About Me

Name: Chris Lee Reyes
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Ignoring Latin America Breeds Global Instability

Posted by Chris Lee Reyes on Monday, May 19, 2008 8:45:22 PM

 


By Chris Lee Reyes


Latin America is in complete disarray. Hugo Chávez and Ecuador were on the brink of war with Colombia, dangerous Marxist-style ideologies have been cultivated in South America, dismal poverty continues to demolish economic stability and apathy toward the U.S. is far reaching.

There are many obstacles starting to take serious shape. Unfortunately, some of these problems have existed for a while. Latin America has been a ticking time bomb ready to blow up in people’s faces.

Extreme leftist Hugo Chávez has verbally assaulted the U.S. on several occasions; calling George W. Bush a “donkey” and “the Devil.” Of course nowadays, unfavorable Bush commentary is almost as common as “Starbucks coming soon” signs, automobile accidents and the Bird Flu. But one thing is a for a comedian like Chris Rock to call President Bush a “dodo head,” but far more offensive is an American policy-bashing lunatic like Chávez, to do so.

In dealing with global politics the unearthly question may arise:
Why should we concern ourselves with these, seemingly, unaffiliated developments and irrelevant leaders?

The reality is unless Chávez receives a sudden spiritual awakening, more of the same tyranny will continue to hover over global affairs like cumulous clouds ready to burst and precipitate an international crisis.

In 2005, the United Nations reported that Venezuela has had the highest number of deaths by gunfire per capita in the world, that’s pretty astonishing considering there’s a war in Iraq.According to CNSNews, Chávez has even received praise reports from Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations in the Middle East.

Consequently, he has developed strong connections with the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stating that he would "stay by Iran at any time and under any condition."(Reuters) Knowing all this, his continuous anti-American rhetoric and dangerous affiliations have been, relatively, put aside.

Chávez draws an eerie parallel to Saddam Hussein for his wicked demeanor and hatred toward western philosophy. And his half-living diabolical colleague, Fidel Castro, has handed down the thrown to another suppressor, which may inevitably push forward communism once again, due to, amongst other things, the economic influence Venezuela has had in the island.

In addition, socialist /semi-fascist countries have been developing in Latin America, some sporadically, others in close relation to Chávez and the anti-American philosophy.
Which brings forth the inevitable questions: Has the U.S. ignored Latin America? Have the candidates truly emphasized the pivotal issues in foreign policy, or have they solely centralized their rhetoric toward the Middle East for political gain?

 An argument could be made that the ample media attention that has been given to the Middle East and the presidential primaries may have backset the noticeable—but highly disregarded—political upheaval in Latin America.

Although Cuba and Venezuela are the only countries two officially disown the U.S., other Latin American countries such as Bolivia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras and Panama, have possibly negated to do so for economic interests, relevant to current or past trade agreements. And in Colombia’s case, due to the more than $600 million given by the U.S. to support the war on cocaine reproduction and trafficking, as well as other government supported issues.
I believe that developing a good foreign policy will alleviate —or at best deter— the anti-American sentiment that has risen in Latin America.

The U.S. should concern themselves with Latin America not only for its interests—export business valued at $150 billion a year (Foreign Affairs Org)—but also to promote a more stabilized world in a demoralized region, this time without the use of tanks and AK-47’s.

There’s no doubt that U.S.-Latin American relations have deteriorated exponentially—the result of an ambiguous foreign policy, coupled by flaw-driven leadership in Washington, from both Democrat and Republican administrations. However, this does not legitimize the masses to vote “Nader” or advocate a “non-voting-pledge” for ‘08, nor does it render the proposition of unilateral stability in Latin America impossible for another four years.

Hopefully, this brink-of-war- scenario between Chavez, Ecuador and Colombia may influence more efforts to eradicate the frail system of foreign policy and broaden the general public’s perspective on Latin Americas’ relevance to the overall success of globalization.

The media has not completely accomplished its journalistic goal either; accommodating Americans with the proper knowledge needed to decipher Latin American politics has not been a central point of news organizations across the union. Most Americans—let alone students— if asked would not have known who Rafael Correa (the president of Ecuador) was. But today, thanks to an almost cataclysmic collision, the world has taken notice of Chavez and Correa’s dangerous ties, and possibly ignited some interest into understanding the region more comprehensively.

The media could help jumpstart this venture substantially, by covering the real issues and the candidates’ economy and foreign policy stands, instead of advocating subjective and sensationalist intrinsic stories, such as John McCain’s alleged love affair, Iraq’s semblance to Vietnam and Clinton’s Kodak moments.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive