Im just going to say it, the Monroe Doctrine is stupid. China and Russia have extensive deals with Latin American countries. The Doctrine is largely why we are seen so negatively in a region that could be a natural ally. And most importantly, to me at least, China and Russia can make the same claims about their weaker neighbors. They use these claims more aggresively, but since they can point to the Monroe doctrine, we have no political high ground to utilize world opinion. I say no zones of priveleged interest. Their claims to Eastern Europe and South East Asia are more important to them than Latin America is to us. Without the Monroe doctrine, the legitamacy of their claims would erode severely, exposing its ugly center of kleptocarcy and modern subtle imperialism.

I think the article is valid and very accurate. We must have a uniform policy for how to handle problems with South, and Central America. I want to point out that the Monroe Doctrine as it stands asserts that the Western Hemisphere was not to be further colonized by European powers. Doing away with the Monroe Doctrine would allow any country in the world to colonize and lay claim to sections of South or Central America. The example that comes to mind would be if France decided to expand the size of French Guyana into Brazil. The more realistic example is the controversy between the England and Argentina over the Falklands if England decided to expand its territory. Now the Roosevelt Corollary allows the United States to intervene in Latin America to stop the spread of European influence. I would agree that the Corollary probably needs to be updated to include the difference between economic and military influence. In reality having the Monroe Doctrine does not really hurt us or help us. The exception is Venezuela and Cuba that are always worried about US aggression a fact that might be more fantasy than fact in the last 20 years

I think you miss understood. The Monroe Doctrine was originally written to inform the European powers that had major empires through out the world that they could not further their empires on our continent. It established a legal foundation for the United States to protect its interest. The reason I said it does not hurt or help the United States was because of the Clark Memorandum that concludes the United States does not have to invoke the Monroe Doctrine to justify our own interest in Central and South America. With regard to your point on the colonization of any Latin American country in the 21st century. Just because the Monroe Doctrine was written with regards to colonization does not mean that it can’t be applied to other circumstances. It has been used many times historically by our country example: The US intervention of Guatemala and the invasion of Grenada. I do agree that modern warfare is not about conquest it will be about natural resources. Case in point is the tiny Falklands now it seams to be an issue again because they have discovered oil. Those in Latin America that complain about the Monroe Doctrine would complain about the United States even if we did not have this document. The fact is through out the world including Russia and China; countries will do what is in their own best interest. By the way if memory serves correctly Europe did not give up their colonies after WWII the United States basically gave them a nudge.

Good article. I disagree with some of the comments and shallow interpretation of the implications of the Monroe’s Doctrine.

Before the end of the Cold War the US – LATAM foreign policy can be defined, , as a more bitter than sweet mix of a few carrots and a lot of sticks. It started with the “altruistic” “America for the Americans” Monroe’s Doctrine (1823) that provided the key ideological and moral framework of the US foreign policy in the region during most of the last century. It aimed to put a hard stop in any European attempt to regain control or intervene in the affairs of its former colonies. Evidently it was used selectively according the US interest. (e.g. in 1982 in the Falklands/Malvinas conflict the Reagan administration obviously took the UK side)

However, and most of time during the following years, the doctrine was abused, misused and misinterpreted (e.g. The Roosevelt's Corollary 1904 giving the right of the US to intervene in cases of flagrant and chronic wrongdoing by a LATAM country) and ended up justifying the right of almost any unilateral intervention over the region.

The full historical list of US involvement is too long to detail but includes every single country in the region: US troops unilateral intervention (e.g. Uruguay 1855, Honduras 1905, Cuba 1906-09, Nicaragua 1921-25, Veracruz, México 1914, Haiti 1915-1934, Panama 1918 and 1989, Guatemala 1920-21, Failed Bay of Pigs Invasion 1961, Dominic Republic 1961, Grenada 1983), the endless list of Dictators, coups, CIA and US private mercenaries (e.g. Nicaragua 1855, Costa Rica 1857, Somozas in Nicaragua 1936-1979, Papa Doc and Baby Doc Duvalier Haiti 1957-86, Arbenz in Guatemala 1954, Batista Cuba 1958, Trujillo Dominican Republic 1961, Goulart Brazil 1964, Allende Chile 1970-73, Nicaragua Iran-Contra Scandal 1981-1986) and a long list of political decisions (e.g. 1903 Roosevelt intervenes to assist Panamanian independence from Colombia, the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty making the US sovereign "in perpetuity" in the ten-mile wide Panama Canal Zone, 1909-12 the Dollar Diplomacy, 1947 the Rio Pact, providing for mutual defense against Communism or more recently the 1996 Helms-Burton Law increasing the economic boycott to Cuba)

In between the sticks, there were a few insufficient sparkles of a more long term cooperative and less self-centered US foreign policy towards the region but most of time they ended up forgotten behind the short term international politics (e.g. 1923 US renounces the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, 1948 Organization of American States, 1961-69 Kennedy's Alliance for Progress aimed to bring reform and development to Latin America, 1977-80 Carter makes human rights a major goal in his Latin American policy or the more promising failed Clinton goal of extending a multilateral free trade agreement in the Americas)

From 1980 and before LATAM was wiped out from the US foreign policy (late 90s onwards), the metaphor of “carrot on a stick” applies even better: “The driver [US] would tie a carrot on a string to a long stick and dangle it in front of the donkey[LATAM], just out of its reach. As the donkey moved forward to get the carrot, it pulled the cart and the driver so that the carrot would always remain out of reach”

In the last 15 years the US Foreign Policy towards the region or better said the lack of it; it’s showing its results. Although the raise of the populist left has its root in the Lost Decade (80’s) the US lack of interest in LATAM has provided the perfect breeding ground for the anti-American left and lately the increasing involvement of China, Russia, Iran and others in the region that are more than happy to take advantage of the economic and geopolitical opportunities that the US has always take it for granted.

