Will a probable Obama presidency herald the birth of an Obama doctrine replacing the Monroe doctrine - in terms of a new, more equitable relationship between the US and Latin America? Economist Mark Weisbrot is not so sure. He tells Pepe Escobar, Obama in his foreign policy will be mostly absorbed by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and by intractable Middle East problems. Although the Obama camp seems to understand slightly better than the McCain camp some ground breaking transformations that took place in Latin America during the Bush years, Weisbrot argues they will have to be really creative to restore US credibility in the region. That means, among other things, a stop to the demonization of Venezuela and an understanding that Latin America is becoming more united than at any point in history.
BioMark Weisbrot is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: the Phony Crisis and has written extensively about economies of developing countries in Latin America. He is also the founding president of Just Foreign Policy, an NGO dedicated to reforming US foreign policy. Comments from Registered Members | (Register or log in to make your comment.) | Nancyf 2008-12-15
Our business policies are now so entangled in foreign policies that these things have to be changed before we're pushed into an all out war with our Southern border. Northerners like to paint us Southerners as stupid, but as far as organizing and fighting goes, I wouldn't underestimate where those subjects are concerned. | KeithJ 2008-12-02
John.Hawkins 2008-10-25 your paranoia is only surpassed by your stupidity. Trying to make the Latins into the new communists only shows how narrow minded and dumb you are!!! American interests are best served by having co-operation and good relations with your neighbours and not well served at all by domination and resentment. The sooner people like you wake up and realize this, the sooner we will have world peace! | John.Hawkins 2008-10-25
"That means, among other things, a stop to the demonization of Venezuel"....yes...lets just ignore their actions....lets just allow them to sieze more assets of American companies, lets just allow them to undermine American influence in the region, lets just allow them to renig on contracts, lets watch them embrace out enemies without any consequences.....sounds like a new era to me! | James 2008-10-25
What is a Zionist Jew and why should I care? Who is Lansky? | otrovagomas 2008-10-24
jonram, I think my humourless comments clearly argue against me being "the original." This alias is a homage to the great satirist Jaime Ballestas, aka Otrova Gomas. He who says: "be serious when you may, but don't forget to laugh deep down so you don't make a fool of yourself." So, lets be serious if we must, but always remember to laugh at ourselves. Yes, everything is maybe... things are not always what they seem, or might hide some deeper, convoluted, complex meaning. On the other hand, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" (Freud) | jonram 2008-10-24
@otravagomas. I see your point and I agree that not all is black and white (good or bad) but that's how people in power want you to see it. As historian Norberto Galasso says "When economically bad, the middle class plays a key role in politics but when economically good, the middle class plays bad politics.". All this you described of Venezuela's wrong doing is so parallel to what's happening in the States: Two parties, bad policies, economic crisis, absence of middle and/or working class and a diminish in educated citizens. BTW, you're not the real Otrovagomas are you? | otrovagomas 2008-10-24
As for the evolution of the middle calss in Venezuela.
In 1948, when President Gallegos (AD) came into office, Venezuela was still mostly a rural society, with little industry and low levels of education. Thus, it didn't have a significant "middle class" as we know understand it. It was the rapid industrialization of the 60s and 70s (and required education to fulfill those jobs) that created the bulk of Venezuelan "middle class." As for AD and COPEI being the sole responsible for the debacle of the Venezuelan middle class, that's debatable. The subsequent destruction of the said class was multi-factorial: bad political and economical administration, for one. But also a global recession (1980s) and neo-liberal economical politics imposed on many countries during the 90s, with a simultaneous drastic decline in oil revenue (10,63USD/Ba in 1998). In a petro-economy, this simply spells disaster. Bottom line, all is not black or white. | otrovagomas 2008-10-24
jonram, I concur, AD and COPEI are heavily to blame for the economical and social disaster in the country. And, yes, General Marcos Perez Jimenez did participate in the creation of some heavy industry in the country, as General Juan Vicente Gomez many years before him greatly invested in land transportation. The point I'm trying to make is that all was not black or white, that Venezuela's past governments did not do all wrong. It was also to remind the socialist roots of both parties. It was to remind that both parties' goals were for progress and the betterment of the common citizen. That these parted from these roots, it now seems quite obvious. | Gabriel White 2008-10-24
A constructive criticism. Its a pity the names of the advisers or potential advisers to Obama re Latin America weren't mentioned. The reason I say this is that the interview discusses things in very general terms. If names and specific examples are left out there is less for viewers to follow up on through google etc. | jonram 2008-10-23
@otrovagomas. According to your username I'd guess you're venezuelan but I don't know which Venezuela. AD and COPIE are, among other aspects, the ones to blame for the destruction of the middle class and the rise of not-so-politically-intelligent figures as Chavez. Some of the projects you attribute to these parties were already under development during Perez Jimenez's dictatorship back in the 1950's. | sseidelwnms 2008-10-23
Thanks to Pepe and TRNN for another important interview. I have worked and traveled through many countries in Latin America, Venezuela, Brazil, Peru, Argentina, Chile as well as Cuba. Mr. Weisbrot's understanding of the Latin American issues makes sense to me, altho' I hope he is correct in his assessment that we should not necessarily take Obama at his word in the surreal politics of an election year (I loved the analogy with Elvis).
