Reviving the Monroe Doctrine

On December 2, 1823, the fledgling United States scored its first significant victory in foreign affairs. As the Republic approaches the 185th anniversary of the Monroe Doctrine, its provisions are as important to national security now as they were in the early days of the nation's history.

 

In his 7th State of the Union Address, President James Monroe articulated that European powers were no longer to colonize or interfere with the affairs of the newly independent states of the Americas. The United States would not interfere with existing colonies or their dependencies in the Western Hemisphere. However, any attempt by a European nation to oppress or control any nation in the western hemisphere would be seen as an act of aggression and the United States would intervene (1). The Roosevelt Corollary of 1902 asserted American right to intervene in Latin America if a particular nation was internally unstable or mismanaged.

 

Today, as reported on NPR, the Russian and Venezuelan Navies will stage joint exercises. The same report also mentioned that Russia is keen on re-establishing ties with its Soviet-era, remote satellite state, Cuba. The United States has the most sophisticated and powerful navy in the world, and a military challenge from Russia and Venezuela is unlikely and foolhardy. However, Russian diplomatic overtures are taking place during the American inerregnum, and the incoming Obama administration will have to play some catch-up. Current State Department priorities seem to be Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and North Korea. Genocides in Congo and in Darfur have received ever shorter shrift. Latin American leaders and citizens still have reason to view the United States critically as emphasis shifts ever further from the geographic locus of the Americas. It is a shame, for Latin America holds several keys to continued American prosperity.

 

Policy towards Latin America has been abjectly benighted, and Latin resentment of the US will continue if little changes. Cooperation with Latin America is vital in areas of immigration, trade, drug, and energy policies:

 

Could the level of Mexican, Salvadori, Nicaraguan, and Guatemalan illegal immigration be reduced with smarter trade policy? Plausibly, yes. Free trade, in the short term, causes employment displacement, yet over time, the labor market ought to return to equilibrium. NAFTA is unpalatable because the tax concessions and loopholes granted to American firms have prolonged the labor market distortions both at home and across the Rio Grande. Latin nations must devote more resources to education and infrastructure, but it is not in America's interests to export an economic policy which has the unintended consequence of straining the public purse. Whatever immigrants the US absorbs will mean a new generation of voters in a generation, and future American presidents cannot afford to become part of a political culture aloof, disinterested, or even hostile to the home countries of their constituents' parents. 

 

Crime and the drug trade pose significant social obstacles to growth in Bolivia, Columbia, and Mexico. Despite the successes of Plan Columbia, the ultimate answer lies in curbing demand for the commodity. Stiffer penalties for powder cocaine offences - a smaller plank in the Obama platform - in the United States would be a start. At minimum, it would signal to Latin American countries that the violence engendered by rival drug gangs would decrease if demand would drop. Moreover, a Turkish approach would prove a good solution where pharmaceutical firms would buy the commodity. The benefits here would be manifold. International prices for anaesthetics and pain medicine would drop and hence be more available in places where it is still too expensive. Second, there would be no social or economic cost which eradication programs cause. Third, resources already allocated could go to protecting farmers from thugs and rebels, and such a program would win a lot of hearts and minds. 

 

Regarding energy, newly found petroleum reserves by PetroBras, the national oil concern in Brazil, could ease American reliance on foreign fuel. Moreover, when the current farm bill expires, domestically produced ethanol might die with it. Importing ethanol from Brazil was and will be economically prudent. Furthermore, the United States and Brazil have mutually aligned interests in environmental preservation. Brazilians have seen the benefit of eco-tourism, and Americans are keen on green. Calling more cooperation with a macroeconomically stable, large, emerging economy a good thing is a truism. It makes sense to pay attention to the most stable, most pro-American emerging market nation.

 

Though Latin American nations feel rightly neglected to an extent, the United States still provides military assistance, humanitarian aid in crisis, and donates billions to the IMF and the World Bank which fund projects in the developing world. However, continuing to ignore Latin America, especially as its people view democratic institutions and ideals ever more favorably, would be a grave error at this juncture. Eliminating trade barriers and engaging the governments of Castro and Chavez area a start. The last test of the Monroe Doctrine came during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The next one might not end so felicitously.

 

(1) Britannica 269 as reprinted on WikiPedia.