It's hard to make much headway these days in discussions of U.S. intervention in Latin America. Most people don't give a hoot about Latin America as long as it doesn't become another Vietnam. Those who are interested make up an elite group, usually on university campuses, in politically active churches, in the media, or in the government. But if you try to discuss the subject with them, passion often overwhelms thought, wishful thinking overpowers reality, ideology closes the open mind, and myths and self-interest crowd out truth.
Part of the problem in discussing intervention is definition. What is it? Intervention is the purposeful involvement of one state in the affairs of another, which could mean anything from funding an opposition newspaper to military invasion. Any decision to intervene must be made on a case-by-case basis, though there is a broader framework within which to work.
The temptation to intervene in Latin America today comes from challenges that may be classified as East/West and North/South. The American people and their leaders must deal with both on a constructive, long-term basis.
The East/West challenge is the hemispheric branch of America's global conflict with the Soviet Union. Remarking on war and peace in Central America last December, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias said: "The United States knows the Sandinistas are on the side of the Soviet Union. That is the whole problem." More broadly, this problem includes Soviet trade, intelligence, and other activities, as well as the actions of the region's communist regimes--Cuba and Nicaragua--and allied guerrilla forces like the FMLN in El Salvador. Latin Marxist-Leninists pose a particular threat because of their ties to the Soviet bloc, their belief that the United States is the "Evil Empire," and their conviction that their revolutions must have no borders.
The other basic challenge is North/South; that is, our relations with the nations of this hemisphere, which are aggravated by the East/West conflict but in large part are independent of it. North/South issues, which can threaten the stability and development of the region and tempt intervention, arise over such issues as foreign debt, trade, drugs, and immigration. Our need to cooperate on economic and strategic matters must be articulated more clearly and frequently, since many in the region try to separate us from allies by asserting that our relationship to the region is simply exploitative and imperialistic.
The main compelling reasons for any drastic form of intervention, such as military invasion, stiff economic sanctions, or no-holds-barred secret negotiations, are serious threats to the security of the United States, its citizens, or its allies. Such a threat could be a challenge to the critical sea lanes in the Gulf of Mexico or to the Panama Canal, a major shift in the militarization of the region, or international support for a movement to overthrow a non-Marxist government. Other forms of intervention occur for lesser or longer term objectives. All must serve U.S. interests in the context of the real world at home and abroad. Policymakers must consider the realistic prospects for success or failure of an intervention and its likely repercussions on U.S. interests in other times and places.
Some argue that all U.S. interventions should be avoided, though
...
Read Full Article
|
