An Article by:

Ben Tanosborn

Where are your friends when you really need them? Isn’t that time of need when true friends really surface, sharing their buoyancy as they try to help keep you afloat? Well, we really haven’t seen many of those friends around, not for America, although we have seen the traditional parasites – those who instigate our misguided foreign policy for their own ends, as well as those who either go along with America’s criminal government, or simply look the other way.

In some regions, such as Latin America, one would hardly expect to find any friends of the United States – of the non-servile kind, that is – given the long history of bullying and the oppressive hand this nation has had in that region… but what about Europe? All NATO nations should be America’s true and tried friends, right? But they aren’t… not when they are unwilling to strongly influence our government’s behavior.

For several years some of us have been asking just what this NATO outfit is all about! And no, we don’t seem to find the answer by looking at the baptismal records and its purported reinstatement as “a military alliance of democratic states in Europe and North America for a concerted mutual defense.” Its purpose might have appeared clear back in 1949: a mutual defense pact against the feared advances of communism. But that was then, and now is now. And the now is becoming rather obvious: NATO is just a military toy-tool for the policies drummed up at the White House and the Pentagon.

The United States was simply supposed to be another NATO member, just like Canada and the European members, regardless of size and economic-military strength. But if you believe that, you believe in fairy tales, particularly when Bush makes that reality clear time and again. His latest proclamation last week in Croatia made it clear once again when he delivered a mixture of mini-harangue and cheerleading chant to a crowd from that state, formerly part of communist Yugoslavia. Joining the organization, they were told by Bush, would mean their nation would be defended by “America and the NATO alliance.”

and NATO, you say? Was it yet another of Bush’s ignorant misspeaks? No, not really. America, or rather its present government, thinks of itself as a distinct and separate entity, all powerful and meritorious… the rest is the lesser NATO, a janissary pool of troops commanded not from Brussels but from the Pentagon.

Truth be said, NATO is an illusory relic that has served past its needs and now should be given a burial; or better still, it should be broken up to reflect a true world’s desire to achieve and maintain peace. If Europe, or more apropos, the European Union, feels a need to retain defensive military teeth, so be it; but its defense force must be its own without providing hegemony to, or be dictated by, anyone else. Can anyone just picture the proximity of the waters in the North Atlantic and the poppy fields of Afghanistan?

Shouldn’t Europe be more assertive in its dealing with the peoples of the Middle East, instead of sheepishly following the lead, or be under the leash, of the United States? A greater harmony would likely develop between the Muslim population throughout Europe and native European people who are hosting and/or assimilating them. If such were the case, one could foresee a greater probability of success for a quicker and long-lasting resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which the United States has continuously served as a gully instead of a bridge.

Shouldn’t Europeans try to find more common ground with next door Russia, and try to secure stronger economic ties, instead of providing a source of friction and unnecessary confrontation by submitting to the forced military requirements of the US? Much of the existing divisive tribulations affecting the Ukraine and Georgia have been caused in no small part by US sub-rosa involvement. The Europeans should ask themselves, to what end is this conflict-seeding by the US beneficial to them?

One needs to ask, just what are the Europeans afraid of? Being, perhaps, cut off from energy sources unless the US remains on top? A less beneficial world trade situation for them as a result? Nonsense, the opposite would likely happen as a result. And one would think that tensions would lessen uninviting more cold wars, and offering greater prospects for peace throughout the Middle East.

And for America, the return of the prodigal European friends, as brothers tendering advice and help of the right kind – not just troops for a struggle in Afghanistan that will only be resolved via mediation with the Taliban – not just vassals and prostitutes for an empire that, if unchecked, will ultimately claim both peace and the economic well being of the American people. That’s what our European friends could do for America.

Tags: Ben Tanosborn, Drug War, economics, empire, latin america, military, neoconservatism, politics, power
Categories: Commentary, Economics, Power, Politics, Empire, military, neoconservatism, Ben Tanosborn
No Comments »

An Article by Ben Tanosborn

This last junket by Bush may have been considered a tour de force for US relations with Latin America, but it wasn’t much of a tour and definitely provided no feat; in fact, it was a total waste. Uruguay’s and Brazil’s heads of state, both in the opposite side of the political spectrum from Bush, were forced to appear diplomatically courteous, probably wondering why Condi Rice had cast them to play in this five-act farce. The stops in Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico did make a lot more sense since those nations are major suppliers for America’s top two illicit addictions: drugs and immigration. Uribe (Colombia) and Calderon (Mexico) have a good compa in Bush. Not the other leaders.

It was a meaningless trip for a meaningless dignitary to an already lost part of the world (in terms of special, neighborly relations). Latin Americans, at least the 80 percent who are dirt-poor, have realized that the US has never been their friend, only a detached stepmother; and that any future overtures probably carry price tags they can ill afford.

