Parent Figure or Partner?

This week’s chapter from the textbook, “Global Contexts, International Forces”, analyzes the political, social, and economic impacts from outside actors in Latin America, mainly during the 1900’s.  It explains how interference from international actors delayed the process of democratization and stable, independent governments for Latin America: the US supported authoritarian regimes rather than democratic ones to stop communistic and socialist ideals from spreading, economic encouragement such as the suggestions from the Washington Consensus weakened state power (Latin America “faced external pressures and the threat of marginalization” in the late 1980’s, leading to the fact that “policymakers would have fewer resources at their disposal for addressing economic and social problems… the democratic state of the 1990s would be weaker than were authoritarian states of the 1970s and 1980s” (106)), and contentious intervention from international organizations caused conflicts in some countries as they “confronted an unavoidable dilemma: the contradiction between democracy promotion and national sovereignty” (111). Though it cannot be said that there were no genuine intentions to help and better the Latin American region, what I see here is the issue that the US and other international actors have acted more as a parent figure interested in its own agenda rather than a partner concerned with a mutually beneficial relationship.

It is clear that due to this intervention, the US is an argumentative actor among the Latin American people; it should be taken into account what people of these countries feel and if it is outside intervention they want. They shouldn’t be told or pressured into becoming a certain government type or economy; instead, international actors should work with Latin American governments and people to decide on the best course of action for their specific country. Below is a cartoon from a pamphlet made by an umbrella organization in Latin America, which included representatives from indigenous groups, the church, populist groups, and civil rights organizations, and it demonstrates the contempt felt due to the economic subordination the region was under in the 1980s-1990s(to read the pamphlet:  http://polarch.sas.ac.uk/pdf_documents/RealidadSocial.pdf).

(In case it is difficult to see, the fish are labeled as different Latin American countries.)

Still, though the cartoon above was made in the early 1990s, this photo below taken in 2011 in Caracas, Venezuela by Erik Cleves Kristensen (https://www.flickr.com/photos/erikkristensen/6215886122) clearly demonstrates that there are still some people in Latin America upset by US government intervention.  The translation (I apologize if I made a mistake) for the words are: Outside of or away from the imperialism; only the people can save the people.  Also, the rat drawn running off the shoulder of the figure has “traitor” written on it. This perpetuates the ideal that reform and new policies should come from the people and the country itself, not another outside actor imposing its own beliefs and values without consideration for the country at hand.

Unfortunately, it is a difficult subject because it is impossible to know what Latin America would be like without the intervention from international actors, specifically the US government. Would there be so many democracies in the region today? Would there have been more or less human rights violations in the region? Would there be less social and and economic inequality among the people, and more stable governments?  On paper, though the Latin American countries have made impressive movements to democracy and most are electoral democracies today, there are still many issues in society with inequality and violence that lead to civil unrest. It is also a point to make that perhaps capitalist economies and a democratic governments aren’t what all of the Latin American countries truly have wanted, and these have simply been pushed onto them by outside actors.

Yet, we may be able to see what the reality of the absence of the US in Latin America would be like in the upcoming years. Last year, President Barack Obama stated, while at the Seventh Summit of the Americas in Panama City, “the days in which our agenda in this hemisphere presumed that the United States could meddle with impunity, those days are the past” (you can read more about it in this article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-32261550).  In specific regards to Cuba and trying to create better relations with the country and a better situation for its people, he exclaimed: “Not because it’s imposed by us, the United States, but through the tablet and ingenuity and aspiration and the conversation among Cubans, among all walks of life. So they can decide what is the best course of prosperity”.

However, I believe the US will inherently continue to be involved, whether that’s directly or indirectly by its power in international organizations (like the OAS, WHO, UN, IMF, etc).  The role and image of the US as a promoter of democracy and world watchdog protecting human rights will not go away overnight, and neither will its involvement in Latin America. If a balance can be found where the US is not too over-imposing and more worried about its own beliefs and goals rather than those of the country at hand, and if the US listens closely to what the people themselves of Latin American countries want, US and international involvement should still be welcomed. There should be more focus on the social and economic inequalities among the Latin American people, rather than their type of government or ideology the country posses. Furthermore, with an ever-increasing globalized world of inter-connectivity, it would be practically impossible to completely disconnect from a country: thus, a balanced partnership should be found where a mutually beneficial relationship is created. Additionally, this form of intervention by the US and international actors should not be considered bad—to provide different outlooks, recommend certain policies or paths of action, and facilitate political and economical relationships between two countries should be seen as positive. The only issue is when boundaries are crossed from a partner to a parent-figure, where the parent country is ordering around the “child” country and delaying processes and developments, like the delay democratization and stable, independent governments. It should also be kept in mind that capitalist economies and democratic governments may not be exactly what the people want, and it should be up to the individual country to decide, not an imposing outside actor.