What most Americans commonly call the Third World - those exotically named swaths of territory teeming with people of various colors and creeds - has seldom been a priority for U.S. foreign policy. Unless particularly unpleasant events occur in one place or another - an Iranian revolution or the exploits of a dictator like Qaddafi - few people, other than State Department bureaucrats on the spot, even think we should have a policy. When such a policy does appear, it is almost invariably a reactive one that seeks to push those faraway places off our mental map once again. Unfortunately, a number of developments, in the United States as well as in the Third World, suggest that the 1990s will witness no significant departure from that pattern.
First, and perhaps foremost, the Third World - poverty, backwardness, foreign debt, and lack of viable institutions - are rooted in short-sighted policies. As a result, even if Washington again goes through spasms of interest in one country or region, the ultimate futility of many forms of involvement will soon become apparent.
The "war on drugs," the latest apocalyptic fad in Washington, is a perfect example. One may talk about an "Andean strategy" for eradicating the production of cocaine - and everyone in town seems to have some ideas about how to go about it - but who is serious about providing the billions of dollars to the peasant growers of Colombia, Bolivia, or Peru that would be needed to wean them away from their most profitable crop?
The "debt problem" is another example. The issue is not whether foreign debt is a serious problem for those afflicted by it, mostly the Latin Americans; it certainly is, and it will probably result in the collapse of a number of "democratic" governments in the region over the next few years; however, too many Western politicians have fallen for the myth promoted by the Latin American elites that foreign debt is the disease rather than a mere symptom. In fact, the primary causes of the debt are popular expectations of standards of living beyond the society's productive capacity. Could, or should, the United States try to correct these problems? Obviously not in the first instance, and probably not in the second.
A worsening situation
Across the Atlantic, in Africa, the situation is, if anything, worse. Economic mismanagement is a perfect art, and state after state is addicted to foreign aid. The most important and productive group, the peasantry, has been driven into the subsistence economy. Politically irrelevant, the peasants have become the victims of every ideological dogma devised by the rulers, from "African socialism" to "humanism" to "scientific socialism," when not simply robbed of any political role at all by presidents-for-life. Is there anything we could or should do? Again the answer is negative.
The American obsession with South Africa is likely to continue throughout the decade, ultimately with the same negligible or negative impact it has had until now. The reason for both the interest and the lack of serious results is the same: Many people in Washington (as well as in Peoria) see South Africa as 1960s Mississippi writ large. For that reason, we do not have a South African policy but domestic racial politics that spill over into South Africa. There is no reason to believe that this situation will change during the next
...
Read Full Article
|
