The Great Anglo-Saxon Conspiracy Defeated Again

It's tough to be a native English speaker nowadays. It was bad enough a while back as one French intellectual after another lambasted the great Anglophone conspiracy--only to be followed to the cameras and microphones by a parade of Parisian politicos doing the same.

The Spanish (Socialist) government took up the bash-the-Anglos cudgel late last week. Madrid has blamed their homegrown fiscal crisis on the Anglo-Saxon gang, alleging assorted sinister but unspecified actions undertaken by this secret cabal which have intentionally undermined the solvency of Spain (along with, presumably, the rest of the "PIGS" group.)

Now, the one time colonies of Spain have entered the lists. The thirty-three countries south of the Rio Grande have resolved to form their own Latin America/Caribbean group of nations. Pointedly excluded were the more or less anglophone states of Canada and the US. (It appears that the Spanish and Portuguese speakers of the region were willing to allow Jamaica and other residue of the old British Empire hang around in the new and so far unnamed group.)

The US State Department viewed the move which was spearheaded by Brazil and Mexico with apparent equanimity. Probably the folks at Foggy Bottom were privately pleased that the assorted hotheads of the Lands Down South including Hugo Chavez, Ewo Morales, Raul Castro, and the deathless Ortega brothers didn't try a coup in the now rather stodgy Organization of American States which is a monument to the Good Neighbor policy of FDR and, like many other ideas of that long-ago period has outlived its utility.

Feeling robust as all get out following this slap at the Anglophones, the representatives of Latin America and the Caribbean countries lined up in full-throated support of Argentina in its current dust-up with the UK. Invoking assorted elderly UN resolutions the delegates found the oil exploration underway in the territorial waters of the Falkland Island dependency to be all kinds of icky-poo, a threat to world peace, a slap in the face of the international community, and a gross offense against history.

After working themselves into an appropriately high dudgeon over economic exploitation, the glories of nationalism, and the evils of capitalism, the delegates condemned the UK, applauded Argentina, and called upon the "international community" to stop the theft of Argentinian patrimony. Argentina claimed a great diplomatic victory.

Fer sure, dudes.

Behind the rhetoric is the reality. Argentina is an economic basket case with no immediate end in sight. The government is feeling pressure. And, the pressure is both real and growing, the inevitable legacy of decades of poorly conceived and worse executed experiments in central state socialism under both civilian and military dictatorships.

Buenos Aires wants to be bought off. A goodly percentage of the potential oil revenues would do quite nicely, thank you. Particularly if all the risks of exploration and development are borne by UK and other countries' companies and investors. Just slip Buenos Aires a percentage, say, forty percent, as hush money, and the ancient and quite unsuccessfully prosecuted claim to the Falklands will be extinguished with equal silence.

Brazil, which has large potential oil and natural gas reserves in its exclusive economic zone waters would be happy if Argentina had control (or at least a portion of "the say") over the Falklands' oil. This eventuality would make competition easier to manage. The UK is likely to be more hard headed in its development and marketing of the oil reserves, which would limit Brazil's competitive advantage globally. The relatively less efficient Argentinian approach would be to Brazil's longer term advantage.

The same argument applies to Mexico and Venezuela. Both countries have significant reserves which are less and less efficiently extracted and brought to the international market. Neither country sees any percentage (other than negative) in the Falkland product being sold by the aggressive and efficient companies of the UK (and quite probably) the US. Socialism of either the Mexican or (to a greater extent) the Venezuelan sort cannot hang with the front porch dogs of Anglo-Saxon capitalism. And, both governments know it very well. Better see the Falklands oil fields under Hispanophone control.

While the Obama administration and many in the "Progressive Caucus"of the Democratic Party may think they are ordained to preside over the "graceful decline" of the US, there are few in the American public let alone the American business community who would agree that our best days are long in our past. The US, the West, and the world need oil if for no other reason than it takes time--a lot of time--to bring the nuclear reactors and alternative energy prime movers on line in significant quantity. The oil of the Falklands as well as other already known deposits are necessary to keep the world running as the alternatives are developed.

