US policy towards Latin America after the cold war - Essay Example

U.S. Policy on Latin America In 1947, the Truman Doctrine, unveiled before Congress, forever changed America's foreign policy from an isolationist one to a more active policy of involvement with other countries in order to curb what they perceived as a Communist threat to the world and hence their own democratic stability. The United States fear of communist dominance has a direct bearing on the policy they adopted towards Latin American countries. The Truman policy was directly responsible for establishing the Cold War, and then the focus of the policy was the prevention of the rise of Communism. This has especial relevance in the context of its policy towards Latin America. During the Cold War years, the United States adopted a very aggressive interference in Latin American affairs in its attempt to weed out communism. In the Post Cold War years though, the policy while still against the influence of Communism, has softened considerably and has shifted focus to stabilizing countries democratically and economically - a result of understanding that the spread of Communism arises from poverty and exploitation. The thrust of American policy concerning Latin America can broadly be divided into four areas: democratic stabilization, free trade and the economic opportunities it offers, the immigration problem and the war on drugs. Democratic stabilization is a key focus in America's policy. Originating from the desire to stop the spread of Communism, the U.S.A has, since the Cold war, focused on helping to stabilize democracies, which they feel are better alternatives and which do not threaten the U.S.' own security. A notable example is their support of the Mesa government in Bolivia and Enrique Bolanos' presidency in Nicaragua (Roger Noriega). However, despite the fact that their support for democracy is well intentioned, the failure of the Mesa administration in Bolivia (culminating in his resignation in 2005) highlights the fact that while democracy is a good thing, the U.S. needs to focus also on the effectiveness of the governments they choose to support, and the government's ability to handle the political and economic situation of the country. The U.S. has always publicly stated their support for democratic protestors in Cuba as well, and promised support in the event of a democratic revolution. This sort of heavy handed "Big Brothering" has also caused much resentment as the people of that country feel that the U.S is really disguising its dictatorship in the form of aid. Venezuela's Chavez has vehemently refused to accept any of U.S aid with the inevitable strings attached to it. Stemming from their support of democracy also came the realization that democracies, no matter how well intentioned, could not effectively stabilize a country unless it was economically stable as well. The majority of Latin American countries are impoverished and this is a vital cause of political instability and also revolution. Thus the second focus of policy on increasing Free trade. Free trade would open up economic opportunities and make available goods and services to economically challenged regions without the stifling taxes and tariffs imposed. LatinAmerica has been important to the U.S. in this regard as it is a major importer of American goods and services. Many raw materials are also sourced from the Latin countries. (http://www.wesfryer.com/uslapolicy.html). However protectionism has been a problem with many Latin countries, as well as with America. The grumbles on outsourcing by U.S. politicians have severely affected free trade agreements with Latin countries, and in the case of Mexico stalled the NAFTA act for a while. However the passing of NAFTA, finally meant the lowering of tariffs on many aspects -vehicles, textiles, computers etc. Investment restrictions also eased. By advocating free trade the economic restrictions lessen and the opportunities for growth open up. There is scope for employment and a better standard of life. The U.S. focus on this aspect has therefore also helped them to address another issue; that of immigration from Latin countries. Immigration - mostly illegal- is a problem caused by economic deprivation after all. Illegal immigration, most predominantly from Mexico, has been a challenge for the United States to control. Since immigration stems from the economic deprivation, the U.S. policy on increasing free trade and outsourcing to Latin American countries has helped to stabilize countries economically, open up employment opportunities and therefore reduce illegal immigration. The U.S policy on immigration as a whole though, widened the ceiling in 1952, when the Immigration and Nationality Act dispensed with race as a criterion for citizenship. In the 80's though the ceiling reduced as refugee status for citizenship eligibility was removed. In 1990, the unskilled labour window was limited to 10,000 a year, which affected Latin countries adversely and helped to increase the numbers of illegal immigrants from theses countries. This lay predominantly in the fact that the poverty in many of these countries meant that most immigrants were unskilled. Controlling this by means of increasing free trade was a good policy, however it has also been hampered by the war on drugs. The war on drugs has been a major focus for America, after the Cold War, (http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/latinamerica/). Illicit Drugs from this region have entered the U.S. and been a major social problem for the country. The Clinton and Bush administrations have waged serious policy battles attempting to control the menace, and the focus is on either eradication or interdiction. Eradication programs focus on trying to eliminate the drug crops themselves, by giving incentives to drug farmers to change their crops to non-drug crops like bananas. This approach has failed miserably, simply transferring the drug farming to a different area. The coca crops are too lucrative for incentives to have effect. Interdiction - the seizure of drugs en route to the U.S, by DEA and U.S coast Guards - is also too gigantic a task, to handle effectively. The Clinton and Bush governments have spent billions in anti- drug aid to Colombia, where the Colombia government has tried to offer incentives in eradication programs. However the majority of money there goes to the military, which is used to enforce the eradication programs and help the interdiction process. However it has been well documented that the military approach in Colombia has led to violence and violations of human rights and the military leaders themselves have no wish to halt this very big cash cow. Eradication programs in Colombia, sponsored by the U.S, has also led to the burning of miles of rainforest, thus lowering the biodiversity and severely affecting the environment, leading also to worsening economic and agricultural conditions in the country. In Panama too, the U.S. hunt for drug lord Manuel Noriega nearly wiped out the country and led to the economic and social obliteration of the country. The challenge of U.S. policy in controlling drug control in the country has always been in the methods it uses to enforce the policy as evidenced from their efforts in Colombia; they have succeeded in economically and environmentally depleting the country, and hence the dependence on drugs as an income source becomes even more imperative. The U.S. combines its domestic and foreign policies together which often results in worsening conditions for the country it is trying to aid. The major problem with U.S. policy concerning Latin America is in the methods it employs. Often seen as heavy-handed and dictatorial, the administrations from the Cold War era have in theory a good policy: extending aid to economically stabilize a country and help stabilize democracies is a fundamentally sound way of aiding a country and therefore lowering threats to America's own government. However, the governments they have chosen to support have not always been necessarily good for the Latin American people themselves. This is an inevitable fallout of the fact that the U.S. intertwines domestic affairs with their foreign policy, and therefore their choice of Latin government to support is necessarily one who is friendly towards the States. The U.S therefore is forced to turn a blind eye towards certain human rights violations committed by those governments in the country, or the ineffectiveness of the government. Another problem is the war on drugs which has eroded natural resources and also contributed to the illegal immigration problem. Free trade openings is probably the best of the policies, though within the U.S. itself, there has been increasing unhappiness with what people see as taking American peoples livelihoods away and severe opposition. Nevertheless, free trade is one policy which has helped to increase job opportunities for people. REFERENCES http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/rm/2005/q1/43221.htm roger noriega's address. 2006. http://www.wesfryer.com/uslapolicy.html http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/latinamerica/ Read More