U.S.-Latin America: The Intersection of Trade and Security

[Joanne98]

There has never been a time in U.S. history when the nation's security and trade policies were not linked. The nation's status as a superpower on the world stage derives from both its $14 trillion economy and its unsurpassable military might. In attaining U.S. global objectives, if the military is the stick, the market is the carrot—and sometimes also the stick.

Although this relationship has been a constant in Latin America since the Monroe Doctrine, rarely have trade and security been as explicitly linked in a single foreign policy grand plan as in the Bush National Security Strategy of 2002. Although better known for formulating the change from containment to pre-emptive war and regime change, the document dedicates an entire chapter to positing a fundamental relationship between free markets and U.S. national security. Chapter VI, entitled "Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade" begins by assuming a causal chain between the free trade model, economic growth and prosperity, and national security.

The Bush administration has consistently affirmed and repeated this doctrine throughout subsequent years. The strategy argues that free trade and free markets lead to economic growth, poverty alleviation, and higher incomes, thus building more stable world partners. It also goes further to equate free markets with freedom in general, by including the establishment of market-based economies as part of American values to be spread throughout the world to 'defend, preserve, and extend our national security.'
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5148

[Peace Patriot]

1. The trouble with this article (and I've only read the excerpt thus far) is that it

accepts and uses "military-industrial complex" euphemisms, that, in reality, mean the opposite of what they seem to mean--such as "national security." What the Bushites have, in truth, created is great national INsecurity. Their chief strategy for looting and pillage is "chaos = opportunity." Look at Iraq. Look at Katrina. Look at the U.S. after 9/11. Look at what they've tried to do in South America--their entire policy in South America is based on DE-STABILIZING democratic governments and PREVENTING the free choices of the people on trade policy, on economic integration and, of course, on social justice. They've supported and instigated coup attempts, and phony rightwing "riots," and a crippling oil professionals' strike, and are currently working on fomenting a civil war in Bolivia, and have for some time been directly funding the slaughter of thousands of union leaders, small peasant farmers, political leftists, human rights workers and journalists in Colombia. Their "war on drugs" ENCOURAGES big drugs/weapons trafficking and lawlessness. The Bushites BREED and FEED ON insecurity--here, and elsewhere.

And look even at the U.S. military, and "national security" here at home. The U.S. military has been nearly destroyed by the Iraq War. It can barely handle the burdens that have been placed on it. The stop-loss policy, the massive looting of the war budget by out-of-control Bushite contractors, the torture policy--it all seems positively aimed at destroying our national defense. Our domestic security has been gravely compromised by a number of things, including utter malfeasance in airline security, but also by the hijacking of our National Guards, and police and emergency personnel, for duty in Iraq. And is Iraq even secure? Jeez. NOTHING is secure!

So, when the article discusses the welding of "national security" with "free trade," it can lull you into following this warped logic, because the terms are so inaccurate, and out-of-sync with reality. "National security" = national INsecurity. (And you just have to listen to Bushites to know this is true--all they talk about is fear and terror. They have no concept of "national security." To them it means the opposite--making us feel fearful and INsecure.) And the same is true of "free trade." Free trade = highly controlled MONOPOLISTIC trade. Trade with NO CHOICES. IMPOSED trade.

It would be an interesting exercise to go back through this article and substitute the real words for the euphemims. In fact I'm going to give a try.

[Peace Patriot]

2. U.S.-Latin America: The Intersection of (Monopolistic) Trade and (In)security

There has never been a time in U.S. history when the nation's insecurity and monopolistic trade policies were not linked. The nation's status as a superpower on the world stage derives from both its $14 trillion economy and its unsurpassable military might. In attaining U.S. global objectives, if the military is the stick (for creating insecurity), the (monopolistic) market is the carrot—and sometimes also the stick.

Although this relationship has been a constant in Latin America since the Monroe Doctrine, rarely have monopolistic trade and insecurity been as explicitly linked in a single foreign policy grand plan as in the Bush National Insecurity Strategy of 2002. Although better known for formulating the change from (violent military) containment to pre-emptive (slaughter) and regime change (at the cost of 1.2 MILLION lives), the document dedicates an entire chapter to positing a fundamental relationship between monopolistic unfree markets and U.S. national insecurity. Chapter VI, entitled "Ignite a New Era of Global Economic (Looting) through (Monopolistic) unFree Markets and unFree Trade" begins by assuming a causal chain between the monopolistic unfree trade model, economic (looting) and prosperity (for the few), and national insecurity.

