On Point: The Reemergence of the Left in Latin America
Hugo Chavez,
the brash president of Venezuela, has made waves by repeatedly speaking
out against Western influence in his country and Latin America. Many
have speculated that he's establishing himself as the leader of a
reemerging left wing in Latin America not seen since the rise of Fidel
Castro. They speak of grave implications for U.S. foreign policy, but as
Adjunct Professor of Political Science Emily Acevedo,
an expert in international relations and Latin American political and
economic development, explains, that's not the whole story.
On Chavez
Chavez is an easy target for the U.S.
because he fits right into the simplistic idea that you’re either good
or bad, with us or against us. He just notified foreign companies that
they’re going to have to start paying a tax on their oil within
Venezuela and he’s putting a lot of pressure on all foreigners by saying
they’ve benefited more than the people of Venezuela.
On Chavez as Robin Hood
He’s a populist president who’s running
on the Robin Hood theory, take from the rich and give to the poor.
That’s not a sustainable policy. He has raised a legitimate point – that
Latin America should become more interdependent and not so reliant on
the West – but he is not Democratic because he’s taking away some of the
rights of the rich and foreigners. Eventually, that will hurt Venezuela,
and I don’t think he has a solution.
On the Real Left
Chavez is not representative of the
leftist movement in the rest of Latin America though. Other leaders like
President Ricardo Lagos of Chile and President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva
of Brazil, and other countries like Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Mexico,
they’re mostly concerned with the lack of societal changes – issues like
social justice, unemployment, and inflation. The election of leftist
governments in Latin America has more to do with the frustration over
lackadaisical reforms both politically and economically, and the
inability of right-wing governments to engender economic development.
On the Castro Question
People hear about the reemergence of a
left in Latin America and they automatically think Castro. Castro
doesn’t even count anymore. His idea of government is not even viable
and these leaders have no interest in following in his footsteps. I
typify this new crop of leaders as social Democrats, not leftist
radicals.
On the United States’ Narrow View
We’re taking a very narrow view of Latin
America and this new left – you’re either with us or against us, for
Democracy or against it. But sometimes, we contradict ourselves. For
example, we recently told Mexico they had to abide by a 1944 treaty to
share fresh water along the border, but then we turned around and did
not follow the Vienna Convention on Counselor Relations. Under the
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the UN's International Court of
Justice intervenes to determine if these rights have been violated. The
Court ruled that 51 convictions did not receive a fair trial and were
not told of their right to speak to a Mexican consular official. Instead
of the United States conceding to the Court's ruling, the United States
simply removed itself from the Court's jurisdiction. It’s like we are
saying, ‘you have to follow the rules, but we
don’t have to.’
On the Democracy Card
The U.S. is using the democracy angle a
lot. We’re saying some leaders are not for democracy and thus are not
good leaders. It’s a very good angle if we abide by it ourselves. But
that means helping these countries, even if there is a regime in power
that may not help U.S. interests all the time. You can’t push for
democracy if you won’t go along with it just because you don’t like the
outcome. We’re using bullying tactics, giving ultimatums instead of
providing a forum
where everyone can present their ideas. Our response to the Rome
Agreement is one example. Under the agreement, U.S. soldiers and other
citizens could be tried for human rights crimes under the International
Criminal Court. Congress rejected this proposal and prohibited
financial assistance to any country that would not sanction the Article
98 agreement, which essentially secures U.S. citizens from any
prosecution for acts committed in that country. As of July 2003, many
Latin American countries have had their aid suspended, and in some
cases, like Ecuador and Paraguay, it would have gone to help combat
corruption and strengthen democratic institutions.
On Economics or Democracy
The main question is, are we truly
interested in
pursuing democracy in Latin America or are we trying to secure our
economic interests? If it’s the latter, without fail, democracy falls to
the side.
On the Future
I
don’t believe that the U.S. is that naïve to think Chavez is the next
tide of change in Latin America. We’ve lumped Castro and Chavez together
in the same bunch, and I think that’s strategic as a message of caution
to other leaders of Latin America. But I don’t think it’s working. I
think it’s a failed attempt to create division in Latin America. It’s
failed because these other leaders aren’t looking to Chavez as a guide
in the first place. Instead of making these sweeping claims and looking
at who is in power, I think we need to look at why they
are in power. Only then will we start to get somewhere. |
