A Latin American Spring?

Are we on the verge of a Latin American Spring? Eric Farnsworth, a writer for the Huffington Post, seems to think so in his March 21 article entitled "The Latin American Spring," (see http://tinyurl.com/7llnaae). The pope's visit to Mexico and Cuba this month highlights the globe's focus on the Western Hemisphere. This international spotlight may just be beneficial for everyone. In some ways, this is could be the beginning of an agenda between the US and Latin America that looks to the future, and it is also an opportunity for Latin American countries to show the effects of real leadership in the region. The Pope began his schlep on March 23. In just 3 short days, leaders from Mexico and Canada will converge in Washington for a meeting about trade. Then, Brazil's president will be officially welcomed at the White House, and shortly after, Obama will make his way to the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia. Hilary will be stopping by Brazil for a bit, and then on May 8, leaders from all over the hemisphere will again converge in DC for the Conference on the Americas. To cap it all off, we will be seeing leaders from across the world meeting up in Mexico in June for the G20 meeting and in Brazil for the Rio+20 meeting. These next two months are looking pretty busy for Latin America! What does this all mean for the region? Well, with China moving in and taking advantage of markets and political stability in the region, the US seems to be losing its 'grip' on the hemisphere. The article takes a very pro-US stance, indicating that the US can succeed by shifting the lens through which we view Latin America, from development studies to a more modern international relations approach. The US needs to start working collaboratively with G20 members and Brazil and Mexico about global financing issues, reject protectionism and instead promote trade expansion by bringing other nations, like Costa Rica, Colombia, and Panama into the talks. Energy policy could also be a key strategy to promote relations. After all, Latin America isn't just gonna sit around waiting for the US; rather, the region is on the move, involving partners from Asia, Africa and Europe. While economic conditions may be on the rise, the article notes that "the principle threat to democracy" comes from nations who want to gain power by weakening democracies, the same ones who want to welcome Cuba back into hemispheric relations. But until Cuba gets its act together, it should remain an outlier. While some progress has been achieved in the realm of economics and politics, we would do well to remember that there is progress that has yet to be made.

It is clear that this article takes a very interesting point of view, that is, a very US-centric one. It goes to show you the importance of observing media with a critical eye, as this article demonstrates a point of view that seems to be contrary to what I think other Latin American nations would say. I mean come on, with phrasing like "the fight for open market democracy is never finished" and "Competition is good, but we (US) need to put ourselves in a position to succeed" sort of screams of US neo-imperialistic interests in Latin America. We've been the 'top-dog' for so long, that it seems that we can't handle anything (re: China, Taiwan, Iran, to name a few) that would jeopardize our interests (note, our as in US, we don't seem to care very much for Latin America's interests, other than that they should be aligned with ours), in the region. In my mind, protecting one's interests in a region that has a long past of US imperialistic-like dominance gets a little shady. I'm well aware of political and economic strategy, and I'm not advocating against it. Rather, I think we just need to be transparent about what it is we're doing. Why is it such a big deal if Latin America isn't waiting around for us? So what if China is moving in? Let's cut the crap and be serious about why the US is really concerned about this. Are we in it to promote democracy? Or are we refusing Cuba 'entry' into the hemisphere because we've had a long and nasty history with the country, and we don't want to be friends? And who's kind of democracy are we promoting? We're certainly not endorsing the democracies of Bolivia and Venezuela, yet like it or not Venezuela is a key player in the region. The article talks about the US strategically collaborating with leaders in Latin America, incorporating more countries in on trade agreements, but as a means to what end? I mean, the US has a rather long and nasty legacy in Latin America. It may be a stable region now, but we can hardly take credit for that after our history of financing bloody civil wars in the region. I realize that all this sounds pretty harsh; I assure you, the one thing graduate school will do to you is make you the biggest critic of everything.

I also really liked how the article highlights how many Americans aren't even aware of the new and shifting realities in Latin America. We may know about our awesome vacations in Cancun and Machu Picchu or the war on drugs, but are we aware that Brazil is the world's sixth largest economy (bigger than the UK) and that Mexico is number 14? How about the fact that Brazil and Venezuela are global energy superpowers? You know what I think? I think it's great that Latin America is branching out, seeking partners from across the world and looking inward in some instances (like the Alba partnership) to get things done for themselves. I don't think that collaboration with the US should be taken off the table; that's not only impossible, as we are literally connected, but also imprudent, considering the trade agreements that already exist. However, I think the the time has come for Latin America to show the world what it is made of. The article seems to indicate that the progress that still needs to be achieved is the 'situation' in Cuba. Rather, I think that if Latin American can get a hold of the drug violence and associated corruption that is gripping the region, we could see more definite and positive progress.