In 1823 President James Monroe hung a NO TRESPASSING sing on the western hemisphere, putting European powers on notice that the US would tolerate no new colonial incursions into what it was defining as it's back yard. In the 21st C there appears to be a shift away from economic domination by the colossus to the north accompanied by strong economic growth and rising prosperity.
The US has historically exercised a level of economic, political and military domination over Latin America that can be accurately characterized as imperialism. Military invasions have taken place on a number of occasions. It is usually possible to find an element of protection for American investment interests in the motivations that led to them.
Much of Latin American politics has been dominated by Hispanic elites descended from European colonialists. The campesinos are more likely descended from the indigenous peoples. This has created an often stratified class society in the control of the land owning class. It often became a battle ground between the US and the USSR during the coldwar. Revolutions followed by military coups and financial crises have been a pattern giving rise to the term banana republic.
The International Monetary Fund has in resent years replaced the US military as enforcer of American financial interests. It's typical approach has been to make assistance in financial crises contingent on the adoption of neoliberal policies of government austerity.
With the end of the coldwar the US became less worried about protecting the backdoor from hostile incursions. Then along came the war on terror and the US became even less interested in Latin America. It appears that the region is showing signs of benefiting from the lack of supervision that has resulted from these developments.
Economies in Latin America Race Ahead
While the United States and Europe fret over huge deficits and threats to a fragile recovery, this region has a surprise in store. Latin America, beset in the past by debt defaults, currency devaluations and the need for bailouts from rich countries, is experiencing robust economic growth that is the envy of its northern counterparts.
Strong demand in Asia for commodities like iron ore, tin and gold, combined with policies in several Latin American economies that help control deficits and keep inflation low, are encouraging investment and fueling much of the growth. The World Bank forecasts that the region’s economy will grow 4.5 percent this year.
Recent growth spurts around Latin America have surpassed the expectations of many governments themselves. Brazil, the region’s rising power, is leading the regional recovery from the downturn of 2009, growing 9 percent in the first quarter from the same period last year. Brazil’s central bank said Wednesday that growth for 2010 could reach 7.3 percent, the nation’s fastest expansion in 24 years.
One significant development of globalization is the shifts in alignment of the emerging economies in what has traditionally been referred to as the third world. This has been led by the initiatives of China in searching for raw materials for its industrial economy and for new markets for its finished goods. They have been active in the global south for a number of years. Their efforts have been facilitated by a willingness to do business without the political and economic strings that have been typically attached by the US and Europe. They have offered loans for development without the involvement of the IMF and the World Bank. They have at times used their permanent seat on the UN Security Council to run political and diplomatic interference. In short, they have made significant strides in supplanting the power of the US in Latin America.
Latin America’s growth largely reflects a deepening engagement with Asia, where China and other countries are also growing fast. China surpassed the United States last year as Brazil’s top trading partner, and is the second largest trading partner in countries like Venezuela and Colombia, Washington’s top ally in the region.
To some extent these developments reflect the shift of the global manufacturing base away from the US. With fewer factories the US needs less in the way of raw materials and has fewer finished goods for export. However, I am puzzled by the lack of nationalistic angst over this decline in American power and influence. Have the people who are inclined to lose lots of sleep over such things become totally and permanently obsessed with the Middle East?