Swilkes, this is for you
I got this off a BBC "Viewpoints" section on whether or not the left-leaning gov'ts of Latin America are a threat to US hegemony. They interviewed Noam Chomsky (obviously speaking for the Left) and Otto Reich, currently adviser to President Bush.
This is an excerpt of what Otto Reich had to say in answer to the question "Is the US an almighty empire that dictates the region's political and financial fate, as many Latin Americans believe?":
"The US is the most important buyer of Latin American products - it purchases 50% of the region's exports. In general terms, the US is also Latin America's main source of technology and investments, and in some cases of education and scientific development. This doesn't mean the US influences government decisions. Washington has always consulted its partners in Latin America, without dictating anything.
The world has changed. The US has its own national problems - some of them serious - as well as global challenges such as terrorism and nuclear proliferation. So what the US wants is a peaceful and prosperous Latin America. This has been the aim of US foreign policy in the last 25 years."
Heeheehee! Which part do you like better: "Washington has always consulted its partners in LAm, without dictating anything," or "[a peaceful and prosperous LAm] has been the aim of US foreign policy in the last 25 years"?
I suppose either statement is defensible: for example, the Somozas were, technically, our "partners" in LAm; so were Trujillo, Papa and Baby Doc, Pinochet, all of the Guatemalan dictators from Armas right through to Lucas whatsisname (and frankly, Oscar Berger is too, though he's not to be compared with any of those gory demons), that guy in Argentina (what is his name? Starts with a D?). And we did a lot of consulting, I bet-- sending CIA consultants, for example ("make sure you only beat them in the midsection; anything else shows the bruises"). And equally, our idea of a "peaceful and prosperous Latin America" is, I suppose, what we've always worked for-- UFCO and the mineral mines and the oil companies, peacefully running prosperous businesses, placidly raking the cash over the border, bolstered by a government which cheerfully allows them to fail to pay six months' worth of back-wages and keeps the country peaceful by means of informers and secret police or, more excitingly, straight up military intimidation. Ahhh, prosperity.
Granted, the occasional foreign policy deviates from this norm-- consider Carter cutting off the cash flow to the Contras in 1980 (having funded them for two years). Of course that started right up again illegally, but hey, it was a start.
Yay for the right wing! If we say black is white, the mere saying makes it so.
This is an excerpt of what Otto Reich had to say in answer to the question "Is the US an almighty empire that dictates the region's political and financial fate, as many Latin Americans believe?":
"The US is the most important buyer of Latin American products - it purchases 50% of the region's exports. In general terms, the US is also Latin America's main source of technology and investments, and in some cases of education and scientific development. This doesn't mean the US influences government decisions. Washington has always consulted its partners in Latin America, without dictating anything.
The world has changed. The US has its own national problems - some of them serious - as well as global challenges such as terrorism and nuclear proliferation. So what the US wants is a peaceful and prosperous Latin America. This has been the aim of US foreign policy in the last 25 years."
Heeheehee! Which part do you like better: "Washington has always consulted its partners in LAm, without dictating anything," or "[a peaceful and prosperous LAm] has been the aim of US foreign policy in the last 25 years"?
I suppose either statement is defensible: for example, the Somozas were, technically, our "partners" in LAm; so were Trujillo, Papa and Baby Doc, Pinochet, all of the Guatemalan dictators from Armas right through to Lucas whatsisname (and frankly, Oscar Berger is too, though he's not to be compared with any of those gory demons), that guy in Argentina (what is his name? Starts with a D?). And we did a lot of consulting, I bet-- sending CIA consultants, for example ("make sure you only beat them in the midsection; anything else shows the bruises"). And equally, our idea of a "peaceful and prosperous Latin America" is, I suppose, what we've always worked for-- UFCO and the mineral mines and the oil companies, peacefully running prosperous businesses, placidly raking the cash over the border, bolstered by a government which cheerfully allows them to fail to pay six months' worth of back-wages and keeps the country peaceful by means of informers and secret police or, more excitingly, straight up military intimidation. Ahhh, prosperity.
Granted, the occasional foreign policy deviates from this norm-- consider Carter cutting off the cash flow to the Contras in 1980 (having funded them for two years). Of course that started right up again illegally, but hey, it was a start.
Yay for the right wing! If we say black is white, the mere saying makes it so.