The Bush administration has consistently affirmed and repeated this (putrid, psyops) doctrine throughout subsequent years. The strategy argues that monopolistic unfree trade and monopolistic unfree markets lead to (unfettered economic looting, especially of the poor), and higher incomes (for the rich), thus building more unstable world partners (who are easier to exploit). It also goes further to equate monopolistic unfree markets with freedom (for the rich) in general, by including the establishment of monopolistic market-based economies as part of American values to be spread throughout the world to 'defend, preserve, and extend our national insecurity.'...

------------

Fun, huh? I'll have to work on this idea as a parody--a way of showing how things really are. (And I'll read the rest of the article to see if they can overcome their use of Bushite euphemisms. Sometimes overly polite writers--academics, those who want grants, or publication in Foreign Affairs magazine, etc.--defeat what may be a good purpose by their failure to examine terms like "national security." Another twister is "the Defense Department." When was the last time that the "Defense" Department actually defended us? They couldn't even defend us on 9/11! They didn't even try. They are the War Department.)

[Peace Patriot]

3. Well, here's an example of the author re-framing a euphism in a good way...

"Throughout Latin America, criticism of the NAFTA model has grown over the past decade and a half, erupting into violence on occasion. Five Peruvian farmers were killed in uprisings following passage of the U.S.-Peru FTA, and in Guatemala a protestor was killed during a demonstration against CAFTA and enabling legislation. Although there is no clear line between the impact of FTAs and previous economic liberalization, privatization, and restructuring programs, opposition to the U.S. trade and investment model has left its mark on regional politics. FTAs were a factor in unseating cabinet members in Ecuador and Bolivia and bringing center-left candidates to power there, as well as in the contested razor-thin defeat of center-left candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador in Mexico's 2006 elections." --Carlsen (emphasis added)

-----

I don't mean to dis this author (Laura Carlsen). She's making a good point, and slowly building her argument. I just grow impatient with the neutral language of academia--and the repetition of government and global corporate predator terms without any questioning of them. But her use of "center-left," above, jumped out at me as a re-framing of terms, and a praiseworthy one. I've gotten into the habit of using "leftist" to describe leaders like Chavez, Morales and Correa--just like the Associated Pukes (who always describe them as "the leftist president of...," but never describe, say, Bush, as "the rightwing president of the U.S."). "Leftist" is a loaded word. And if you examine the term "leftist" in relation to these leaders, you find that they are not all that radical. In Europe, they would be mainstream. It is only on the very skewed U.S. corporate news monopoly political spectrum that universal health care, equal access to education, national sovereignty over basic resources (oil, forests, water, energy, transportation), food self-sufficiency, and other such basic government responsibilities, are considered "leftist." Furthermore, these leaders represent the MAJORITY. They have all been elected in transparent elections with good citizen participation. So where is the "center" of the political spectrum of the country?

I like this--"center-left"-- and I'm going to use it from now on. It is, in fact, the most accurate description of these leaders. Carlsen has obviously done some thinking about this--and I'll forgive her a lot because of it. Her article is certainly worth reading. She makes some good points in the latter half of the article, but again falls prey to Bushite charactizeration, terms and euphemisms. Although she treads carefully, you come away with the impression that Hugo Chavez and Venezuela are some sort of threat to the U.S. They are a threat to Exxon Mobil profiteering, certainly. But they are no threat to the rest of us--and are, in fact, one of the models we should be looking at to restore our own democracy. Here's her last paragraph, and an example of what I mean:

"Within this debate there are two opposite ways of viewing the security implications of trade policy. One is the current perspective that free trade leads to free societies and shared interests based on democracy, open markets, and defense against common threats. Another is that modifying the NAFTA model to conserve jobs in the United States and allow greater latitude for national development policies in Latin America could forge a wider U.S. consensus on trade policy, increase security, and improve international relations. Economic policy instruments to decrease social inequality could be especially effective in countering the non-traditional security threats that are on the rise in the region." --Carlsen (emphasis added)

What the hell does that mean--"non-traditional security threats"? The threat to our way of life of poor people getting an education? Free health care?

Latin America presents NO threat to us--none! Traditional or "non-traditional." You hear of any Mexican migrant workers blowing up anything in the U.S. out of anger at U.S. "neo-liberal" ruination of their economy? Latin Americans and North Americans are not at war! It is only Bushites and "war on drugs" profiteers and global corporate predators who are trying to make it that way--who are trying to create hostility where there is none.

The article does point to something that I've been thinking about, which is this: What a powerhouse the western hemisphere would be if the U.S. would just JOIN FORCES with the Bolivarian Revolution, rid ourselves of corporate predators, and present a common front to the world of social justice, democracy, cooperation and the "greening" of the world economy? The Bushites have fucked up this potential hemisphere-wide alliance (as have the Clintons and other DLC-ers, in their short-sightedness and corporate toadyism). It's sad. It's damned sad. And I hope that, somehow, it can be reversed.