This means the US has little realistic choice other than supporting the UK in its contretemps with Argentina. It probably does not mean war is looming, but the potential for that undesired option is lowered if the US quickly and firmly plants its flag alongside that of the UK.

Given that it is both welcome and fortuitous that the assorted LatAm and Caribbean states have decided to form an English-free zone, it is better for all parties that the new outfit serve as the forum for the Falkland dispute. Lord knows, nothing will happen outside the realm of talk and posturing.

Meanwhile, the adults of the Anglo-Saxon conspiracy can get on with the job of providing necessary basic resources for the world.

History Is Bunk!

So said one-time industrial icon Henry Ford. Most Americans at the time and today agree with this succinct sentiment. At least implicitly.

The problem comes in that history is very, very real to people in other countries. President Obama found this out again when assorted and sundry LatAm leaders berated him regarding the historical wrongs committed against their countries and people by the United States. Hugo Chavez, of course, upstaged all the others when he presented a Spanish language copy of Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent by the very able Uruguayan historian Eduardo Galeano.

President Obama responded to the ever-so-predictable historical diatribe of Daniel Ortega by remarking that it was nice that the Nicaraguan jefe refrained from blaming him (Obama) for purported wrongs committed by the US when he (Obama) was still wearing three cornered pants. Mr Obama had no comeback quip for the "present" from Chavez who had earlier bluntly stated that the new American president was an "ignoramus" regarding Latin American history. Apparently Obama didn't notice that the bulk of Galeano's monograph dealt with events that occurred before the US came into existence.

Perhaps that oversight came from the fact that for President Obama as for most Americans it matters not if something happened five, or fifty or five hundred years ago. It's all history. It's all the long-dead and thus completely irrelevant past.

This self-defeating rejection of the importance of the past is to be expected in a country where the teaching of history is relegated to a very low priority. All too often high school history is an added duty assigned to one coach or another. In the university, history is typically the captive of the agenda driven mavins of the politically correct who subscribe with few exceptions to the blame-America-first or all-bad-things-come-from-dead-white-guys schools of interpretation.

When such asininity rides supreme it is scarcely remarkable that We the People and the policy makers who allegedly represent us either ignore or discount the trajectories of history which produce contemporary events. The paradox in this understanding arises from the long standing American belief that history is something which happened to other people in other countries but not to us.

This distinctive American view of history as some sort of external force which operates on other societies, other polities but not our own brings with it a very dangerous corollary. We are prompted by this piece of absurd faith to conclude that when the US puts its collective will to the task, its policies will succeed regardless of how history has affected the target society (or, victim country, if you are of the Left.)

With sincerity oozing from every pore, we Americans take the position that given sufficient material inducements the recipient of our generosity will alter its policies or behaviors to meet our requirements. With similar protestations of excellent intentions we hector other countries to emulate us, to be like us, to embrace something called "progress" and leave their past in the dusty bin which is the proper natural habitat of that most impractical and non-utilitarian of creatures--the historian.

When the blandishments of "progress" or material inducements fail to persuade, we tend to chalk the rejection of our efforts to the sheer obstinacy of foreign leaders or the sinister effects of some hostile ideology. We fail to admit that there is even the slightest possibility that history has a very real presence, and an equally genuine power in the minds of the society whose leaders have spurned our good intentions and accompanying rewards.

As we decry the presence and power of history as an intellectual and cultural determinant in other societies, so also do we deny its existence within our own. Or, to err on the side of accuracy, we cherry pick our understandings of history so as to maximise the potency of the most desirable aspects of our past while kicking aside all the deficiencies and difficulties which have been met and overcome during our two plus centuries of corporate existence.

For example, we hawk "democracy" to the world as an instant, semi-magical anodyne for all human ills. By so doing we seem to believe that "democracy" is some sort of political commodity which can be air dropped on a target nation and instantly take effect.

We overlook just how long and hard we Americans have worked to bring democracy and all of the necessary accessories to their present, imperfect state of development. We fail to see and appreciate that democracy grows best when it grows slowly, adapting to the unique requirements of the local soil and climate.

