Kerry says two century US LatAm policy over

[Zorro]

Source: AFP

US Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday declared that a nearly 200-year-old policy which had governed Washington's relations with Latin America was finally dead.

Known as the Monroe Doctrine after it was adopted in 1823 by former US president James Monroe, the policy had stated that any efforts by European countries to colonize land in North or South America would be views as aggressive acts and could require US intervention.

"The doctrine that bears (Monroe's) name asserted our authority to step in and oppose the influence of European powers in Latin America," Kerry told an audience at the Organization of American States.

"And throughout our nation's history, successive presidents have reinforced that doctrine and made a similar choice. Today, however, we have made a different choice. The era of the Monroe Doctrine is over," he insisted to applause.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/kerry-says-two-century-us-latam-policy-over-181849847.html

[MyNameGoesHere]

1. And you expect Latin America to

trust us after all those years? JAJAJA. Crazy Americans. I think the real deal is the exposure and extent of "influencing" (spying) Latin America has made the US look like the rouge bully it is. Nothing has changed. Words only.

[BainsBane]

4. It reflects the decline of US influence in the region

It has nothing to do with trust.

[raccoon]

8. Can you imagine a South American leader saying something like that during the Eisenhower years?

Bolivian President Evo Morales expelled the US aid agency USAID following the speech, and denounced the United States, which he said "probably thinks that here it can still manipulate politically and economically. That is a thing of the past."

Exactly, it's about the empire's declining influence.

[MyNameGoesHere]

10. I disagree

The decline is due to the diminished returns. It isn't economically profitable for American companies any longer. However, Asia has and most certainly pick up the crumbs. From the Spanish to Japan the story is the same, rape the resources, make high end products and sell back to the people you "acquired" it from at a significant markup. Then leave it in economic shambles with environmental disasters and no responsibility for cleaning it up. Then brag about how you are going to let the people manage their own lives.

[BainsBane]

13. It coincides with the end of the Cold War

The US has spent less and less in development aid in Latin America, and multinationals are now less "American" and more multinational.

You seem to be mistaking this all for some sort of benevolence, which is not now nor has ever had a thing to do international relations. Just as the US displaced Britain as the major foreign influence in Latin America following WWI, now China is displacing the US.

[ReRe]

27. Yeah, we've already raped everything...

... of any value from them. I agree with "The decline is due to the diminished returns."

On edit: Actually, I agree with everything you said.

[Mass]

2. About time. It is nearly comical to read this.

[Scootaloo]

3. Gee, it only took way too fucking long

Any odds we'll be paying restitution for all the nations we've been fucking since the 19th century? 'Cause having helped enforce regional slavery, followed by colonial pillaging, followed by coup after coup we've certainly racked up a hell of a debt...

[Zorro]

5. Where did the US enforce regional slavery and colonial pillaging in Latin America?

Please enlighten me.

[geek tragedy]

6. Well, googling "united fruit company" would be a good start . . . nt

[Zorro]

7. I was unaware that I am a citizen of the United Fruit Company

[Scootaloo]

9. US military force was utilized to protect and bolster the interests of companies like that

There's also our history in Haiti, where we joined with the French to demand that the Haitians pay the French reparations for all that "stolen property" - namely the self-liberated Haitian slaves. This is the first, and possibly biggest step towards the conditions Haiti is in now.

Basically the "Monroe Doctrine" was taken as broad license to impinge on the sovereignty of every state south of the United States in the western hemisphere.

Which includes Mexico.

Remember that a big part of that war was the interest of expanding slaveholding territory; the "Republic of Texas" was founded by slaveowners who wanted to keep their "property." against the abolitionist laws of Mexico.

I think you can see how a lot of Americans have benefited mightily from this policy...

[Zorro]

32. I myself wouldn't mind too much if Mexico took Texas back now

although Mexico would probably object.

I find it faintly amusing that Texas politicians are so anti-immigrant, when their state was created from out of the flow of illegal immigrants from the US.

[DonCoquixote]

38. Keep in mind

Spain let the Americans in, and one of the major reasons Mexico kicked out Sp[ain is ebcause they did not want the Americans there, for good reason, as history tells. Then again, Spain was only trying to get a bunch of Catholics like Sam Houston to defend texas from the newly bought Louisiama Territory, which Napoleon sold to us after he A) took it from Spain and B) got his ass kicked out of Haiti.

[geek tragedy]

11. If you were alive in the mid-20th century, you were.

John Foster Dulles, who represented United Fruit while he was a law partner at Sullivan & Cromwell – he negotiated that crucial United Fruit deal with Guatemalan officials in the 1930's – was Secretary of State under Eisenhower; his brother Allen, who did legal work for the company and sat on its board of directors, was head of the CIA under Eisenhower; Henry Cabot Lodge, who was America's ambassador to the UN, was a large owner of United Fruit stock; Ed Whitman, the United Fruit PR man, was married to Ann Whitman, Dwight Eisenhower's personal secretary. You could not see these connections until you could – and then you could not stop seeing them

Cohen, Rich (2012). The Fish that Ate the Whale. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. p. 186.

[Zorro]

12. Yes I was alive in the mid-20th century

and no I wasn't a citizen of the United Fruit Company then.

