The Yanquis Went Home

INSERT DESCRIPTION

Today’s idea: Say adiós to the Monroe Doctrine, under which Washington long called the shots in its own backyard. “For the first time in centuries, the United States doesn’t seem to care much what happens in Latin America.”

DESCRIPTION President James Monroe, of the 1823 doctrine that bears his name.

Latin America | America’s retreat from the Monroe Doctrine began even before the Obama administration decided to sit on its hands in Honduras’s continuing leadership crisis, writes Jorge G. Castañeda in The New Republic. It started with the end of the cold war: The absence of a global rivalry with Soviet Communism sharpened the question of just what were the United States’ national interests in Latin America.

And the answer seems to be: many fewer now. Sure, there are trade accords, immigration worries and the odd military or antidrug collaboration. But since the first President Bush’s invasion of Panama in 1989, there have been “no unilateral military interventions, no coup plots or new embargoes, not even the propping up of decaying regimes.”

Now, “a strange and centrist hemispheric consensus has emerged in support of U.S. indifference,” Castañeda writes, “unless things get nasty.”

“With the rise of Chavismo” — the anti-Americanism of President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela — “it isn’t always possible to see the salutary benefits from this new U.S. policy,” he writes. “But they are tangible. It has grown increasingly difficult for certain regimes to blame Washington for their failures.” [The New Republic]

More Recommended Reading:

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Larry Eisenberg January 6, 2010 · 7:50 am

Through this dark cloud there shines one ray,
No more Augusto Pinochet,
Our one time choice,
A long gone voice,
Chile now chooses its own way.

Same auld same auld. January 6, 2010 · 7:59 am

Obama’s regime can certainly blame Washington for its failures.

George W. Murray January 6, 2010 · 8:10 am

Articles like these are proof of the outstanding levels of ignorance that pervade the commie staff at the NYT. The same bunch of desk pilots, who wouldn’t know the difference between a problem and an inconvenience let alone freedom and tyranny.

S/F George W. Murray LtCol USMC(ret)

Alejandro January 6, 2010 · 8:46 am

“No coup plots” since Bush I?

According to The Observer newspaper (UK), Bush II administration officials were involved in plotting the 2002 coup in Venezuela.
//www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela

AG January 6, 2010 · 8:54 am

@LtCol Murray

WOW, what an insightful analysis of the US’s historical role in Latin America. I’d bet my life you’ve never been south of the border for anything other than a resort vacation.

What tyranny do you see in Latin America that the US military could play a constructive role in overturning, rather than arming and training? And why, given the myriad of problems currently facing the US, including illegal immigration from Latin America which EXPLODED under the decade of war in Central America supported by the US, would anyone with 1/10th of a brain want to get involved in that mess?

Typical right wing ideologue – show up, call everyone unpatriotic, recommend some sort of tough guy action and then leave the clean up to the rest of us, at taxpayer expense.

Jim January 6, 2010 · 8:59 am

Well, it’s a decidedly mixed blessing. What this line of thinking fails to take into account is the draw of that vacuum on Iran and other deeply hostile powers. After all, al-Qaeda has helped with some very nasty bombings in South America in the past two decades. Both Iran and al-Qaeda share a desire to wipe out Jews wherever they find them. I’m not Jewish, but such terror can’t be good for Hispanic or Anglo societies in this hemisphere.

That is to say that benign neglect is proving as dangerous as active meddling once was. We need to engage Hispanic nations constructively and multi-laterally before it’s too late.

Frank January 6, 2010 · 9:16 am

“no coup plots”? Really. I seem to remember a failed coup d’état on 11 April 2002 that lasted 47 hours, whereby President Chávez was illegally detained, the National Assembly and the Supreme Court dissolved, and the country’s Constitution declared void.

The United States quickly acknowledged the de facto pro-US government, then ended up condemning the coup after it had been defeated. Bush Administration officials acknowledged meeting with the planners of the coup in the several weeks prior to 11 April, but denied encouraging the coup itself.
Right.

David Jones January 6, 2010 · 9:18 am

Better brush off that doctrine. Mexico is about to explode and land us with a guerrilla war on our southern border. It’ll make Iraq and Afghanistan look like a sideshow.

Michael B Reilly January 6, 2010 · 9:27 am

The problems of Latin America lie mostly in economics, the haves and the have nots. Many power struggles within the successive regimes have been primarily over power and the control of natural resources. Our intervention in the internal politics of South American countries has produced mixed results, in some cases benefiting, in some cases exacerbating the issues, the results have been directly tied to the basic understanding of the particular country and it’s internal dynamics by the administration at the time.
Since the end of the cold war we have chosen to let Latin American countries sort out their own problems for the most part, generally those countries have found their own path to political and economic stability, with monetary support from the American government. The political structure in those countries varies widely as does the cultural and economic situation from which they arise, our “hands off” approach has forced them to focus internally in placing responsibility for the shortcomings of their successive governments. By removing the United States as the focus of their ire we have forced them to be self reliant and not look elsewhere for answers, this is an important step in the maturing process of any democracy, most have succeeded, some have not, as in the case of Venezuela. The wish for a utopian socialist state left the door open for a populist windbag, the failure by previous governments to convert the influx of oil money into real progress for the economy there set the stage. His days are numbered, his failed fiscal policies and the deteriorating living conditions will outweigh all the macho posturing and finger pointing, he can’t blame the US for the garbage piling up in the streets or power outages, Chavez’s own incompetence will do him in, no military action required, we just need to quietly point out his failures.He is the last vestige of the failed Communist populist dream in Latin America, the last Cuban puppet, his own failures will do him in, it will also shine the light on the dying fits and rants of the Cuban Communist dream and it’s lack of validity in the age of information.

JBinDenver January 6, 2010 · 9:37 am

It’s time for America to focus on America and stop trying to be everything to all nations. We have people in this country without homes, without jobs, without medical care, and without food – yet we continue to send hundreds of millions of dollars to dictators, corrupt politicians in foreign countries and spending billions more to fight wars while our sons and daughters die for these corrupt countries.

It’s time America pulls back and takes care of it’s own.

TG January 6, 2010 · 9:46 am

“But they are tangible. It has grown increasingly difficult for certain regimes to blame Washington for their failures.”

Washington rewards failure. Bush got a 2nd term. Obama payed off the very bankers that caused the economic crisis. And, they both fought failed wars , killing millions, with no consequences.

Wasting Time January 6, 2010 · 9:48 am

Just like Poland is ‘protected’ by her Russian friends
The junta is ‘assisted’ by Americans
And if 60 million dollars seems too much to spend
in El Salvador

They say for half a billion they could do it right
Bomb all day, burn all night
Until there’s not a living thing upright
in El Salvador

Our earlier, interventionist tactics not only didn’t do any good but actually caused much damage – to the people who suffered as a result of U.S. policy and to our own image. We managed to back the wrong side every time and made everyone regard the U.S. as repressive and unscrupulous. Keep backing the repressive, right-wing regimes and you get…bloody wars that kill millions of innocent civilians, right-wing repressive regimes, and hatred of the U.S.

All countries, not just the U.S., should step in to prevent genocide, but otherwise, stay out of it. Let the Venezuelans deal with Chavez. He is their problem.

Jonathan Katz January 6, 2010 · 10:14 am

The Monroe Doctrine wasn’t about US influence in Latin America. It was about the US shielding Latin America (specifically, the newly independent countries) from European meddling and threats to their independence.

Rilke January 6, 2010 · 10:37 am

Does the NY Times write its own articles anymore or does it just quote from others now?

Shirley January 6, 2010 · 10:40 am

The main problem with Latin America is the same as the main problem in the rest of the Third World: overpopulation! The people, whether from poverty, ignorance, or religion, continue having more children than their economies can support. The excess all too often gets dumped across our border! They take our jobs, drive down wages and benefits, overload our schools, and absorb social services meant for Americans.