Nearly a century ago President Woodrow Wilson played the role of school teacher to the Mexicans. With a determination to, as he put it, "teach the Mexicans to elect good men," this apostle of peace landed the Marines at Vera Cruz. The resulting several months of American military government did not--could not--teach the Mexicans to elect good men. It did teach a lesson which echoes down to right now: The gringos are interventionist imperialists who are behind everything bad which happens to poor Mexico, the country "so far from God; so close to the United States."

The power of the historical myth built over generations by the Mexican society both elite and hoi polloi along with the longer standing and even more distorted myth of American imperialism in the Mexican War soldiers on today to inhibit effective collaboration for mutual benefit between these two countries fated to be tied by geography as they are separated by disjunctive understandings of common history.

It may be true that the US as portrayed by Cleveland's SecState Richard Olney in a Note to Her Majesty's Government over a century ago "is practically sovereign over this hemisphere." It is certainly true that upon occasion the US has acted as hegemon. From Theodore Roosevelt to H.W. Bush we have intervened at will in Central and South America as well as the Caribbean.

These interventions, whether as overt as landing the Marines or as semi-covert as the support for the "Contras," have been high and spiky mountains dotting a vast and arid plain. Most of the history of US relations with LatAm is one of total American indifference and non-involvement. With the exception of a very few US corporations such as ITT and Anaconda Copper, the US has been so low on the list of countries opening the veins of Latin America as to almost fly below Galeano's radar screen.

Of course, it is the high and spiky hills which attract the eye of historians--and the creators of historical myth. Thus the interventions of all sorts occupy the political landscape to the exclusion of the real history. The history of American disengagement with the Lands to the South.

This reality is precisely why the Obama administration should move rapidly--even without sufficient political cover--to reverse the half-century of the US imposed policy of Cuban isolation. Not only has it failed (which ought to be sufficient reason for its ending) but it feeds the myth of Yankee Imperialism which is the staff of life for Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and their ilk.

There is a larger (and no doubt quite unintended) lesson from the History Teachers of The Summit of the Americas. History is alive and well as a day-to-day presence throughout the world. No matter how much the chattering folk of American academe and other fans of multi-culturalism may wish it otherwise, history and the mythic distortions based on history are part of the air breathed every day in every part of the world outside our borders.

Get a grip on this: It is impossible to formulate and execute effective policy without a well-founded understanding of the actual history as well as the operative historically derived myths at work in other countries.

One cannot, for example, address the conundrums presented by Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, the Mideast without a full appreciation of history and its myths in these regions. The (by Americans) dead hand of history rests very, very heavily upon the shoulder of today in each and every one of these nations.

One cannot, for example, address the threats presented by Islamism and its armed expression, jihadism, without a full and accurate appraisal of the Muslim experience over the past thousand years. Islamism and the conflicts it spawns both internecine and external cannot be countered by ripping it from the historical context which has produced it.

At the same time American policy to be effective must take into account the unique nature of American history and the defining mythology which it has produced. While there may well be no such critter as "American exceptionalism," there is American uniqueness. The uniqueness of our history, which means simply that no American institution can be uprooted and transplanted intact to foreign soil.

The brilliance of George Kennan's Containment Policy resided in its highly insightful understanding not only of Russian history but also that of the United States. It was this accurate foundation which allowed--no, insured--the success of Containment despite its perversion by the overly muscular military focus provided by Kennan's successors. Kennan knew something which has eluded the majority of Americans back then or today--history matters. It matters more than atomic bombs, troops in the field or any other facet of military calculus. It is the ultimate determinate of behavior as it is perceptions.

What is to be done?

Well, we might start by remembering a line from a World War II popular ditty. "We did it before. We can do it again."

To President Obama and the rest of his administration the Geek can only add from the words of the Wandering Sage and Healer, Jesus. "You who have two good ears better listen."

Ghost Of Fidel Haunts Current Administration

The Geek has to wonder if the Commander Guy and the neocon ninnies around him have noticed that Cuba--and the Castro boys--have been slogging on despite our ever present disapproval. He also has to scratch his head over the warning issued today by the CG sternly telling Fidel that the US will not continence his turning power over to little brother Raul.

Hasn't anyone mentioned to the encapsulated Decider that effective transfer of power has already occurred? Isn't that what the National Intelligence Czar is supposed to do? Isn't that one of the reasons the US has an enormous intelligence community?