One of the most widely used tools in politics to gain votes, to defend “national” interest or pass laws that cannot always be justified is to create a scapegoat and blame the outsider. It happens everywhere, call it communists in the US, terrorists in the western world, Muslim wearing veils in France, burning McDonalds in Pakistan, Danish business in the Arab world, Israel in Iran or Americans in Cuba.

This is particularly enrooted in the LATAM psyche. It’s said that alcoholics have a sudden realization in a "moment of clarity" of the need to change old habits. Sadly this hasn’t happened in LATAM.

Colonial scars especially in large indigenous areas (Mexico, Andean Countries, and Central America), dictators and abusive privilege groups, macroeconomic reforms that exacerbated inequalities and impoverished large segments of the population, corruption, mismanagement and especially very poor governments are some of the real reasons behind LATAM problems.

However, blaming the US or the International Organizations: IMF, World Bank, etc was/is still the easier and most efficient way for populist politicians to get elected and avoid facing the hard cold reality that most of the current problems requires real solutions and have to be solved internally (of course I am not implying that the US or IMF has been benevolent and good either). Only when the effects of “alcohol” have lifted, LATAM will start moving forward.

IMO, understanding this explains in good part why the current raise on the populist left with its anti-American speech. When the US forgot LATAM and the region had to deal with the catastrophic consequences of its own economic mismanagement of the 80s and after, in the 90s, with the very poor social results of consecutive Harvard and the orthodox Chicago School Pedigree presidents from the right, the natural political cause of action was to look for “Messiahs” to perform miracles.

The only thing left for success was to reengage the US as the common “evil” and have an outsider to blame for all the economic and social disasters; but the US was completely disengage with the region, so the only option was to start playing in the international political arena to regain attention. High oil and commodity prices, the raise of China and Russia especially, the Iranian international populist game and the Bush bullying foreign policy in general among others provided the perfect ingredients to sell the US as the common “evil”.

With few exceptions, every election in LATAM became a joke in the last decade. There was no debate on how to solve the real problems just a litany of anti Yankee anti imperialist anti capitalism propaganda.
Sometimes under qualified, incompetent and often corrupt but with a deep grassroot understanding of the social and cultural problems of the poorer, one by one Chavez, Ortegas, Correas, Kirchners, Morales started to consolidate the current political playing field. They keep meeting and creating countless and worthless organizations like the one without the US and Canada proposed last week (LATAM has by far the most regional organizations in the world) to keep the political game. At the end the US is the raison d’être for the populist left. Without it, they will be force to show results without excuses to their constituencies.

Ignoring the region will have a price in the long run (that’s why, for example, the sometimes attractive idea of ignoring Iran can sound good in the short term but may have major repercussion in the long run). The US is already starting to pay the price for the lack of compromise and cooperation with its “backyard”. It won’t be easy to get rid of the increasing influence of China, Russia, India, Iran and others. Big players of the region such as Brazil are taking full advantage of the globalized economy leaving the US outside of the equation. The small countries are happier to accept developing aid and give control of natural resources and major infrastructure project to the “easygoing” Chinese.

The US Anti Drug policy in the region has also proven to be a complete disaster. All the reduction in violence and trafficking in the thug US policy with Colombia (its only faithful and unconditional ally) have transferred and proportionally increased in Mexico, ironically teaching the US how markets and the competitive advantage work.

Lately the only “successful” US achievement has been in migration. But not because the stricter visa controls or the Mexican wall, but because of economic recession has make migration to the US less attractive.

The Obama Administration is not only wasting its political leverage at national level but is wasting a unique opportunity to make a difference in the US – LATAM relations. The average Latin-American “likes” Obama. It doesn’t represent the stereotypical image of a US president. They see Obama promoting free health care, bashing capitalism abuses from the banks, winning a Noble Peace Prize and talking about the environment. These represent direct threats to Chavez style populist anti-US speech.

Giving humanitarian aid to Haiti, the poorest nation in the region and one of the poorest in the word, or providing emergency technical assistance to Chile, one of the richest nations in the region is fine but it doesn’t make any difference in finding a common ground in the US and LATAM relations.

At the moment LATAM is even lower in the list of US priorities. Nevertheless, Obama doesn’t need to do much to make a big impact in the current circumstance. For example, just raising the worthless Cuban embargo (not because Cuba but because of the political implications) will have a massive impact on the political playing field, it will attract allies, and it will tear down on of the most common argument against the US; but I guess Obama lacks the courage and the knowledge of the region or maybe the myopic idea that Florida votes or keeping the status quo in general are worth more in the short term than losing the influence over the entire region in the long run. Time will tell.

jjrvat