The 'red threat' intensifies in the US' backyard

The indications are that Washington is finally awakening to the "red threat" in its backyard in Latin America but the question which forces itself is whether the wake-up call has come somewhat late in the day.

If the violent street protests which more than occasionally greeted US President George Bush during his five country Latin American tour last week are anything to go by, he and his administration could in no way take it for granted that they wield any considerable influence in Central and Latin America. Nor could they assume that their writ is running large across the South American continent. Violent, stiff opposition is what Washington could expect among sections of the Latin American masses to attempts at brazen influence - wielding.

What is igniting the fires of anti - US sentiment in Latin America is not only rising economic discontentment in the wake of the widespread realisation that economic liberalization is no panacea for the continent's ills, although this factor would continue to prove decisive in the relations of some of these socialist states with the US, but also the US military intervention in Iraq and the contentious issues arising from it. For instance, besides the burning of the US flag, some of the incendiary slogans which greeted the US President in Mexico City were, "Murderer", "Bush you are not welcome in Mexico. Go to hell," and "We are in disagreement with the war policy."

Therefore, the anti-american sentiment which flared during the US President's tour of Central and Latin America, which spanned Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico, could be considered a rough gauge of the antipathy the US' Iraq policy and its policy of economic liberalisation are provoking in the Southern American continent.

Simultaneously with the Bush tour, the world was also treated to the spectacle of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez launching what could be considered an attempt at upstaging the US President through a tour of his own among his allies in South America - Bolivia, Nicaragua and Argentina.

Accentuating the Venezuelan President's feisty presence in these countries were speeches such as this: "The Empire is in counterattack, with the head of the Empire himself leading the attack. And why? Because they realize that the popular Latin American offensive is for real. Fifteen years ago, the American Empire thought they had won the final battle when the Soviet Union fell. They let out their triumphant cry: 'Here is Superman.....' We have resisted for a long time. But no one wins a battle always staying on the defensive. Let loose the charging cavalry."

At this point in time it is difficult to visualise Venezuela and its allies as "Cold War" rivals to the US, in the same sense in which the USSR and its allies came to be portrayed. However, what needs to be taken note of by the decision and policy-makers in Washington is that the economic globalisation paradigm is not being easily favoured by South American publics. If anything, economic liberalization has only brought about increasing poverty in Central and South America.

For, one in every four persons in the region is said to be living below the poverty line. Hence the strong re-emergence in the region of the socialist model as an alternative development paradigm and the rising popularity of the "Left alternative" in governance. Socialist governments would be favoured in the region as long as it could be proved that economic globalisation does not make a dent on mass poverty.

Unfortunately for the US, it cannot put the "terror bogey" to good effect in Southern America. If it could do so, the US could have a considerable following in Southern America too, in the manner in which it has consolidated an anti-terror alliance in Asia.

Therefore, Washington would be compelled to look to economic instruments to arrest the Left-ward slide in Southern American politics. Helping to alleviate poverty in the region is likely to emerge as a major US policy plank. More importantly, the US would need to realise that economic growth without equity would only breed more and more opposition to liberal democracy as a governing model.

[email protected]