A Collaborative Contract
Forget aid and trade—what Latin America most wants is Washington to remember its core values.
The 9/11 attacks presented a unique opportunity for the United States to assume a positive global leadership role. People around the world were appalled by the tragedies of that day, and a true community of spirits could have been forged.
At the time, I quickly instructed the Brazilian Mission to the Organization of American States to present a draft resolution stating that—in accordance with the 1947 Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance—aggression against one country of the hemisphere should be treated as aggression against all. We expressed our full support for the United States and laid out a legal framework for defensive action. Solidarity surged throughout the rest of Latin America as well.
Yet this immense capital, this friendly feeling and U.S. soft power, was quickly squandered. Washington ignored our offer of help. More fundamentally, soon after the widely popular war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Washington decided to shift focus to Iraq: a historic mistake of dramatic consequences. When no weapons of mass destruction were found there, the United States lost credibility in the eyes of the world, and the Bush administration lost the support of much of Latin America.
This outcome was not the result of bad luck or tactical mistakes. It was the result of an attempt by members of the administration to revive the age-old idea of Manifest Destiny: the notion that the United States can and should propagate its vision of democracy as a universal political formula. U.S. leaders decided not only to impose order on the world but to promote—by force if necessary—an institutional model they thought would ensure the welfare of all peoples.
At the end of the second world war, supranational mechanisms like the United Nations and the World Bank were created to enforce world peace and, later, to fight poverty and inequality. At that time, differences between political systems—between communist governments and democratic, market-oriented states—were accepted as part of the new order. Even the losers in the war were invited to participate in the emerging system. Gradually, however, the strongest powers began to avoid the United Nations, and the idea of a collaborative contract between countries with different world views lost ground. Especially after the end of the cold war, this left the United States with essentially free rein. And the result, ultimately, was Iraq.
It is now high time for leading countries to once again ground their actions on moral values and principles—while avoiding fundamentalist obsessions. It's time to return to the United Nations' original objectives: to preserve peace and reduce poverty while protecting human rights and accepting national and cultural diversity.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: Charlesmagne Mundin @ 02/09/2008 12:48:20 PM
Comment: Dear morbie5, like many other countries in the world, Brazil paid the price for the local elite's alignment with American Interest. The income gap got wider thanks to the past and still present American intervention in Latin America, where instead of democracy it supported dictators, as long as they were not communists. America gave Latin America another unwanted present in the form of Hugo Chavez, whom is in power thanks to his anti-American bravado and the oil price which is been pushed up by the Bush Clan and allies in the boardroom of the oil companies. We should also blame the extremely shallow Brazilian elite whom should have looked elsewhere to plot the country's development . Also I would like to suggest that you read some articles about the BRIC countries, it may broaden your limited view on this issue and can prevent you in the future to make these ill informed comments. Please do not be another ignorant living in a bubble 'We Are The World" or maybe you are just another one of the Bush voters . There are life outside the United States of America. Charlemagne
Posted By: morbie5 @ 12/13/2007 7:01:51 PM
Comment: I agree that Iraq was a horrible mistake. It is way to costly in terms of lives and in money. That aside our markets are by far the most open in the world. Almost every country we trade with takes advantage of this fact and prevents us from having equal access to their own markets. Our national debt and trade deficits are huge. Why should we trade with Brazil if you aren't increasing your workers wages, making sure your factories are safe, and reduce pollution. Brazil has horrible race relations and a huge income gap. You can't even go in to the major cities with out fear of getting robbed. Why don't you complain to the super rich that live in gated communities in Rio that take advantage of the poor before you complain to us.