Or, is the Commander and Decider pursuing some arcane political advantage with the aging expatriate Cuban community in Florida? In the alternative, have some of the nagging neocons with their visions of democracy and free enterprise in action yet undimmed by the dust of Iraq once again gained control of the current administration's decision-making loop?

At the moment, the latter seems probable given the invocation of the march of democracy through Latin America.

Ahh, yes! Democracy in action. Gotta love it.

Democracy brought Hugo Chavez to the presidency of Venezuela. It (aided by Chavez' closing of opposition radio and television stations and a host of questionable election practices) gave birth to the changes in the Venezuelan constitution giving authoritarian powers to the neo-Castroite.

Democracy in action has brought about neo-Castroite regimes in Ecuador and Bolivia.

What does the current administration think? Is it convinced that blowing the same ancient warnings and implied threats will bring about democracy in action in Cuba? Is it somehow convinced that by doing this the results of democracy in action in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia will be rolled back?

The evil synergy of ideology and perceived domestic political gain has powered some of the worst foreign policy errors in US history including the "Who-Lost-China?" debacle which shackled US policy in Asia for decades to say nothing of the forty-eight years of stupidity regarding Cuba.

If the US really wants to constructively engage Cuba, and the three neo-Castroite regimes in South America, it has to change its diplomatic and rhetorical course. Continuation of elderly, long proven to be ineffective postures is not only ideologically blind and intellectually bankrupt, it is counterproductive to the max.

There is nothing hard to understand about that.

Is there?

American national interest in Latin America and the Caribbean basin is furthered by open, authentic dialogue which is free from ideological cant. It requires that the deep thinkers at the policy level have ears as well as mouths.

The governments and peoples of Latin America do not constitute a monolith. Each nation has a different history, varied needs, separate priorities, and, never forget this, a unique, subjectively defined national interest.

Nothing hard to understand about that.

Is there?

Cuba and the Cubans have been living with the consequences both good and bad of the success of the 26th of July Movement for two generations now. There have been no, repeat, no genuine, large scale indications of dissatisfaction. If the Castro boys were the icky-poo repressors of Cuba, coups would have been attempted, insurgent movements would have populated the hills.

This hasn't happened. Even though the US stood ready, willing, and somewhat able to foster and assist wannabe over throwers of the Evil Island Empire as events of the early 1960s demonstrated.

Yes, the internal security establishment in Cuba is pervasive and effective. But, not that effective.

History has shown that no government can be totally effective at total repression over time. For a few years, yes. For a couple or three decades, probably. Day after day for a half century? Not likely.

This implies strongly that the Castro regime has what we Americans like to call the "consent of the governed." That means that most, if not all, Cubans see their regime as possessing either or both existential and functional legitimacy. To Cubans, or at least a critical mass of them, the current regime of the Castro brothers is their government, indigenous, organic, not imposed from without. Further, to the Cuban people, or at least a critical mass, the current regime delivers a satisfactory enough overall quality of life.

Ironically, the existential legitimacy of the Castro regime has been enhanced over time by the unyielding opposition of the United States. Administration after administration has failed to understand that pressure consolidates the political will and cohesion of the target population long before it shatters it.

The Commander Guy's stern speech would assure the overwhelming election of Raul Castro if elections were to take place tomorrow.

(Hint to the Cubans: Why not try it? Why not put the current administration to the ultimate test? Have an election. Go ahead, elect Raul, if that's who you want. Ask Jimmy Carter to monitor the election. That would put the current administration in the put-up or shut-up whipsaw.)

In the spirit of even-handedness, the Geek has a hint for the current administration. (Well, to err on the side of accuracy, two of them.)

Hint number one: Elections are a nice idea perhaps. But, democracy is not a panacea. It never has been. Elections bring good results. They are equally likely to bring bad ones. Elections can be and often are shams. They have no inherent white magic. So, current administration, quit pandering to a myth. Ask yourselves, what are we going to do if Raul or someone else like him wins an election in Cuba?

Hint number two: (Pay attention now, this is a several step hint.) Great Powers--like the United States--have long term national interests which are best served by a world order which is stable, predictable, and manageable over time.