[geek tragedy]

14. UFC was joined at the hip with the USG nt

[mike_c]

28. that was your first mistake....

Our flag:

?itok=3KEvKdys

[a la izquierda]

23. Now I'm certain you either made a deliberate wrong turn...

Or you're just deliberately obtuse.

[Zorro]

24. Care to answer my question then?

[a la izquierda]

29. John Foster and Allan Dulles were top shareholders of United Fruit. nt

[Zorro]

31. Yes I read that. So what?

It was asserted that the US "helped enforce regional slavery, followed by colonial pillaging". Merely mentioning the Dulles brothers is no evidence of the veracity of the assertion.

Substantiated evidence would be proof that 1) slavery existed in Latin America in the 20th century, 2) the US enforced that slavery, and 3) the US pillaged those locations where slavery existed. Seems pretty straightforward.

[a la izquierda]

33. I didn't make that assertion. Therefore, I don't have to back it up. Punto.

I merely suggested that you and your cadre seem to have made a wrong turn and would be more comfortable in the Milton Friedman forum, because you sure do love to suck the teat of the ruling class.
However, there was such a thing as mandamiento in Guatemala up until the mid-20th century. It basically kept indigenous Guatemalans enslaved to the oligarchs. Now, as I'm done getting paid to lecture for the day, you can run along and look up the rest.

[Zorro]

34. For a "paid" lecturer you certainly seem fuzzy with the facts

but then I guess that's the best one can do when the facts don't support the assertion.

Since you were so kind to suggest I participate in other forums, then I offer you the suggestion that perhaps in the future you should restrict your remarks to subjects you know something about.

[a la izquierda]

35. I actually don't necessarily agree with the other person's assertion.

Colonialism doesn't exist in Latin America in the 20th century. The mentality might. But the "colonial" period was long over.
Slavery in the legal sense didn't exist either.
But again, I didn't make the assertion.
Now, before I end up getting myself locked out of this post, I'll stop. I actually have a PhD in Latin American history from a well respected university, so kindly piss off. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about and I'm generally better off not wasting my time with the likes of you and Bacchus 4.whatever-the-fuck.

I'll continue writing my syllabi and lectures in which I talk about, you know, 150,000 dead Mayans. But I'm sure you doubt that actually happened.

[Zorro]

37. OK it looks as if we both agree on not agreeing with the other person's assertion

FYI I just recently ordered "Breaking the Maya Code" to get some insights into ancient Mayan culture.

I believe we can have a civil discourse on a variety of topics, and that is better than to take a wrong turn and begin casting aspersions -- because that tends to end up being a regrettable experience for someone.

[treestar]

15. so now it's OK for Europeans to attempt to colonize

parts of the Americas?

[Socialistlemur]

19. That's right, now UK, France, Russia and Germany can invade

I think the point escaped many who read the item...the Monroe Doctrine died a long time ago because European powers aren't about to colonize anything.

I think the USA is getting ready the legal case to make a statement against Cuban colonization of Venezuela. To do this they make friendly noises first. If they don't see the Cubans pull back I think the USA will speak openly against the Cuban move.

[Fumesucker]

21. I was OK for them to colonize part of the Middle East in the 20th century

At least that's the way a lot of the inhabitants of the region feel about it anyway.

[Javaman]

16. uh huh, right.

the legacy of the Dulles brothers plagues us today.

[Xipe Totec]

17. Salvador Allende would aprove - If he were still alive to do so. nt

[truebluegreen]

18. That writing has been on the wall for a while now.

This is just the public acceptance of reality....

[Warren Stupidity]

22. odd, as we continue to expand our military presence and our meddling idiocy

for example in Honduras, where we are, as usual, backing the thugs.

[Zorro]

25. Should we overthrow the Honduran government then?

[Warren Stupidity]

26. No we should stop our explicit, implicit, and/or covert support for the thugs.

[Socialistlemur]

39. It would be an excellent idea for everybody to stop covert support

But I did notice Venezuela in particular is interfering a lot in the internal affairs of other countries.

[Comrade Grumpy]

42. What are you going on about?

[DeSwiss]

30. Over, huh?

- No shit.

K&R

[hughee99]

36. Well, China will be glad to hear it.

Not that they were overly concerned about our opinions in the first place (or that they were Europeans).

[Laelth]

40. That is a remarkable statement. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[FairWinds]

41. What a concept, respecting Latin American sovereignty . .

It will mark a real sea-change in U.S. behavior if it happens - recent meddling in
Honduras against democracy, in El Salvador elections, in Haiti's labor situation would cease, right?
And what will John Bolton and Otto Reich have to say?
Don't get me started on Venezuela.
U.S. covert and overt interventions in Latin America have taken millions of innocent lives.
Mr. Zorro, you appear to be deliberately obtuse. However uncomfortable, facts are facts.

[flamingdem]

43. Well maybe the US can start with normalization with Cuba

How about that for a concept after 50+ years

Oh, they won't dare.. plus Hillary is a hawk on Cuba for now

[Ash_F]

44. OK, let's see some policy changes in the behavior towards Cuba, Mexico and Venezuela. /nt