Professional Documents
Culture Documents
24, 2010
The Weakening of the Americas
As any high school kid can tell you, for 180 years the Monroe Doctrine has played a large part in
making the USA the economic and political powerhouse we all enjoy. Then the Roosevelt Corollary
(added by Teddy Roosevelt) gave the US the right to intervene militarily in the Americas to stop any
foreign power from gaining influence we didn’t like. 50 years ago all this lead to the Organization of
American States (OAS) with the USA as the chief protector of the all the Central, South and North
American states. There are three ways to get rid of the Monroe Doctrine and the OAS: 1. Allow someone
to bully us out of it like Khrushchev tried in the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2. Change our mind and decide we
no longer want to be a superpower and get Congress to repeal the act, or 3. So alienate those countries
the Monroe Doctrine covers that they decide they no longer want anything to do with us as a protecting
power. Looks like Washington has chosen option number 3.
The new buzz word in Washington, since Bush came into office and carried forward into this
presidency, is that the USA is and should remain the “economic superpower of the 21st Century.” That’s
a subtle change from plain old superpower. Why the switch? Because India and China are not playing
the old arms’ game, they are playing a financial game and, shortly, they may take all the marbles, leaving
us on the outside of the inner circle if we’re not careful. So, money becomes more important than
might.
Over the past 8 years we have so ignored and alienated our South and Central American neighbors
that they have thought of a way to sideline our economic power. This last week, at a meeting in Cancun,
Mexico, the OAS thought up a way to leave the US holding the expensive military option of protection
whilst they break away economically. What they proposed was setting up an economic bloc of countries
excluding the US and Canada made up of everyone else. Why? Because they claim we have used them,
abused their cheap labor, consume tons of drugs which destabilize their impoverished counties, and
always we have chosen our economic interests over theirs.
Who are they? 32 countries, unanimous countries, angry at the good ‘ol USA; there was not one
dissenting vote from countries we have historically been supporting like Mexico, Chile, Ecuador, Panama
and Haiti. The Mexican President Calderon, citing the US’s false promises in 2001 and total failure since
then to implement the much‐ballyhooed NAFTA for their benefit, said, they "must as a priority push for
regional integration... and promote the regional agenda….” For regional read anything south of the
border. Of course, Cuban President Raul Castro and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez expressed their
support for the proposal, Chavez citing it as a move away from US "colonizing" of the region. Putting the
political implications aside, the impact of a sub‐set of the OAS, one that would act economically
autonomously, one in which the US would have no say, is troubling. 35% of our mineral and other
natural products for American industry comes from those countries; materials China would love to get
their hands on. The OAS are, in turn, serious trading partners for American goods. And yet, some dolt at
the State Department claimed this week that the new body would not negatively impact on the OAS or
American interests. Yeah, sure. So, soon they’ll be playing a different game, with different players,
different marbles, and we still think we have a hand in the game?
To make all this worse is a serious problem. The Falklands War in 1982 was Britain versus Argentina,
right? Well, yes and no. The Argentineans asked that the Monroe Doctrine be invoked and for the US to
help repel the British invaders. We declined citing neutrality. And after the British won, we leaked that
we had not stood idly by, but had provided all the satellite and secret intel to help them win (and kill
Argentineans) – win against a member of the OAS we had a treaty to assist. Why is this coming up
again? Because some bright spark company greased the wheels in London and got a permit to start
drilling for oil off the Falklands, claiming to be in British Territorial Waters, waters the Argentineans still
have a claim against in the UN and the World Trade Organization (that is our WTO, we run that
organization). It is quite possible there will be a war in the Falklands again, shortly, and the Argentineans
know, this time, where we stand, making us the treaty‐breakers and potential foe. Oh, good, another
conflict for our over‐stretched military to handle. But I guess we can rest easy, pretending we believe in
a strong Monroe Doctrine, right? Perhaps, but would somebody please wake up the State Department
before we’re caught in another mess?