I hope TRNN will focus some time on Cuban-American relations, and whether we can expect any changes from an Obama administration in this respect.
In reply to Jessie's response to Uhlinger's comments I have to say that I completely agree with Jessie and have nothing further to add except to say that I look forward to any dispatches from Pepe Escobar. | otrovagomas 2008-10-23
For all the flaws, the failures, the corruption and the (necessary) submission to the economical world powers, the former ruling parties in Venezuela did accomplish important social changes, increased wealth and brought progress to the people. Their time has since passed and the sovereign people have chosen to travel new roads. However, we must not rewrite history or try submit it into serving any ideology. We must not forget the courageous struggle for freedom, democracy and progress, or tarnish past achievements at the whim of the tide. | otrovagomas 2008-10-23
I grow tired of hearing that in Venezuela nothing was ever done in favour of the popular classes until the presidency of Hugo Chavez. While it seems clear that not enough was done (but is there ever?), I consider it a lack of respect to the Venezuelan people and its democracy to dismiss all its past achievements. Venezuela was indeed governed by its elites since colonial times; but elitist governments are the rule for the vast majority of human societies since time immemorial. That elites tend to be self-serving is also a truism. In that respect, Venezuela stands no different than most countries. | otrovagomas 2008-10-23
AD and COPEI, the main ruling political parties before President Chavez, were born from the struggle to overthrow and check military dictatorships that plagued the country (and the continent) and to bring about social change, democracy, education and progress to the people. Both parties have ideological links to most social-democratic parties of the XX century. When these parties finally came to power they enacted great number of programs to achieve their progressive goals, such as universal public and mandatory education, large health care programs (v.g. a tight network of health dispensaries, virtual eradication of malaria,) mass alphabetization programs (e.g. ACUDE,) massive public works, sanitation, industrialization programs (CVG, SIDOR, VENALUM, PDVSA), construction of universities, promotion of higher education for the masses. The "Punto Fijo" Republic succeeded in creating a middle-class in large part born from formerly excluded citizens. For all the flaws, the failures, the | otrovagomas 2008-10-23
A naive take on the Monroe Doctrine. When President Monroe addressed Congress in 1823, the core of his Foreign Policy was: so long as the European powers do not seek to extend their control in the hemisphere, the USofA shall remain neutral; any intervention should considered as threat, and respond accordingly.
The address came at a time when many of the Spanish colonies in America had successfully revolted against their former rulers.
In a time when the USofA was not the military or economic superpower of today, such a positioning could be interpreted as a means of dissuading the European Powers, to thwart any attempt to retake control of these rebel colonies or to build up regional military powers that could endanger the nascent Republic of the USofA or the other incipient nations, not one for hegemonic control of the continent. Thus, the historical epithet to the doctrine (America for the Americans) must be understood sensu latu. | Jessie 2008-10-23
In response to Uhlinger's comments regarding Pepe Escobar's appearance: Everyone in the mainstream media "looks" professional . It doesn't fool me and apparently it doesn't fool you either. A professional such as Pepe Escobar, is, in my opinion, judged by the breadth of their understanding of complex world events, by their ability to translate these events in terms that are readily understood, by placing the events in a meaningful context, by asking the kinds of questions that will elicit further understanding, and by truly adding to the conversation by shedding light (as opposed to heat -- think Fox News) where formerly there was none. Give people credit for being able to differentiate (as you have done) between the Ken & Barbie "journalist's" professional attire and Pepe Escobar's journalistic knowledge, skill, integrity and true professionalism. Besides, I enjoy listening to and learning from Pepe just as he is -- as real as The Real News. | Uhlinger 2008-10-23
(please understand this to be a conclusion to my comment below)
the first-rate journalist/interviewer. However, 8 to 10 of these on regular outlets are probably needed to present a robust picture of important issues. The mainstream media would be perfect for this if they weren't shills for government/corporate propaganda. It's apparent many of them are quite intelligent and effective, it's just that their efforts aren't to elucidate matters, usually far from it. I applaud the good and necessary work that IWT does for its viewing public, but I would ask that it learn from the effectiveness of the mainstream media in the overall polish of its stories and interviews (not withstanding the obvious shortcomings). | Uhlinger 2008-10-23
Once again, a very important interview about a subject not given good coverage by the mainstream media. But I have to take this opportunity to comment on the interviewer, Pepe Escobar, and what might be considered ways he might improve on his overall effectiveness as someone presenting the news to a large audience. First off, slouching (though the camera seems to want to hide this fact) is not projecting a professional appearance. Secondly, wearing what looks like a white tee shirt is probably not recommendable attire. His hair could be a little less distracting by just a little attention. And his diction and syntax could stand a some improvement at times. His actual skills in interacting with the interviewed vary a bit also. Lastly, it's not a good idea to give the "finger" to the camera or the interviewed. Even Paul Jay could use some improvement, but his shortcomings aren't as glaring as Pepe Escobar's. On "our" side of the fence, Amy Goodman comes to mind as the epitome of t | kaijansen78 2008-10-22
Is anyone taking notice of this:
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
OBAMA is not a U.S. born citizen and therefore NOT eligible to be President! What's going on? How come this has not been spoken of before?