Why would the United States help Latin America? it never has! For a century all the programs and money invested in the Iberian Down Under have been either minuscule (programs) or have had exploitative results (investments). To hear Bush speak and say that the $1.6 billion sent last year went for ’social justice’ causes is going from the ridiculous (the small amount) to the sublime (stating that it was for worthwhile causes), back to the ridiculous (as most of those funds were used for military purposes to fight the FARC guerrillas in Colombia, or for the interdiction of drugs). In fact, Venezuela with a population one-twelfth that of the United States provided last year far more help to the people of Latin America, when you add the price breaks on oil to the direct aid, than the US. So stop the on-going deceit, Mr. President, social justice causes, you say?

But even if America of the North has never felt compelled to help the America to the South, it recognizes that the Latin folks play key roles in the USL: two great addictions. For better or for worse the Latin and Anglo parts of the hemisphere are linked in many ways; and that’s a fact that politicians there and here know quite well.

Politicians who proselytize supply-side economics have played working Americans for suckers for over a quarter of a century with their trickled-down economics. But, what’s just as bad is that politicians who refuse to acknowledge our demand-side realities have played all Americans for suckers twice that long. Republicans and Democrats, both!

We have been ‘at war’ with those who supply illicit drugs to our population for more than two generations, failing to admit that drug-addiction is mainly a demand problem, not supply. Having a Drug Czar and our war on drugs to defend our purity has been but a crock. If we stop being hypocrites and call a spade a spade, our level of success with this biological-social problem would be far greater domestically - at a much lower cost - and we wouldn’t have to cause so many problems to nations in Latin America that supply us. This is an issue where most intelligent people, capitalists or anarchists alike, would find total agreement: that it is nonsensical to treat the alcohol-drugs problem as criminality. But politicians have preferred to keep their eyes closed to this reality.

And, in a similar fashion, politicians have also decided to keep their eyes closed to the other domestic reality, one that now dominates the American landscape: undocumented or illegal immigration (adjective to be used depending on how you view the subject). Why? For the simple reason that this form of immigration is also an addiction, one that needs to be tackled from the demand, not the supply side. Again, just like the illicit drugs issue, it should not be treated as criminality. In both cases we need to quell or treat the demand with appropriate legislation that addresses all humane and social aspects, not just economic and political.

Americans’ addiction to undocumented labor is not just restricted to businesses but also the greedy side of the average Joe and Jane. Our anarchical state on the issue of illicit immigration is everyone’s fault, not just politicians of the right, or the other politicians of the lesser-right. The problem has been around for decades, was poorly addressed two decades ago, and now has become a monster that scares us all; a dragon that people demand be slain, calling for that knight, Jingo, and squires like Lou Dobbs and Patrick Buchanan to rid us of it once and for all, so that we may keep our whored virginity intact.

On his last stop in Mexico, Bush was admonished by that country’s recently elected (or not, according to his leftist challenger) mandatary that building a wall along the border is not the answer to stop his countrymen from crossing over. And Calderon is quite right about that. The US with its addiction has created an addiction for that country as well, as $20-30 billion are sent by the immigrants to their families in Mexico every year, the second largest source of revenue for that nation after the Almighty Crude.

A social worker friend, whose maternal grandparents had crossed the border illegally from Mexico in the 1950’s, told me last year - I assume it was in jest - that if the US really wanted to solve this crisis, not just for us but for the Latinos as well, we should round up all able-bodied undocumented workers and give them some Al-Qaeda type of training for six or eight weeks, then send them back to their countries of origin with an AK-47 in their hands, and a promise that the US would help once they mow down their corrupt governments. I didn’t have the heart to tell her that this nation neither funds nor gives its imprimatur to revolutions by the oppressed; it’s only the oppressors we help. It’s the nature of predatory capitalism - how many times must we be told!

As for America’s two great addictions, we’ll continue to do little or nothing, blaming - as always - the supply-side.

© 2007 Ben Tanosborn [send him email]
www.tanosborn.com

Tags: bush, Drug War, drugs, empire, foreign policy, Global, immigration, latin america
Categories: Commentary, Global, Empire, Foreign Policy, Drug War
2 Comments »

Copyright 2007 Ben Tanosborn
www.tanosborn.com

Thomas Gray’s maxim stating that ‘ignorance is bliss’ has been both, widely accepted and widely refuted. Proponents and opponents to what that gentleman said, or meant to say, back in 1742 seem to gather with equally opposing strength as centuries pass. Of late, however, the people of Latin America may have given us a replacement to that axiom, coining with their actions a true gem: Bliss is being ignored by the US!

