No magic formula for Latin America

In the mid-1990s, optimists saw Latin America headed for a new era of stability under elected governments and free-market policies. The 1980s had witnessed bloody guerrilla wars in Central America. But by the time of the Summit of the Americas in Miami in 1994, peace reigned even in that troubled region. The prospects for economic development and democratic rule seemed as bright as they had ever been.

The present state of Latin America is hardly as bright, nor does its future look as promising. The fire this time is not in the small countries of the Caribbean basin; it is centered in the large, resource-rich nations of South America, including Argentina, Colombia, Venezuela and Peru.

The Argentine debacle is only the latest in a series of tragedies that have turned a country that seemed destined to join the developed nations into a basket case. This time the crisis affects not only the poor -- who since the 1980s have borne the brunt of free-market restructuring and who have erupted in violent protests in most countries of the region -- but also vast sectors of the country's middle class.

Whoever governs Argentina faces the difficult challenge of a multi-class rebellion. There is a huge gap between society's expectations for economic relief and the government's ability to deliver. Running the country becomes mission impossible. No wonder nobody wants to do it. To span the gap would require an improbable exercise of political leadership that would urge the battered and disillusioned populace to greater sacrifices and/or resistance to outside dictates. But who can exercise that kind of leadership when people have lost all confidence in a political class riddled with corruption?

Meanwhile, in Colombia, peace talks have almost collapsed, and the war may escalate to unprecedented levels, with possible spillover effects on the United States, including increased migration.

In Venezuela, which supplies oil to the United States, the confrontation between President Hugo Chávez and his opponents seems to escalate daily. Chávez's dilemma: If he takes more radical measures to satisfy the hard-core supporters to whom he promised more economic equality, he will further alienate investors, the middle class and the United States.

If he confines his radicalism to rhetoric, he risks losing his most loyal backers.

The situation isn't quite as dramatic in Peru or Ecuador, but it's hardly stable. Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo faces his own problems of meeting high popular expectations for economic benefits. In Ecuador, students have violently protested rising fuel prices.

The problems are not confined to South America. Haiti's political and economic crisis seems on the verge of becoming a permanent reality. Even the Dominican Republic, which experienced relative social peace and rapid economic growth in the 1990s, has not been exempt. Last week the president fired the country's police chief amid charges that the police have responded to a crime wave by killing hundreds of people in custody.

The current situation in Latin America could spin into a larger crisis if in November voters in Brazil elect a leftist now leading in the presidential polls. In that event, investors are likely to vote by putting their money elsewhere, which could severely harm the South American giant's economy.

Looking at this panorama, it is clear the 1990s hope -- that contested elections and free-market policies could, by themselves, serve as a magic formula for Latin America -- has collapsed just as surely as the dream of socialist revolution died with Che Guevara and the Sandinistas. And no one can say with confidence what a successful alternative might be.

Wall Street Journal-- [Excerpt] It's hard to recall reading today's headlines, but 10 years ago Latin America's future looked bright. Democracy was on the rise, economies were growing and the era of military coups seemed to be over. The countries did this mostly on their own, but U.S. leadership was crucial. The U.S. nurtured free-market economic ideas and helped against Marxist rebels. That trend stopped during the 1990s, as the Clinton Administration mostly ignored the region for more glamorous priorities. The result today is a region threatened by repression, violence and economic decline.-[End Excerpt]

Another Castro in Latin America? Venezuela's Chavez proudly following in Cuba's steps

Soft stance strengthens Castro--Allowing Castro access to hard currency will not only strengthen his hold on the Cuban people, but also allow him to build up his military and continue his support of anti-American terrorist groups in Latin America and elsewhere. When Castro sees U.S. policy as weak and has cash in his pocket, he eagerly supports turmoil abroad. Nicaragua, Angola and Colombia are prime examples.

Wow CW, great post.

It looks like you've hilighted yet another major milestone in Clinton's ever expanding legacy of disaster.

We neglected our neighbors during a crucial period just when they were starting to get back on their feet. Now after 8 years of incompetant leadership on a "Clintonian Scale", the whole of South America is preparing to topple yet again into the abyss. It's the same scenario we saw Clinton repeat again and again, with Russia, Africa and Asia. He turned his back on a situation that blossomed into a major problem for the next administration and generations of Americans to come.

Thanks yet again to "Sink Master" Clinton for yet another foreign policy failure.

Thanks yet again to "Sink Master" Clinton for yet another foreign policy failure.

He said he was feeling everyone's pain.
Actually, he's left a lasting legacy of pain.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.