We need to bring our troops home from the Middle East and station them all along our southern border (haven’t seen any huge numbers of illegal aliens coming from Canada). Let them protect THIS country for a change!

Why can’t we have a national referendum on immigration? Let the American people (US citizens only, of course) vote on just how much immigration we are willing to continue having. Even a non-binding referendum would at least let the elected officials of each state know exactly what their constituents (those who bother to vote) want to do. A side benefit: such a referendum would almost certainly bring in large numbers of voters who might otherwise stay home that day.

Robert Marino January 6, 2010 · 4:18 pm

We lorded it over banana republics
until we became one, too.
We lorded it over the third world
— and now we cry “boo-hoo”.

We laughed at their worthless currencies
– their “pesos” (or whatchamacallits) –
until we discovered how worthless was
the stuff in our very own wallets!

So, here’s to you, James Monroe,
and your lording it over your neighbors.
We’re not the slightest bit better off
for all your blasted labors!

Wasting Time January 7, 2010 · 6:58 am

Jonathan Katz is right about the original purpose of the Monroe Doctrine. However, it was the historical foundation of the Roosevelt Corollary, which had nothing whatsoever to do with European influence over these countries. The ostensible purpose was to assure that they could pay their foreign debt. How you untangle the installation of dictators to assure political stability (look how that turned out) to assure financial stability – oh, and at the same time defeating those scary communists – is beyond me.

So it isn’t really the Monroe Doctrine that is gone. It is the Doctrine’s progeny, some bad distortions and abuses of the doctrine, that are gone.

eDDie B January 7, 2010 · 12:45 pm

Unfortunately, in Latin America there are very few countries that have prospered, you can count them with one hand; Chile, Brazil, maybe Colombia, maybe Costa Rica, and Uruguay.
These countries have prospered because of their embrace of open trade, transparency in corruption, and cooperation with America. They don’t need to be our puppets, but they need to understand that this country is highly successful because of the qualities that we have historically embraced.
We have to pay attention to Latin America, we need to nurture good policies because the failure of their states will mean more illegal immigration to the US (case in point, Mexico), unfortunately Shirley is misguided, there is no way we can contain immigration with troops, the reason why we don’t need them in Canada is because Canada is a successful country.
What happened in Mexico in the last 20 years? Results of Nafta, the take over of private oil businesses, and the rise of narco terrorism has driven many Mexicans accross the border, let’s hope that Calderon can continue to improve that country.
At the end of the day, we are forced to engage, and the failure of rampant thieves like Chavez will be our best propaganda tool.

Johnnye January 10, 2010 · 7:35 pm

Power abhors a vacuum. Chine and Iran are showing interest in Latin America.

Maxim January 28, 2010 · 10:49 am

Contrary to the view of this article, the U.S. does indeed continue to seek ways to exert commercial and military influence in this region.

In Colombia alone the U.S. has spent US$6 billion since 2003 on the PLAN Colombia, and under Obama is increasing the US military and strategic presence on their soil. Sen. Lugar has introduced legislation to increase our economic influence in the Southern Cone. Former Deputy Asst Sec of the Commerce Dept has proposed a plan for increasing our economic interest in Latin America.

The fact is, t there is a great deal of evidence that demonstrates our current interventionist and exploitive intentions in Latin America.

It may have escaped the attention of the media, but it has not disappeared.

Maxim January 28, 2010 · 11:50 am

sorry, I meant Former Deputy Asst Sec of the Treasury Dept, Nancy Lee, not Commerce Dept.

Maxim January 28, 2010 · 3:57 pm

Your title is an offensive and racist slight, and a ridicule of Latin American sentiments toward US interventionist practices.

The term “Yanqui” is pejorative name-calling and you should know better than to use as a cutesy heading.