kinfolk are what matters most to me in addressing the relative merit of American foreign policy...and the establishment of Soviet client states beyond America's southern fronteir was a grave threat to both of these paramount interests.

Despite fantasies to the contrary, the USSR was an expansionist empire that possesed a massive military apparatus consisting of a conventional juggernaught of staggering proportions and a thousands-strong nuclear arsenal. Anybody who suggestst the the USSR was not a threat to American security is seriously deluded.

I agree wholeheartedly that FedGov's antagonism of Russia over the past decade is inexcusable and shortsighted...I wrote extensively about that on the old board...I think that the West should embrace Russia and we should man the ramparts together against the teeming masses of the near East and the Orient. However, that does not change the fact that the USSR tried to destroy the West in the furtherance of their own cynical aspirations to dominate the globe, and that there was no option other than to challenge them on every front.

[Thomas777]

It is important to keep the context in mind here. The sympathy of Latin Americans for the Soviet Union was in large part a reaction to the age old attempt by the United States to dominate the region and exploit its natural resources for the benefit of American investors and other powerful private interests. The U.S. had long been propping up corrupt dictatorships and unpopular oligarchies throughout region. Cubans, for example, had every legitimate reason to fear the United States, as did Nicaraguans, in light of the numerous American interventions in those countries throughout history. I don't find the desire amongst Latin Americans for a more equitable distribution of their own natural resources, a higher standard of living, or some measure of independence in their internal affairs particularly distressing. Those are entirely legitimate aspirations, as any true nationalist would acknowledge. Why should Venezualans or Mexicans live in poverty in the midst of plenty?

So you think that tinpot despots (who indulge in empty egalitarian rhetoric) like Fidel Castro have improved the lot of their own people? That is a curious analysis.

[Dan Dare]

Latin America is one of those areas of the world, like Africa, that is a terminal basketcase and should be written off as a geopolitical entity.

The United Fruit Company's operation of Guatemala as a corporate subsidiary is the appropriate model going forward. Even Tony Blair would probably agree with this.

[Kodos]

Latin America is one of those areas of the world, like Africa, that is a terminal basketcase and should be written off as a geopolitical entity.

Most of it... its not generally as bad as Africa( Bolivia and parts of Columbia being the exception)...

[A. Radek]

RealPolitik is not the place for self-indulgent moralizing. The security of my country and the safety of my kinfolk are what matters most to me in addressing the relative merit of American foreign policy...and the establishment of Soviet client states beyond America's southern fronteir was a grave threat to both of these paramount interests.

Utter nonsense, of course. The only self-indulgent 'moralizing' is on the part of those profiteering off pushing these people off their farms in order to create large plantations geared soley for export. The 'agit prop' was on the part of the Teddy Roosevelts and Ollie Norths tooling for private interests. This is like shooting somebody's mother and then complaining her children are mad for no reason. Don't piss on your neighbor's leg, and they won't piss on yours.

[A. Radek]

Most of it... its not generally as bad as Africa( Bolivia and parts of Columbia being the exception)...

actually most of it is not bad, and most of it's people are pretty nice, except for the American trained death squad psychoes and the right wing Armies and cops. I never had any problems with regular people down there. In fact they're pretty generous for the most part, except for Mexicans, who are widely loathed all over Central and South America, and rightly so.

[Fade the Butcher]

Most of it... its not generally as bad as Africa( Bolivia and parts of Columbia being the exception)...

Columbia is one of the biggest violators of human rights in the region. It is also one of the biggest recipients of U.S. aid.

[Jimbo Gomez]

What do you care about human rights violations committed on mestizos in a country you'd never even consider visiting?

[Fade the Butcher]

Despite fantasies to the contrary, the USSR was an expansionist empire that possesed a massive military apparatus consisting of a conventional juggernaught of staggering proportions and a thousands-strong nuclear arsenal. Anybody who suggestst the the USSR was not a threat to American security is seriously deluded.

There was one example of Soviet military intervention outside the buffer states of Eastern Europe: Afghanistan. OTOH, the United States attacked the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Panama, Grenada, Libya, Lebanon, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Korea. The indirect interventions of the U.S. during the Cold War were ever more numerous. This was necessary, of course, to maintain our 'world leadership'.

[Fade the Butcher]

What do you care about human rights violations committed on mestizos in a country you'd never even consider visiting?

Because, for one, what goes on in Columbia has an impact on Americans. Columbia is one biggest suppliers in the world of cocaine.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Do you believe for one second they'd stop producing cocain if the situation improves there drastically?

They'll stop growing cocain the moment the coka harvest is worth less than potential wheat harvests.

[Fade the Butcher]

Do you believe for one second they'd stop producing cocain if the situation improves there drastically? They'll stop growing cocain the moment the coka harvest is worth less than potential wheat harvests.

It would probably be a good idea to find out why they switched to growing coca in the first place.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Western wealth created a market for that filth, easy.

They've been growing it for centuries now, they just have been growingmore of it since the 20th century.