And you know what? They may have come up with an irrefutable truism when we try to make sense of what they mean by that. However, what they are saying south of the border and what we get from America’s corporate press confound us as if originating in Babel. Commentary by so-called experts on Latin America, usually from think-tanks of convenience - those from where most propaganda germinates which serves the needs of both the White House and the State Department - seem to always give us a minority or dissenting view - something which would be acceptable were it not presented as the majority or prevailing view. And that’s basically what we get, minority-imposed views.

Recently I came across an article-commentary typical of what’s being written these days; it was penned by Alejandro Chafuen from Atlas Economic Research Foundation, under a catchy headline, Latin America won’t just sit still and be ignored - Our southern neighbors grow politically restive with U.S. inaction to their legitimate economic worries. What, you say! Is this individual for real or is he just a PR man for the Latin elite?

The fact that George W. Bush has ignored the breaking of political piatas south of the border - way, way south of the Rio Grand - might have made the powerful local elite, and their squire-class of enablers, politically restive in Central and South America; but as far as most of the people who live there, those best described as without a pied - terre in Miami or elsewhere in the States or Europe, these past six years have proven to be a true blessing, bringing a ray of hope for a true beginning of social and economic reform. It’s not an anti-democratic or anti-American trend that is taking place, as we are being led to believe by a shamelessly lying government and a conformational press. What’s happening in the Latin Down Under is not really about us, it’s about them; about people freeing themselves from us, the ‘corporate America’ that has kept the powerless in those nations as permanent beggars, at times mistakenly looking northward for alms.

At this point, all we have seen is nothing more than the unlocking of the gates to allow passage of both political reform and economic equity for hundreds of millions of Latin Americans. Whether or not these peaceful socio-economic revolutions succeed, and to what degree, remains an experimental unknown for now.

What the governments of Ortega (Nicaragua), Chavez (Venezuela), Correa (Ecuador), Morales (Bolivia), Lula (Brazil) - or the more acceptable, to the US government, political evolutions in Chile and Argentina - give us as a bottom line a decade or two from today, assuming the US does not intervene, will determine success or failure and not any ill-founded demagoguery pitting socialism against capitalism. Capitalism, defined as properly regulated free-enterprise, should be able to co-exist and thrive under almost any form of socialism. Only predatory capitalism will shrivel and die a natural death.

One thing we feel safe to bet on: results, no matter how dismal, cannot possibly be as bad as those obtained in the past under predatory capitalism, even if blasphemously camouflaged as free-enterprise; not for 70 percent of the people in the region, perhaps a much higher figure in some nations with larger indigenous population. The people are simply fed up, and have been saying so where it counts: at the ballot box. They are shouting to the four winds: enough!

For almost two centuries, Latin America has been Wednesday’s Child for the US. No sooner had the Iberian colonies asserted their independence in the Americas, that it was made known to them all new nations in the Western Hemisphere - British Canada excluded - were under the protection and foster care, of fair and wise Uncle Samuel. And for almost two centuries, the parasitic relationship between the Northern Giant and the Southern Lilliputians has not changed.

My own personal exposure to this Gringo-Latin relationship started at the tail end of the Alliance for Progress which had began a decade earlier by John F. Kennedy with little in the way of funds, but much hullabaloo and tear-jerking rhetoric to counter what was seen as a possible communist threat from Cuba to ‘US interests.’ An overall failure, since it was unable to meet even the pygmy goals stated in 1961 at Punta del Este in education, health, and economic well-being for most Latin Americans, it is symbolic of what the US had done before, or what has done since in Latin America. The US invested less than $1 per individual per year, and that insignificant figure was not even in net transfers of resources and development.

The Alliance for Progress was little more than a PR job that could not cut the mustard with even the simpletons among economists. Who could believe that the powerful elite would allow any land reform, or more equitable income distribution, or more restrain by the powerful in abusing those who lacked power; the powerful being the team of corporate Yanks and local-elite? Dictatorships multiplied during that period with our consent, and often with our direct help, and for all our freedom-talking rhetoric we helped hang democracy in every town square. As for anecdotes, I have dozens of them, many as an admittedly participant, and where the Agency for International Development (USAID) was but a sad joke. Can anyone fathom the US guaranteeing low interest funding for low cost housing which ended up being owned by top military brass and business elite (Bolivia) or similar projects having the rich as beneficiaries?

Enough! No more PR safety-valves for global exploitation by predatory capitalists and their supporting governments. Doesn’t it make sense that Latin Americans are ecstatic as America, under Bush, pays full attention to the mess it has created in the Middle East ignoring its Latin protege’ Can we, at least this once, let people in other parts of the world determine what’s good for them� instead of homicidally intruding in their affairs?

It would be most difficult to refute that Bliss is being ignored - by the United States!

Tags: bolivia, brazil, bush, cuba, ecuador, foreign entanglements, foreign policy, Global, latin america, middle east, nicaragua, politics, venezuela
Categories: Commentary, Global, Politics, Foreign Policy
2 Comments »