He was apparently born in Kenya. See the website!
Subject to a legal case I have just heard about through 'restoretherepublic.com'!
My god, don't tell me this just leaves 'Mad-dog McCain and the Crazy Lady'? | BlueBerry.Pickn 2008-10-22
Oh! it was with Pepe Escobar!
Fantastic. You can't go wrong spending a few minutes catching up with offerings from Escobar.
I would love to hear Pepe's thoughts on the Bush Family's apparent property purchases in Uruguay. Is it merely a response to Jenna Bush's UNICEF residency? How interesting that this property is plunked into a major water source.
http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID={EBA55617-2676-4091-ABBC-20650EB6FEE1}&language=EN
"... D Elia considered this Bush step counterproductive for the regional power expressed by Presidents Nestor Kirchner, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.
He said that "it is a bad signal that the Bush family is doing business with natural resources linked to the future of MERCOSUR."
The official pointed out that this situation could cause a hypothetical conflict of all the armies in the region, and called attention to the Bush family habit of associating business and politics...."
Sprea |
Why I support the REAL News (A short message from a member)BELLA LAM, REAL NEWS MEMBER: And I think The Real News, what I really like is at least it tries to engage us to really learn more about the issues that affect us.~~~Obama and the AmericasPEPE ESCOBAR, SENIOR ANALYST, TRNN: I'm here with Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. We'll be talking about maybe the end of the Monroe Doctrine, maybe the beginning of the Obama Doctrine, US relations with Latin America in a new era. MArk, welcome to The Real News.MARK WEISBROT, CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND POLICY RESEARCH: Thanks. It's great to be here.ESCOBAR: Mark, can we say that in case Obama is elected, that will be sort of the end of the Monroe Doctrine, and we'll be facing an Obama doctrine—better relations between, on a more equal footing between the US and Latin America? Or this is pie in the sky?WEISBROT: Well, a lot of changes have already taken place. I mean, the United States has lost enormous influence in Latin America over the past decade. In fact, I would say that most of Latin America is now more independent of the United States than Europe is, which is very different from anything we've seen in the last 150 years. So I think these trends will continue, regardless of what Obama's explicit decisions are about foreign policy. The other thing is that the US import market can't grow, is not going to grow; in fact, it may shrink for exports from Latin America. And so it doesn't have that kind of clout, either, that it used to have. And then you have also the political changes that have taken place. You have these left governments in, you know, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, or Argentina, Brazil, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Paraguay—all these governments are different, and they've changed the equation. They created new institutions, UNASUR, for example, the Bank of the South. South American integration has advanced, and in fact will advance more as this recession will show how dangerous it is to just tie your economy to the United States, because the hardest-hit countries in the region are going to be Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean—all the countries with free trade agreements, or so-called free trade agreements, that are tied to the US economy.ESCOBAR: Give us a critical assessment. Do you think the Obama camp really knows what's going on, especially in South America—Venezuela, Bolivia, Paraguay, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina?WEISBROT: Yeah, that's where I would say there is a big difference between Obama and some of his advisers—not necessarily the Latin America ones. But certainly Obama himself and some of his top advisers do see the world differently from the McCain camp.ESCOBAR: For McCain, it's basically free trade agreement with Colombia.WEISBROT: Yeah, but also, I mean, there's a different sense of the world. I mean, if you look at the Washington foreign policy establishment, they're still mostly in denial of what's happened in Latin America. You know, they realize the United States has lost influence there, but they see it as kind of a temporary thing due to the distractions in the Middle East. They don't see that these are structural changes that have taken place, that they've taken place because of a whole period, the worst, really, economic failure in modern Latin American history has taken place over the last 30 years, which was engineered by the United States. So that's another reason why you had all these elections in these countries with voters going over the heads of the established political