[Thomas777]

There was one example of Soviet military intervention outside the buffer states of Eastern Europe: Afghanistan. OTOH, the United States attacked the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Panama, Grenada, Libya, Lebanon, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Korea. The indirect interventions of the U.S. during the Cold War were ever more numerous. This was necessary, of course, to maintain our 'world leadership'.

The "buffer states" that you speak of were populated by millions of people who were forcibly incorporated into the Soviet empire at the point of a bayonet...I think its a bit dishonest to frame the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe as anything less than a brutal occupation by an imperialist superstate.

Furthermore, the Reds were crawling all over the Bolshevik proxy states that America went to war with...Soviet pilots flew combat missions over Korea, at Son Tay in North Vietnam, US green berets actually engaged Soviet infantry in combat. The Reds attempted to overthrow the RSA in the 1970s and waged war by proxy in Angola. The list goes on and on.

[Generator]

It would probably be a good idea to find out why they switched to growing coca in the first place.
Coca has been the lifeblood of Peruvian, Ecuadorean and Colombian highland peasants even prior to the days of the Columbian conquest, both in terms of consumption and trade. It was a serendipitous turn of events which turned the once beneficial plant into a cash crop. In Colombia, with said peasants caught up in the middle of a levy war between the FARC and the US sponsored AUC (with the complicity of the Uribe government and many before him) the hope of cessation of production is all but gone.

[Generator]

Most of it... its not generally as bad as Africa( Bolivia and parts of Columbia being the exception)...
Nations with a semblance of hope:

Brazil, Uruguay, Chile

Moderate to low chance of sustainability:

Argentina (would have been in first category prior to the disastrous decision to index the Peso to the $USD and the 70's military junta who robbed the country dry and murdered a great many of its intellectuals), Paraguay, Venezuela

Fucked:

Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Bolivia

I've excluded the three northern sisters deliberately, as they are subsumed into Central America as geopolitical entities.

[Fade the Butcher]

The "buffer states" that you speak of were populated by millions of people who were forcibly incorporated into the Soviet empire at the point of a bayonet...I think its a bit dishonest to frame the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe as anything less than a brutal occupation by an imperialist superstate.

I never said I approved of this, but I can understand why the Soviets were so determined to maintain their control over Eastern Europe after the Russians lost tens of millions of their citizens in two world wars within a half century. You are also losing an important aspect of the picture by focusing solely upon the Soviets. The communists won a lot of political currency with the general public during the Second World War for their resistance to the Nazis. Tito came to power by himself in Yugoslavia. It was Tito who spearheaded the effort to bring communism to Albania and Bulgaria. There was a strong native communist movement in Greece that was also supported by Tito, but was neglected by Stalin due to his fear of offending the West. A similar situation existed in Czechoslovakia. The Czechs had not forgiven the West for Munich and many of them looked upon the Soviets as liberators. The Czech communists came to power on their own in 1948. The situation was very different in the Baltic states, Germany, Poland, Hungary, and Romania.

Furthermore, the Reds were crawling all over the Bolshevik proxy states that America went to war with...Soviet pilots flew combat missions over Korea, at Son Tay in North Vietnam, US green berets actually engaged Soviet infantry in combat. The Reds attempted to overthrow the RSA in the 1970s and waged war by proxy in Angola. The list goes on and on.

The Americans hardly made their case in Vietnam by supporting the French against Vietnamese nationalists after the war in their attempt to reassert their control over Indochina. This is how we got involved in that quagmire in the first place. The U.S. also backed the invasion of Namibia by South Africa. Then there were the Koreans who were not impressed by the U.S. attempt to revive Japan. I would be hard pressed to think some part of the world in which the U.S. did not intervene in some fashion, such as the Congo, where we backed the overthrow of Patrice Lumbumba by Mobutu Sese Seko or Somalia where we propped up Siad Biarre. We brought regime change to Iran in 1953 and Guatemala in 1954. In Iran, we propped up the Shah who was a close ally of Israel and the SAVAK torturerers. The list goes on and on: Marcos in the Phillippines, Suharto in Indonesia, Pinochet in Chile, Batista in Cuba. The Second Gulf War was at least the third regime change we engineered in Iraq. I believe we even engineered a regime change in Australia during the '70s or '80s one.

[Generator]

I believe we even engineered a regime change in Australia during the '70s or '80s one.

Yes and no. Gough Whitlam was dismissed in 1975 by the then Governor-General John Kerr, but the causes of the extremely rare invocation of the power to do so were varied and complex, American interests (including satellite facilities at Pine Gap and Australia's support of the Vietnam war) being among them. Internal politics were also at play.

[Felix the Cat]

A similar situation existed in Czechoslovakia. The Czechs had not forgiven the West for Munich and many of them looked upon the Soviets as liberators. The Czech communists came to power on their own in 1948.
The Communists only won 38% of the vote in the 1946 election. That they were able to expel non-Communist ministers from the government and overthrow Benes in 1948 was entirely due to the massive Russian presence in the country