Long term interests, history shows, are not, repeat, not served by hectoring another country. Neither are they served by attempting to export our systems and the myths that support them by coercive methods.

History also shows (in Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, the Philippines among others) that the long term stability so needed by a Great Power is not served by supporting or fostering tin plated dictators who promise short duration order.

Finally, history shows beyond even the irrational doubts of neocon ninnies that the greatest of Great Powers can have meaningful impact upon another country's social and political institutions only by working with the organic, indigenous trajectories which have developed within that country. The changes within a society or polity have both direction and inertia.

The inertia of human myths, beliefs, institutions is greater than any in the physical world. Get a grip on that.

The trajectories of the Cuban people cannot and will not be changed by stern words out of Washington. Fidel knows that. As a result, he rejected the words even before they were officially uttered.

Unfortunately for us the Commander Guy isn't is smart as the aging, ailing Cuban.

The US--An Inconsistant Neighbor

Over one hundred fifty years ago the United States made its first venture into Latin American foreign policy with the Monroe Doctrine. At the time the British Foreign Minister scoffed at "the Yankee cockboat trailing in the wake of the British frigate."

He was right. Just not quite right enough.

A cursory examination of US-Latin American relations shows that the enormous mass of land and people south of us is at best a very small dingy bobbing in the wake of larger foreign policy concerns. For that matter the UK, Spain, Italy, and, on occasion, Germany have placed one or more of the many countries of South and Central America far higher on the to-do list than has the US.

South and Central America only sporadically drift through Washington's crosshairs. Normally these occur during war or the threat of war (usually seen as a potential abridgement of the Monroe Doctrine, construed broadly.) Every now and then Washington wakes up from its seemingly endless siesta to cough out a new direction in our relations with the land to the south.

Secretary of State Olney's "sixteen inch gun" memorandum which provoked a tad of saber rattling in Great Britain was an early example of the Monroe Doctrine's impact on our view of South America. More famous and long term in its effect was Theodore Roosevelt's Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which went hand in hand with the need to protect the seaward approaches to the Panama Canal.

(Completeness of the historical record requires the Geek to note that TR fabricated the "revolt" which created Panama from the body of Columbia. In large measure, TR did this because of apprehension within portions of the Progressive Internationalists about the prospect of Germany moving to build a trans-isthmian canal. The Monroe Doctrine shook like half congealed jello over that prospect.)

The Roosevelt Corollary led to the stability oriented occupations of the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Nicaragua. These interventions were seen as required by the Monroe Doctrine and US interests at the time. Hindsight both in the US and Latin America strongly questioned the wisdom and the long term effects of our efforts in the construction of democracy.

The Monroe Doctrine was shrugged off and Uncle Sam woke from a nap of benign neglect with the creation of the Good Neighbor Policy during the administration of Franklin Roosevelt. One effect of this "new direction" was the formation of the Rio Pact and the concomitant creation of the Organization of American States.

The potential of the Good Neighbor Policy (if any) was prevented from full development by World War II. Whether mentioned by name or not, the Ghost of President Monroe rose from the grave with a speed that would do Dracula proud as the US sought bases, provided weapons, and enlisted allies in the Great Crusade in Europe.

The Cold War kept the Monroe Doctrine stalking the hemisphere with policy implications for the region that were not always positive. The US administrations and congresses were eager to confuse the appearance of short-term order under a repressive government with the reality of long-term stability.

The intellectual and realpolitik bankruptcy of reflexive support for repressive regimes was brought home dramatically with the success (in largest measure assured by a single critical decision by President Eisenhower) of the 26th of July Movement headed by Fidel Castro. Shortly thereafter the long dictatorship of Trujillo was ended in the Dominican Republic, but not in a way that met either the best interests of the Dominican people or US policy.

In between the success of Castro and the fall of Trujillo, the US tried yet another "new direction" in Latin American policy. The Kennedy Administration brought forth, in a typical blare of Camelot Era hype, something called the Alliance For Progress, which promised all sorts of economic goodies for our neighbors to the south.

The potential (if any) of the Alliance was never realised as Congress and the Johnson Administration saw higher priorities in the War on Poverty and the War in Vietnam. Latin America, with the exception of that ever present US bete noir, Cuba, faded into the background.