class and saying, you know, "We have to have a different economic policy." So they don't see that.ESCOBAR: And in the last debate, Obama's and McCain's position vis-à-vis Venezuela, they were indistinguishable, no?WEISBROT: Yeah.ESCOBAR: It was a sort of cheap demonization.WEISBROT: Yeah, although you see that a lot of Obama's positions in these debates are indistinguishable from McCain. And you can't read that much into that, because this is a campaign, and Obama is going for certain voters. He's saying the things that he thinks are going to get him elected president.ESCOBAR: Mark, you've just been back from Venezuela. Suppose you are talking to an undecided or independent swing voter in Florida, North Carolina, Ohio. You have one minute to explain Hugo Chávez and 10 years of Bolivarian revolution. What would you say?WEISBROT: Well, I would say first of all that most of what you've seen in the US media is false and misleading, and that, you know, Venezuela is a democracy. They've had tremendous improvements, especially in the last five years. The economy's grown more than 85 percent. In real terms, it's huge. Unemployment has been cut by more than half. Poverty has been cut in half, and that's only counting cash income. People have health care there, poor people have access to health care that never had it before; vastly expanded access to education, especially higher education. So these are the reasons why Chávez is popular in the country. In fact, the latest poll showed him with an approval rating of 75 percent. And so those are the things we have to understand. And if he has a fight with President Bush and the Bush administration, it's not really of his own choosing; it's because our government supported a military coup against [inaudible]ESCOBAR: [inaudible] 2002 [inaudible]WEISBROT: Yeah, and has continued to pursue a policy of regime change against the democratically elected government there.ESCOBAR: And Obama also said that, regarding Colombia, and I quote, "Colombia has a right to strike terrorists who seek refuge across their borders." This is crazy, because this is a preemptive Bush doctrine applied to South America.WEISBROT: Yes, and it was profoundly rejected by everyone in this hemisphere at the Organization of American States, except for the United States and Colombia.ESCOBAR: And at an UNASUR meeting, at the last one.WEISBROT: Yes. Well, there are two, although at the last UNASUR meeting they decided to intervene in Bolivia on the side of the Bolivian government.ESCOBAR: On the side of—exactly. On [inaudible]WEISBROT: Yes. So, yeah, you know, I think if you had a state with 27 electoral votes, where all the people that believed that Elvis Presley was still alive were living, you would see a presidential debate about whether the King is still alive, and how the media is covering it up, and so on. This is the kind of surreal world that we live in when it comes to election year politics and Latin America. It's all determined by South Florida.ESCOBAR: So there won't be an Obama doctrine, as you see it now?WEISBROT: Well, I don't think—no, I don't see Obama as being a transformational president in that sense, certainly not—.ESCOBAR: You don't agree with Colin Powell, then?WEISBROT: Well, he might have been describing other senses in which he could be a transformational president, but I don't see him coming out and saying, you know, we really have to change our entire policy towards Latin America. On the other hand, it may change, because, again, all the historical forces that are described are going in that direction. You do have advisers in Obama's camp, influential ones, who recognize this reality. So they may just decide to accept it.ESCOBAR: Do you see him revoking the embargo against Cuba?WEISBROT: Most of US policy towards Latin America has not been focused on Cuba; it's been—and especially the hostility—has been focused primarily against Venezuela. The whole strategy of the Bush administration has been to try and isolate Venezuela from its neighbors, and it's backfired completely. In fact, what the United States has done through this strategy is succeeded in isolating itself. Venezuela has stronger than ever relationships with almost all South America. And I think you will even see—I wouldn't be surprised to see Colombia and Peru, you know, the ones that are closest to the US in South America, joining the Bank of the South at a future date. And after all, they voted with all the other countries at UNASUR—they took the side of Bolivia and not the United States after Bolivia expelled the US ambassador. So that was unanimous, and it included Colombia and Peru. So this is the way the region is moving.DISCLAIMER:Please note that TRNN transcripts are typed from a recording of the program; The Real News Network cannot guarantee their complete accuracy. |
Multipart or Related Episodes
|
