LATIN AMERICA RECOLONISED

US Demands A Secure, Compliant Hemisphere

Revolt in Argentina, clashes in Bolivia, violent disputes over land in
Brazil, trade unionists murdered in Colombia, and a general strike in
Venezuela: Latin America has been exasperated by 20 years of ultra-
liberalism. Now the US is using its fight against global terrorism as a
pretext for a military response to unrest in the Americas.

"The key question about the defence of the American hemisphere is: what is
the threat? In the past, the Americas faced a relatively well- defined
threat that the average American could understand (1). Today that threat
has become infinitely more complex and more difficult to define." That was
Professor Lewis Arthur Tambs, diplomat, historian, professor at Arizona
State University and the author of a report on the future of the Americas,
summarised in nine points the nine Ds the guiding principles for the
hemisphere's security before 11 September. (They are defence, drugs,
demography, debt, deindustrialisation, populist post-cold war democracy,
destabilisation, deforestation and the decline of the United States (2).

There is no T in this alphabet of security terrorism is classified under
drugs, narcoterrorism being "the alliance between terrorist organisations,
drug traffickers and organised crime, a deadly symbiosis destroying the
vital elements of western civilisation". But the war against drugs occupies
a central place, for the Clinton administration was accused of failing to
keep its promises to eradicate drug trafficking. Populist democracy refers
to the Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chavez, and demography to
the risk to the US from migration (the most recent US census underlines the
growth in the Hispanic population, 58% in 10 years, more than 35m people).

To understand this definition of US security, we must start with the
post-cold war disappearance of the "communist threat". After the fall of
the dictatorships in the 1980s, the return to democracy was accompanied by
a short-lived stability as political openness and the market economy raised
hopes. But since the 1990s free-market democracy has declined, social
crises have worsened and instability returned.

Economic and financial crises Mexico in 1995, Brazil and Ecuador in 1999,
Argentina now have had disastrous consequences and social and political
conditions caused protests. These include big demonstrations by peasants in
Bolivia, an uprising by the indigenous population in Ecuador and the
toppling of President Fernando de la Rua in Argentina (see article by
Carlos Gabetta). Civil war in Colombia threatens to destabilise the whole
region while the Chavez government irritates Washington. Although the US is
not threatened militarily by an enemy power, these troubles renewed
security concerns.

Defined as "non-traditional transnational threats", terrorism, drug
trafficking, mass migration and environmental degradation are the new
enemy. The political and economic instability that has served historically
to legitimise intervention by the US and other countries is re-emerging as
a potential threat to regional security, according to US researchers Joseph
Tulchin and Ralph Espach (3). This is especially the case now the war
against Colombian insurgents, who control almost half Colombian territory,
looks likely to spread to Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador and Brazil,
heightening tension and bringing more troops to the borders. The sources
say US policy towards Colombia is to extend the conflict.

A New Security Architecture

It is becoming urgent for the US to respond to these non-traditional
threats now that the House of Representatives has approved the Trade
Promotion Authority ("fast track") and that the Free Trade Area of the
Americas (FTAA) is being established. The Centre for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS) finds a close relationship between the
construction of the FTAA and a new "security architecture in the Americas"
(4). It reports that economic change has been more rapid than change in
security, provoking a rise in violence from populations who survive illegally.

Since the countries of the Americas are considered too weak to meet that
challenge alone, they must develop a coherent defence policy for the
hemisphere, defining the aims and institutions necessary to strengthen
inter-American security. The events of 11 September should help by speeding
the reforms, already started, to continental institutions created at the
start of the cold war. Ten days after the Twin Towers fell, there was an
extraordinary meeting of the Organisation of American States (OAS) to
discuss a response, at which the Argentine foreign minister said: "The
Inter-American Mutual Assistance Treaty (TIAR) is fully in force and up to
date. It allows us to discuss the rules and create a political framework
for any military response."

His words surprised. All the countries in the hemisphere (except Cuba)
belong to the Treaty, which dates to 1947. It has not been invoked since
the Falklands war between Britain and Argentina in 1982, when Washington
refused to implement it and backed London, showing contempt for the letter
of the treaty, which states that an attack on one member must be considered
an attack on them all. (Similar to Article 5 of the Nato treaty.) By
coincidence, a few days before the 11 September attacks, Mexican president
Vicente Fox had described the TIAR as out of date and useless.

The Argentine reference to the TIAR was nevertheless approved unanimously
by the foreign ministers convened by Brazilian president Fernando Enrique
Cardoso; the governments of the continent believed the attacks of 11
September were a threat to the family of the Americas and the hemisphere's
security.

Last June the OAS general assembly failed to reach agreement on adopting
the inter-American democratic charter, which "legitimises a right to
interfere". It was adopted by acclamation and without debate at the OAS
assembly in Lima in September, although there are serious reservations
about some of its articles. Intended to "preserve and strengthen
representative democracy", in particular against attempted coups, the
charter's rules are ambiguous enough to allow a right to interfere in any
member country.

If the government of a member state considers that "its democratic
political institutional process or its legitimate exercise of power is at
risk, it may request assistance from the secretary general or the permanent
council for the strengthening and preservation of its democratic system".
The OAS permanent council may then "adopt measures for the preservation of
the democratic system or its strengthening" and, if it finds that system
has been "altered", it may "adopt the decisions it deems appropriate",
"including the undertaking of diplomatic initiatives." The word including
is vague. Who says what an "alteration of the constitutional regime" really
means?

Roger Noriega, the US permanent representative to the OAS, has stressed
that "resolutions approved by the OAS are not rhetoric; they provide the
framework for action. They represent legislation that sets policy for the
OAS member governments" (5). But who has the power to take decisions in an
organisation that has just demonstrated its alignment with the US hyperpower?

Preventive Diplomacy

President Clinton's assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere
affairs, Peter Romero, called in 2000 for the creation of a responsible for
monitoring the employment of multinational forces and ensuring effective
linkage between political and military authorities. That is what some call
recolonisation.

Janette Habel is lecturer at the university of Marne-la-Vallee and the
Institut des hautes etudes d'Amerique latine (IHEAL)

(1) This means the fight against "communist subversion", which was used to
justify support for dictatorships.

(2) James P Lucier, "Santa Fe IV Latinoamerica hoy", United States Senate
Foreign Affairs Committee, Washington, 2000.

(3) Joseph Tulchin and Ralph Espach, "A call for strategic thinking", in
Latin America in the new international system, Lynne Rienner Publishers,
Boulder (US) and London, 2001.

(4) Toward a new security architecture in the Americas. The strategic
implications of the FTAA, Patrice M Franko, The CSIS Press, Vol. XXII, No
3, Washington, 2000.

(5) Roger Noriega, "The Western hemisphere alliance: the OAS and US
interests", Heritage Foundation Lecture, Washington, 20 November 2001.

(6) Inter-American Defence Board, Towards a new hemispheric security
system, Washington, 6 September 2001.

(7) See Patrice M Franko, op cit.

(8) "Menaces americaines sur la base d'Alcantara au Bresil", Espaces
Latinos, No 188, Lyon, November 2001.

(9) Chiapas al dia, Ciepac, Mexico City, 21 November 2001.

(10) Patrice M Franko, op cit.

(11) Edouard Bailby, Espaces latinos, No 187, Lyon, October 2001.

(12) Pagina12.com.ar; 21 September 2001.

(13) Brazil, Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia, Argentina
and the United States.

Translated by Malcolm Greenwood