The Ghost of President Monroe went back to the crypt with only occasional appearances as in the Nixon "two track" strategy in Chile. Or Ronald Reagan's adventures in counterinsurgency and regime change in El Salvador and Nicaragua. The lesson was simple: A whiff of Marx brings Monroe out of the pine box.

In more recent years we Americans have been quite content to pull our metaphorical sombreros down over our eyes and sleep. Every now and then the sound of gunfire in the War on Drugs (a war that does not involve the Spirit of James Monroe) rouses us to send lawyers, guns, and money to governments who promise to use them to rout out and kill drug thugs.

After a few years though even the War on Drugs became repetitious and boring enough so that we fell back into a dozing daze. What the hey! There was all that nifty Arab terrorist stuff.

And, didn't you hear? The Soviet Union is kaput! Communism is dead. Unless there is a connection with Iran or al-Qaeda, the Ghost of Monroe can rest in peace forevermore.

The Geek is all for letting the Monroe Doctrine slumber. He is not all for ignoring the swath of the globe down south of the Rio Grande del Norte.

Consider Hugo Chavez, the neo-Castroite jefe of Venezuela. While the current administration has been focused on the Global War on Terrorism and Great Adventures in Regime Change, something quite unpleasant to our current and future national interest has been underway down very far south of the border.

While Sr Chavez might have originally come into office in a properly democratic election, his more recent record (including the attempted recall vote which Chavez won in a disputable election) shows him to be a man for whom the democratic process is a disposable tool.

The Geek is not going to offer an assessment of Chavez' potential as a benevolent despot beyond noting with interest the outflow of the Venezuelan middle class to nearby countries such as Panama. There must be a reason, a good reason, for these established folks to be taking the next stage out of Dodge.

Far under the radar of the mainstream media and the neocon ninnies alike, Sr Chavez has been busy. Oh, the Geek doesn't simply mean with such mundane internal matters as suppressing freedom of the electronic media or nationalizing the odd oil firm or two. Mere bagatelles those. Hardly worth tipping the sombrero back off the eyes.

No, what the Geek is referring to is how the beaver-busy Chavez has been cultivating his regional garden. Beyond establishing tighter and tighter ties with his fellow-travelling leaders in Ecuador and Bolivia, Sr Chavez has been using his personal charisma and lots of oil money to establish connections in Columbia and elsewhere in the continent. (Of course Sr Chavez' affections for and ties with Castro's Cuba require no comment.)

Sr Chavez has not been ignoring the larger world either. Iran has increasingly cozy relations with Venezuela.

And, why not, the Geek asks. The two regimes have several features in common. Both have beaucoup oil money. Both detest the United States. Both have the policy interest and desire to defeat the US whenever and where ever possible.

Under Chavez, Venezuela has been sidling closer to other hostile states such as North Korea and Syria. Nor has the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry been indifferent to the potentials of closer relations with the Peoples' Republic of China.

Perhaps with these considerations in play, the current administration (or its successor) will be tempted to re-awaken the Ghost of Monroe. Or, more optimistically, the US will rouse from its most recent fit of absentmindedness regarding South America and seek yet another "new direction."

One strong contender for the next new direction is the creation of yet more free-trade zones in the manner of NAFTA or its Central American equivalent--the one which Costa Rica by a narrow margin of votes chose to join last weekend.

Liberals and trans-national corporations (the strangest of strange bed mates) have a seemingly bottomless faith in the power of free-trade to counter all the icky-poo things that go bump in the foreign policy night. Progressives and true conservatives (another passingly weird political alliance) do not share this belief.

(The Geek is officially an agnostic on the question since not enough time has elapsed for a genuine historical trajectory to have emerged. Still, he shudders every time he passes the local Walmart and thinks about the implications of its Adventure in Globalization.)

History demonstrates convincingly that the US has never been either a good or a bad neighbor to South America. It shows instead that the US has been the most inconsistent of neighbors.

History also demonstrates beyond even the most unreasonable doubt that the worst sort of foreign policy is an inconsistent one.

We have to get a grip on that reality. And change it. Or, suffer the consequences of sleeping at the switch.