Pubdate: Tue, 01 Jan 2002
Source: Le Monde (France)
Copyright: by Le Monde, Paris 2002
Contact:  http://www.lemonde.fr/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/235
Author:  Janette Habel

LATIN AMERICA RECOLONISED

US Demands A Secure, Compliant Hemisphere

Revolt in Argentina, clashes in Bolivia, violent disputes over land in 
Brazil, trade unionists murdered in Colombia, and a general strike in 
Venezuela: Latin America has been exasperated by 20 years of ultra- 
liberalism. Now the US is using its fight against global terrorism as a 
pretext for a military response to unrest in the Americas.

"The key question about the defence of the American hemisphere is: what is 
the threat? In the past, the Americas faced a relatively well- defined 
threat that the average American could understand (1). Today that threat 
has become infinitely more complex and more difficult to define." That was 
Professor Lewis Arthur Tambs, diplomat, historian, professor at Arizona 
State University and the author of a report on the future of the Americas, 
summarised in nine points the nine Ds the guiding principles for the 
hemisphere's security before 11 September. (They are defence, drugs, 
demography, debt, deindustrialisation, populist post-cold war democracy, 
destabilisation, deforestation and the decline of the United States (2).

There is no T in this alphabet of security terrorism is classified under 
drugs, narcoterrorism being "the alliance between terrorist organisations, 
drug traffickers and organised crime, a deadly symbiosis destroying the 
vital elements of western civilisation". But the war against drugs occupies 
a central place, for the Clinton administration was accused of failing to 
keep its promises to eradicate drug trafficking. Populist democracy refers 
to the Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chavez, and demography to 
the risk to the US from migration (the most recent US census underlines the 
growth in the Hispanic population, 58% in 10 years, more than 35m people).

To understand this definition of US security, we must start with the 
post-cold war disappearance of the "communist threat". After the fall of 
the dictatorships in the 1980s, the return to democracy was accompanied by 
a short-lived stability as political openness and the market economy raised 
hopes. But since the 1990s free-market democracy has declined, social 
crises have worsened and instability returned.

Economic and financial crises Mexico in 1995, Brazil and Ecuador in 1999, 
Argentina now have had disastrous consequences and social and political 
conditions caused protests. These include big demonstrations by peasants in 
Bolivia, an uprising by the indigenous population in Ecuador and the 
toppling of President Fernando de la Rua in Argentina (see article by 
Carlos Gabetta). Civil war in Colombia threatens to destabilise the whole 
region while the Chavez government irritates Washington. Although the US is 
not threatened militarily by an enemy power, these troubles renewed 
security concerns.

Defined as "non-traditional transnational threats", terrorism, drug 
trafficking, mass migration and environmental degradation are the new 
enemy. The political and economic instability that has served historically 
to legitimise intervention by the US and other countries is re-emerging as 
a potential threat to regional security, according to US researchers Joseph 
Tulchin and Ralph Espach (3). This is especially the case now the war 
against Colombian insurgents, who control almost half Colombian territory, 
looks likely to spread to Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador and Brazil, 
heightening tension and bringing more troops to the borders. The sources 
say US policy towards Colombia is to extend the conflict.

A New Security Architecture

It is becoming urgent for the US to respond to these non-traditional 
threats now that the House of Representatives has approved the Trade 
Promotion Authority ("fast track") and that the Free Trade Area of the 
Americas (FTAA) is being established. The Centre for Strategic and 
International Studies (CSIS) finds a close relationship between the 
construction of the FTAA and a new "security architecture in the Americas" 
(4). It reports that economic change has been more rapid than change in 
security, provoking a rise in violence from populations who survive illegally.

Since the countries of the Americas are considered too weak to meet that 
challenge alone, they must develop a coherent defence policy for the 
hemisphere, defining the aims and institutions necessary to strengthen 
inter-American security. The events of 11 September should help by speeding 
the reforms, already started, to continental institutions created at the 
start of the cold war. Ten days after the Twin Towers fell, there was an 
extraordinary meeting of the Organisation of American States (OAS) to 
discuss a response, at which the Argentine foreign minister said: "The 
Inter-American Mutual Assistance Treaty (TIAR) is fully in force and up to 
date. It allows us to discuss the rules and create a political framework 
for any military response."

His words surprised. All the countries in the hemisphere (except Cuba) 
belong to the Treaty, which dates to 1947. It has not been invoked since 
the Falklands war between Britain and Argentina in 1982, when Washington 
refused to implement it and backed London, showing contempt for the letter 
of the treaty, which states that an attack on one member must be considered 
an attack on them all. (Similar to Article 5 of the Nato treaty.) By 
coincidence, a few days before the 11 September attacks, Mexican president 
Vicente Fox had described the TIAR as out of date and useless.

The Argentine reference to the TIAR was nevertheless approved unanimously 
by the foreign ministers convened by Brazilian president Fernando Enrique 
Cardoso; the governments of the continent believed the attacks of 11 
September were a threat to the family of the Americas and the hemisphere's 
security.

Last June the OAS general assembly failed to reach agreement on adopting 
the inter-American democratic charter, which "legitimises a right to 
interfere". It was adopted by acclamation and without debate at the OAS 
assembly in Lima in September, although there are serious reservations 
about some of its articles. Intended to "preserve and strengthen 
representative democracy", in particular against attempted coups, the 
charter's rules are ambiguous enough to allow a right to interfere in any 
member country.

If the government of a member state considers that "its democratic 
political institutional process or its legitimate exercise of power is at 
risk, it may request assistance from the secretary general or the permanent 
council for the strengthening and preservation of its democratic system". 
The OAS permanent council may then "adopt measures for the preservation of 
the democratic system or its strengthening" and, if it finds that system 
has been "altered", it may "adopt the decisions it deems appropriate", 
"including the undertaking of diplomatic initiatives." The word including 
is vague. Who says what an "alteration of the constitutional regime" really 
means?

Roger Noriega, the US permanent representative to the OAS, has stressed 
that "resolutions approved by the OAS are not rhetoric; they provide the 
framework for action. They represent legislation that sets policy for the 
OAS member governments" (5). But who has the power to take decisions in an 
organisation that has just demonstrated its alignment with the US hyperpower?

Preventive Diplomacy

President Clinton's assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere 
affairs, Peter Romero, called in 2000 for the creation of a responsible for 
monitoring the employment of multinational forces and ensuring effective 
linkage between political and military authorities. That is what some call 
recolonisation.

Janette Habel is lecturer at the university of Marne-la-Vallee and the 
Institut des hautes etudes d'Amerique latine (IHEAL)

(1) This means the fight against "communist subversion", which was used to 
justify support for dictatorships.

(2) James P Lucier, "Santa Fe IV Latinoamerica hoy", United States Senate 
Foreign Affairs Committee, Washington, 2000.

(3) Joseph Tulchin and Ralph Espach, "A call for strategic thinking", in 
Latin America in the new international system, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 
Boulder (US) and London, 2001.

(4) Toward a new security architecture in the Americas. The strategic 
implications of the FTAA, Patrice M Franko, The CSIS Press, Vol. XXII, No 
3, Washington, 2000.

(5) Roger Noriega, "The Western hemisphere alliance: the OAS and US 
interests", Heritage Foundation Lecture, Washington, 20 November 2001.

(6) Inter-American Defence Board, Towards a new hemispheric security 
system, Washington, 6 September 2001.

(7) See Patrice M Franko, op cit.

(8) "Menaces americaines sur la base d'Alcantara au Bresil", Espaces 
Latinos, No 188, Lyon, November 2001.

(9) Chiapas al dia, Ciepac, Mexico City, 21 November 2001.

(10) Patrice M Franko, op cit.

(11) Edouard Bailby, Espaces latinos, No 187, Lyon, October 2001.

(12) Pagina12.com.ar; 21 September 2001.

(13) Brazil, Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia, Argentina 
and the United States.

Translated by Malcolm Greenwood
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth