The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was first organized to counter the threat (whether real or imagined) of an expansionist Soviet Union. Seventeen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union however, NATO still exists and far from providing collective security it now serves as a tool of American expansionism.
If the NATO treaty is to be interpreted as it has historically been presented whereby NATO allies are required to act in the defense of any other ally, then the foreign relations of the United States present an ever growing threat to the peace and security of European nations. While it is undeniable that NATO did serve its purpose, NATO has transformed Europe into a buffer zone for the protection of the United States.
European security experts in whole must be considering already the threat posed by American diplomatic recklessness. After all, if the United States is going to continue with a foreign policy that has it provoking war against Russia, igniting conflict in Pakistan, threatening Iran, stoking Venezuela, interfering in Bolivia, and unilaterally invading two countries, Europe must reassess its membership in this organization for its own good.
Surely it did not escape the attention of those in the know that the United States has repeatedly shown an utter disregard for the founding principles of NATO cooperative arrangement. Article 1 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the most clear example which states:
"The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
In just those two lines I have bolded we find Iraq and Iran respectively. If the goal is that “peace and security and justice” be preserved, the United States has made a joke of this document’s original intentions. Surely, any such action by any European nation would have immediately been visited by anger from its members, but the way in which the U.S. carries itself across sovereign lines and against United Nations resolutions has only been met by a deafening silence from the European Community.
Lets be clear, any treaty which endangers the territorial peace of Europe and binds European armed forces to an American command and American foreign interest policy, is an ill-conceived treaty.
Currently NATO Allies are playing a game of chicken against Russia. Would any one of these nations other than the United States, really believe that they would be in the same situation otherwise. Russia can be a bully, but it’s an honest bully. You know when Russia is bullying you, I’m afraid however that Europe has lost the ability to tell when the U.S. bullies them.
Take the installation of the missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The U.S. claims these are meant to deter an Iranian attack against Europe, which is simply nonsense. Anti-Iranian missile facilities should be in Turkey, not Eastern Europe. The placement of these has been widely derided as an anti-Russian defense, but Europe has remained silent on the issue tacitly approving it all the while making themselves a target should US-Russian relations break down into war.
Meanwhile, the US has actively pushed for the addition of Georgia and Ukraine as full members of the NATO Alliance, a decision which will be NATO’s last. Ukraine, a nuclear power is too close for the comfort of Russia. Despite Russian protests the United States is intent on moving forward. Nevermind that the US would not tolerate a similar move by Russia in the Western Hemisphere, nevermind that the US promised not to expand NATO or that both Ukraine and Georgia are only nominal democracies. Europe remains silent as the continent bows down to America’s most aggressive foreign policy since its invasion of Mexico in 1846.
NATO as an American strategy surely served to benefit Europe when it was most needed. Now that strategy simply ensures that the only viable opposition to the US is dressed up as a threat to all European nations.
Europe must remove itself from NATO and reorganize itself as a third-party military alliance. European security and peace will only be ensured by European military independence. Let NATO die, before it kills us all.
Some have called the 20th century the "American Century". Others, recalling the height of the Roman Empire, have been so bold as to claim the past 50 years or so as the period of "Pax Americana". To be fair these names are justified from a limited perspective only, but are ultimately inaccurate. The last century was certainly a period of great American influence and power, capped in its last decade by the emergence of United States as the only global superpower and for a period of time political scientists even began referring to the US as a "hyper-power", a new nomenclature invented to better describe the seemingly unparalleled, and unopposed stature of the United States among the nations of the world. No matter the terminology, all such characterizations implied the establishment of a unipolar world centered on the United States.
The sustainability of a unipolar world, however, has always proven to be elusive. As Great Britain found out in the early decades of the 20th century, as Spain found out in the 17th century, and as Rome, Greece, Persia, and Babylon before them found out, the dream of a unipolar world is at best unstable and seemingly increasingly so as time passes and the world shrinks around us.
Certainly, things have changed in many ways for the better, a situation Americanists are quick to attribute to the influence of American mores and political institutions. We can spend quite a bit of time debating this, and surely it will be debated with much fierceness in the coming decades. It does seem nevertheless that the greatest claim to success in the modern era is the relative peace and willingness for cooperation found among nations today.
While conflicts still rage across many parts of the world the nature of such conflicts is better describe as domestic power struggles among ideological opposites, revolutionary uprisings against post-colonial regimes, or nationalist struggles for self-determination and sovereignty. But military conflicts focused upon territorial gain, border disputes, the redress of past wrongs, or based upon economic self interests have remarkably disappeared from the strategic dosier of foreign nations. Only the United States it appears continues to hold the perspective that "might makes right" in the 21st century.
The perception of the world as it is carried forward by Americans stands in contrast to reality. Where others see the hopes of political and social progress, the United States sees a sea of troubles.
The truth however is that Europe, perhaps the bloodiest continent in recorded history, now stands almost entirely peaceful, economically unified, and politically stable.
Africa, is gradually, albeit slowly, settling into stable relations among its countries. The African Union is beginning the process of economic and political consolidation, while countries like Nigeria and South Africa settled into the roles of regional leadership.
Among the East Asian countries prosperity is largely due to the recognition, acceptance, and nominal respect towards each other. While China, Japan, and Korea stand historically as mutual enemies, more is being accomplished on a day to day basis through regional cooperation than at any point before. All in spite of the clear differences towards democracy and capitalism.
Likewise in Latin America, despite the American media's portrayal, events are moving closer towards a regional union and a shared economy. Not surprisingly the only points of real contention among these nations is directly related to their individual relationship with the United States, a source of friction which is felt less year after year.
The world is undoubtedly moving towards a global government, a confederacy of nations with equal representation, and this is seen as a positive step for world peace. Regional bodies electing rotating presidencies and adopting regional currencies, all positive signs. In all corners of the globe this developing tide moves forward at an unprecedented pace. Meanwhile the United States seems stuck in the muck of warfare and international double-dealings, and stands as the only country where the thought of a global government is seen as a negative outcome.
But at some point in the near future the people of the United States will realize that the world no longer cares for the American perspective and that day comes closer every day. In a country where its people are so self-assured of their privileged perspective to a point of blindness towards the other worldly perspective, the point of awakening will be a rude one.
So what happens to a people convinced of a false truth when the veil is lifted from their eyes? What will happen when the world's leadership shifts into the hands of another country or more likely into an international grouping of nations? What will the day look like when Americans realize they are no longer the hegemonic superpower?
The world will continue with or without the United States, but the United States will need the world to continue. If things remain as is, if Americans cannot or will not accept the changes happening around the world, if the political leadership of this nation doesn't begin to lead the country in the right direction, you can be sure that in those coming days the America so enshrined by popular history, will give way to the America of our worst nightmares.
For 15 years, every year, the United Nations General Assembly has voted on the issue of the Cuban Embargo imposed unilaterally by the United States. This year's vote was no different with 184 countries calling the embargo an illegal act that must come to an end. Voting for the measure has become a tradition at the United Nations where Cuban and American dignitaries trade barbs like in a game of ping pong. This year was no different with the US calling for democracy in Cuba and Cuba calling out the hypocrisy of American policies around the world. The vote carried only one abstention and four votes against. Micronesia abstained, while the United States, Palau, the Marshall Islands, and Israel voted against lifting the embargo.
The vote also reminds us of the innate inequalities present in the United nations as a democratic body. When 184 countries, which include Russia, China, and EU members, are unable change such an obvious act of imperialism as is the embargo, there is no more proof needed to say that the United nations must be changed. However that change must come from the bottom not from the top.
Calls for reform are now being fielded by the Secretary General, but only that one proposed by the United States is being given any attention or hopes for ratification.
The Non-Aligned Movement must step forward and reclaim its sovereignty, by first withdrawing from the UN as a form of protest until the General Assembly is given the right to veto the Security Council, as any congress or parliament gets to veto its executive. Only then will a palpable change come to the affairs of the world. And if the United States is truly interested in democracy it must allow this change to occur.
Everyday that passes, it seems more and more likely that the United States will unilaterally, although with a possible coalition, declare war upon Iran. This move, compounded by the invasion of Iraq, will result in a chain reaction that has already begun to take shape and which the American mainstream media has chosen to diminish in severity or ignore altogether.
The Drums of War: It should first be noted that Iran is not in any way like Iraq. Where Iraq was controlled by a brutal dictatorship, and whose people and army were woefully demoralized. Iran is very much the regional power that others wish to be. With a government that is largely supported by its people and a military tradition that is unequaled by any neighboring power, Iran will put up a fight.
Of course all things being equal the United States could probably defeat Iran in under a week. But all things are not equal. Iran has a number of serious advantages that can help it maintain itself in a prolonged conflict. Unlike the majority of Iraqis which lived under a hostile government which did not represent their ethnic diversity, Iran does have a representative government which does assume responsibility for its constituency. Iran's parliament is not a rubber stamp as it is portrayed and is often at odds with the presidency and the ayatollah's decisions. It's parliament also includes among its members representatives of the country's ethnic minorities and women. To add to that Iran has a progressively-minded reform movement that, although at odds with the ayatollah, has been successful in bringing about changes in governance and public policy. This means that the Iranian people will not simply sit idly by while their government is attacked, and any American who believes otherwise will pay for it in the blood of America's youth.
Geography is also a factor here that cannot be ignored. Unlike Iraq which is almost entirely flat, Iran is a maze of deserts and snowcapped mountains and one which is three times larger in size than the entire country of Iraq with three times the population (roughly 70 million people to Iraq's 25 million). See the picture below:
The Iraqi Insurgency: Despite assurances by President G.W. Bush that the Iraqi insurgency is in its last days, the truth is that it is not. Attacks upon U.S. troops are a daily occurrence which have only diminished because American security outposts around Iraq are increasingly being manned by Iraqi security forces. But declaring war against Iran will mean that the the Iraqi insurgency will confront a weaker American military throughout Iraq as American troops are redeployed to the Iranian front, leaving only a skeleton force, most likely bunkered into the Green Zone in Baghdad.
In other words, American troops will face fire from both sides of the Iran-Iraq border , and will be forced to rely on the increasingly temperamental and untrustworthy Iraqi Security forces to cover its flank. If Blackwater and other such mercenary groups are kept out of Iraq as the Iraqi government has asked and as the U.S. Congress is moving to support, the United States will be forced to call upon troops of other nations or move towards a draft to bolster its troop numbers. The first will the hard, the second will be politically impossible.
Thus Iraq will become increasingly unstable once war against Iran begins.
The Rise of Kurdistan: Straddling both Iran and Iraq (and Turkey and Syria) is the region of Kurdistan. The Kurds, for almost 100 years have been asking for an independent and sovereign nation state to call their own. The United States encouraged this sentiment somewhat after the 1990's Gulf War by setting up the Kurdish Safe Zone in northern Iraq, which in 1992 formed its own autonomous government. After the invasion of Iraq, the United States bent over backwards to try and keep the independence movement in check by giving the region a measure of self government from the new Iraqi government.
The problem is that for the Kurds, history is finally moving in the right direction. the more unstable Iraq becomes the more local power and control the autonomous government claims. If that instability continues to increase the Kurdish people will not only see an opportunity for independence, but will rightfully claim the right of self-preservation against that instability spreading into their region.
In this way, not only would a U.S. war against Iran create the opportunity of a lifetime for Kurdish independence, it would also allow for the integration and annexation of Iranian Kurdistan, if the Iranian government collapses under an American invasion. If that series of events occurs there will be no stopping the development of a Greater Kurdistan whose people will begin asking for the full integration of all Kurdish areas under foreign control, namely those in Turkey and Syria (See map below).
The Turkish & Syrian Reaction: The Turkish reaction to the rise of Kurdistan will be swift and bloody, make no mistake about that. Turkey's current domestic and foreign policies both make complete their perception that an independent Kurdistan is a threat to the Turkish Republic. This week, Turkey's Parliament gave permission for its armed forces to enact a military campaign against Kurdish rebels, despite opposition from the United States. Turkey is fully aware that such an incursion into Iraqi territory will not only put it at odds with the U.S. and its NATO allies, but will surely cost it admission into the European Union, but from Turkey's point of view stopping an emergent Kurdistan in its tracks is more important.
The issue is that Turkey's population is 20% Kurdish and Kurds dominate much of the southeastern provinces. For turkey the idea of an internal rebellion and the possible loss of part of its territory is enough to throw caution to the wind. In turn, if the United States and Europe turn its back to Turkey, Turkey will look for other allies, definitely in Syria and possibly in Russia.
Syria, however, will be a minor factor, their internal situation is much too fragile to directly get involved to stop the reunification of Kurdistan. For that very reason, however, they cannot simply accept it, thus Syria will simply support Turkey's every decision regarding Kurdistan. And keep in mind that Syria and Iran have a loose but very real mutual-protection pact which will certainly come into effect if Israel decides to join the American war against Iran.
The Palestinian Street: Any action taken by the United States in the Middle East resonates in Israel. If the United States attacks Iran, Israel will follow protocol and raise its internal security measures in self defense. The weight of this heightened vigilance will primarily fall upon the Palestinian population. This will result in the further trampling of human rights, which will relight the fire under Hamas to carry on attacks against the Israeli population and its government. Hamas has ties to Iran and is suspected of being financed by the Iranian military, thus any attack against Iran will be surely followed by a Hamas attack against Israel.
The security crackdown by Israel will also finally destroy Fatah, Hamas' political rival and the more moderate of the two organizations. Fatah's open public profile will also make it an easier target for Israeli security sweeps, leaving the Palestinian people with only Hamas to rely upon for protection. The demise of Fatah will also allow for Lebanon's Hezbollah organization to claim solidarity with Hamas and the Palestinian people and solidify its strained relationship with Syria. Which Syria, by its relationship with Iran, will clandestinely support both organizations.
The Central Asian Question: In the mean time, Afghanistan's government, which mostly operates from bunkered compounds, will be severely destabilized by a war against Iran. As American resources are pulled into the Iranian conflict, Taliban forces will increase their insurgency against the government of Hamid Karzai. Karzai in 2005 signed a strategic partnership agreement with the United States, making it a definite member of any coalition that moves against Iran.
Unfortunately for Karzai, the public wave of public discontent may topple his government and return the country into the hands of the Pashtun people where the Taliban main source of support is found. At worst Afghanistan will fall into utter chaos, Somalia-style, as each local tribal leader vies for control in the power vacuum. At best, Afghanistan will fall into civil war with tribal leaders banding together, under the same groupings as the Nortern Alliance and the Taliban represented before 9/11.
Pakistan will be another favored staging area for U.S. troops, but the Musharaf government is already in political thin ice with its people, so apart from being a possible launch pad for an assault into the interior of Iran, Musharaf will do everything possible to keep his troops out of the fight. It should also be noted that Pakistani military leaders are very unhappy with the secret nuclear pact signed by the U.S. President and India, whose details are unknown but include the transfer of American nuclear technology to Pakistan's rival.
The Incidentals: President Putin of Russia recently declared that the Caspian Sea is off limits as a staging area for an attack against Iran and the Caspian states have signed an agreement to prohibit use of their countries for the same purpose. This is a difficult development to surmount for the United States because in the past few years the U.S. has acquired space in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan possibly in preparation for an attack upon Iran. This means that if these Caspian states stick to the agreement, or are made to stick to the agreement by Russian influence, the Caspian Sea will become refuge for Iran's government should it be forced to abandon the country and the capacity of the United States to surround the country will be severely undercut.
Russia itself will not go to the aid of Iran, but will surely keep control of the Caspian by air and sea to ensure the U.S. does not transgress into Russia's sphere of influence. Putin does not want a military confrontation with the United States, but he is betting the United States wants a confrontation with Russia even less. Besides, for the past 10 months the Russian air force has made it a point to show off its capabilities by running Cold War Era drills that have included incursions into British airspace. Putin may not want a confrontation, but is willing to have one to reclaim the military respect his country once had.
China is also a variable in this whole mess. An attack on Iran by the United States will severely harm China's chances of ever tapping into the Caspian Sea oil reserves, which Iran has been negotiating with them. China will not go to war against the United States, but they are conscious of the fact that they can make matters very difficult for the United States in a variety of ways economically. But that sword is double-edged, and it is China's trump card of last resort.
France's Prime Minister Sarkozy, has vowed to go to war against Iran if it develops its nuclear capabilities. This is probably a bluff, but if it isn't, Sarkozy will have a very short political career. The French people, although ridiculed in the United States, are often passionately anti-American and when the first French soldier dies in Iran, Sarkozy will be blamed personally. More likely is that any French aid to the U.S. will be logistic in nature rather than truly military. There is of course France's Foreign Legion which has been borrowed in occasion by the United States, but the numbers that would add are minuscule compared to the task and Sarkozy wouldn't be able to claim a true French involvement. Besides Sarkozy's announcement was not positively received by the French people and he is probably looking for a way to wiggle out of any commitments to live up to it by now.
Globally, it should be noted that nobody is going to shed a tear if the Iranian government falls to a U.S. invasion. Still the reception of American diplomats will be increasingly cold around the world as peoples all over the world will see nothing else in these American actions than a rogue war-mongering empire whose president will stop at nothing until the world bows at his feet. And nothing would make China, Russia, and the European Union happier, than an increased anti-American sentiment for them to exploit.
The past week has demonstrated once again how Puerto Rico's status as an American Colony continues to hurt Puerto Rico.
In the past week South America held its first Energy Summit to discuss regional energy supply issues... Puerto Rico could not be represented. During that meeting a new organization UNASUR or South American Union was formed and agreed upon by 10 nations to develop regional solutions for common problems including foreign trade issues.... Puerto Rico could not take part. In the Dominican Republic the RIO Group met representing 20 different Latin American countries and secured aid from the EU for development and increased trade with the European bloc... Puerto Rico could take part. Spain appointed its first ambassador to Caricom (Caribbean Community) to serve as a liaison for Spanish based industries interested in development in the Caribbean, Jamaica is particularly expected to benefit... Puerto Rico cannot compete for those investments. Trinidad announced the signing of an agreement to build a new oil refinery and begin construction of a Caribbean pipeline with financial aid from Venezuela... Puerto Rico cannot be part of the pipeline, nor can it look to build any refineries without US permission. Caricom announces an extension of the new visa program that enables open trvel among Caribbean countries, reinforcing trade in tourism... Puerto Rico cannot take part in the program. China announced a new trade deal with Cuba bringing the total amount of trade to 2 billion dollars between the two countries... Puerto Rico not allowed to compete. The World Trade Organization held another series of trade talks known as the Doha Round... Puerto Rico could not attend. CARIFORUM countries reenter negotiations to open trade with the European Union without tariffs on Caribbean products to directly benefit over 22 million people in every country of the Caribbean... except Puerto Rico. France announced a new project to lend French experts to help organize and manage government functions such as law enforcement, decreasing government corruption, and trade relations to help speed development in countries that apply for the expertise... Puerto Rico cannot apply.
This all happened this week... Makes you wonder what other opportunities Puerto Rico miss out in during the other 5,668 weeks since the United States took over the island.
Meanwhile in the US... The city council of Heperia, CA seeks to ban the display of all flags except the American flag. Nevada discussed making English its official language while in the U.S. Congress, bill H.R. 997 is moving quickly to adoption with 89 co-sponsoring representatives, aiming to restrict all government functions to English only.
[Editorial Note: This is report from Dominican Today supports the conclusions expressed in the previously posted Latino Insurgent Analysis"South American Union Becoming a Reality". ]
Europe to present 2.6B euro aid package for Latin America in Dominican summit
SANTO DOMINGO. – During the 13th Ministerial Meeting with the Rio Group the European Union (EU) will present today Friday its 2.6 billion euro aid package for Latin America, to be disbursed over a period of 6 years.
"This dialogue is really important because we have close cultural ties and also share common values; in addition that there is no another alternative, we’re in this globalized world, we must cooperate more closely than in the past," said Germany’s Foreign Relations minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.
The diplomat and current president of the European Union Cabinet delivered the inaugural speech to open the summit, in which the EU’s financial aid package for Latin America will be announced.
For her part, Foreign Relations commissar Benita Ferrero-Waldner, quoted by the German Press Agency (DPA) said on Thursday "I believe that with this package we have kept our promises."
Ferrero-Waldner cited the commitments assumed in the 4th meeting of Heads of State of Latin America and Europe, held in Vienna in 2006. She and the members of the delegation, headed by Steinmeier, will present the financial aid program to the 20 Rio Group countries’ Foreign ministers before Friday.
According to the cooperation project, the 2.6 billion euros package will serve to finance programs to fight poverty, inequality and exclusion in Latin America from 2007 to 2013.
The funds will also allow the creation monitoring programs against government corruption, respect for human rights, as well as to promote regional economic cooperation and the relations between the European Union and Latin America. The EU’s cooperation proposal will also fund programs of sustainable development and to protect the biodiversity.
"Our relations are not only economic relations or of trade (...)therefore it’s fundamental that we find the capacity to see world-wide events with the same eyes to face the new challenges," such as climatic change, said Javier Solana, the senior European diplomat on Thursday.
The Foreign Relations ministers of the Rio Group’s 20 countries, a Latin America and the Caribbean dialogue mechanism, and the 27 EU nations are meeting today Friday to define collaboration programs and financial aid for Haiti.
After the inaugural ceremony the ministers began their first work session behind closed doors.
[Editorial Note: This report published by the Sun-Sentinel touches upon the smae developments covered in the previous Latino Insurgent analysis report "South American Union Becoming a Reality." This is of course only compounded by the EU's renewed interest in the region see upcoming report "EU Pledges Aid to Latin America & Caribbean"
U.S. losing Caribbean clout
By Jonathan M. Katz The Associated Press
April 17, 2007
The United States neglects its Caribbean neighbors and is losing influence in the region to China and Venezuela, a U.S. Congress member visiting the islands said Monday.
U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel, a New York Democrat and chairman of the House International Relations subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, said officials in Grenada and Trinidad and Tobago feel Washington ignores the region and are looking elsewhere for investment and aid.
"The people there are begging us to be engaged. By our neglect, other countries operating in their own self-interest will move in and fill the void," Engel said by phone from Trinidad.
During a four-day Caribbean trip, Engel and four other congressional Democrats met with Trinidadian Prime Minister Patrick Manning and toured a Grenada medical school that draws a large number of U.S. students.
The other members of the delegation were Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee of California, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas and Yvette Clarke of New York.
In Grenada, the delegation stopped by a $40 million cricket stadium financed by China and rebuilt by Chinese workers after it was damaged in a 2004 hurricane.
"They built the whole place. They're moving in," said Engel, whose Bronx district is home to thousands of Caribbean immigrants.
U.S. aid to the Caribbean declined by more than a third in the 1990s and stayed low for most of this decade, the Congressional Research Service reported in 2005.
Though funding has risen since -- the White House requested $316 million in 2006 -- the majority of that assistance goes to Haiti.
Meanwhile, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez has gained popularity offering low-cost, long-term financing for oil. China has dramatically increased investment in the region and recently asked to join the Inter-American Development Bank.
Chavez received a warm reception when he visited Haiti last month. And in March, Dominican Republic President Leonel Fernandez chastised Washington for having abandoned his country in its fight against surging cocaine traffic.
With the conclusion of the first South American Energy Summit, South American leaders surprised everyone with signing an agreement to established the UNASUR, Union of South American Nations. Ten of the twelve South American presidents attending the Energy Summit including Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Nestor Kirchner of Argentina, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Álvaro Uribe of Colombia, Michelle Bachelet of Chile, Nestor Duarte of Paraguay, and the Prime Ministers of Guayana, Sam Hinds, and of Surinam, Gregory Rusland.
Only Peru and Uruguay decided to abstain from the measure, which actually provides details like the establishment of a headquarters in Quito, Ecuador and the election of an executive President to administer UNASUR meetings and issues, with the Protempore Secretariat located in Brasilia, Brazil. Looking a lot like a model of the European Union, composed of cross tangled treaties, UNASUR will house the regional agreements possibly including MERCOSUR, ALBA, OPPEGASUR, The Bank of the South, the Great Gas Pipeline of the South, the Trans-Caribbean Pipeline, and the Andean Community Bloc.
Latino Insurgent ANALYSIS:
This development pushes forward the 2004 Cuzco Declaration, which seemed stalled for a while, and outlined a road to developing a regional parliament, a common market and a common currency.
If South America can elect an executive president, a regional parliament will follow to balance the executive office. Once the Bank of the South is established, which Brazil has now joined with Venezuela, Bolivia, and Argentina, a common currency will be possible. The true next step will have to be the integration of the ALBA, MERCOSUR and Andean Community economic blocs. This common market will be necessary for a common currency to arise. The Suro???
There are problems to be overcome however. Cuba is a member of ALBA and by American decree under the Helms-Burton Act nations who trade openly with Cuba can face economic sanctions from the United States. In addition is Colombia's relationship and dependency with the United States who wields great influence in the country under the American program called "Plan Colombia". As a member of the Andean Community, Colombia could block integration if leaned upon by the United States. Panama, which did not take part in the Energy Summit will nevertheless play a crucial role as the bridge between the continents and the bridge between the oceans. However due to its importance to the United States, by which the US navy can move rapidly from the Atlantic to the Pacific and considered the single most important defensive bulwark of the United States, integration of Panama into UNASUR will be an objective for member nations and the primary reason for the United States to obstruct that objective.
Any trouble concerning the Panama Canal will however draw the attention of China and the European Union which could easily push for the waterway to be declared neutral and with it for Panama to remain outside of any and all trade blocs. Consequently, as UNASUR will present a challenge to American influence, the true tug of war will be among the the nations of Central America under CAFTA and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), in which the European Union has preference and the United States is often seen as an obstacle to progress. The competition for dominance however will swing with UNASUR, which will likely align itself more closely with the European Union than the United States. This shift will of course also benefit China, as the similar competition for Africa between the US and the EU is slowly delivering the region to Chinese influence.
Interestingly, African nations prefer their Chinese "uncle" due to the country's tradition against intervention and its apparent present untouchable trade position and monetary stability.
The colonial status of Puerto Rico is the defining political issue in island politics and has been for over half a century. The decision still to be made rests upon three options, Statehood, Commonwealth, and Independence. Those of you who have followed my posts already know my preference for an Independent and Sovereign Puerto Rico.
Most among the academic/intellectual junta support the idea of independence, while most of the money elite supports statehood. While most unionized workers support the Commonwealth status. All else are roughly distributed among statehood and commonwealth, while many of our western Jibaro communities look to independence.
If we look at the numbers from affiliation to a political party we would find that independence hovers around the 5% rate while statehood and Commonwealth split the difference.
Many commonwealth voters are called "melones" (melons) presenting themselves as being pro-independence (with green party color), while voting pro-commonwealth (red party color). This means that while pro-independence may only garner 5% of the vote at most, it may actually command the allegiance of many who vote pro-commonwealth simply to oppose a pro statehood victory. Many others although they will not vote for statehood, would vote for statehood if their only other option were independence, due to fear for the believed instability it would bring to the island. The exact numbers however are impossible to garner.
So lets say that the melones constitutes about half of all pro-commonwealth voters, meaning that given a referendum pitting Statehood vs. Independence: support of each would be something like 70% and 30% respectively. This would not be however, lets remember, a representation of the people's wishes, but a result of choice manipulation.
This is the type of manipulation the pro statehood party, by way of Luis Fortuño, is trying to pull off in their support for House Bill 900 (H.R. 900). However the response to this manipulative legislation, House Bill 1230 (H.R.1230), doesn't propose any solution, but instead maintains the impasse among the political parties.
While the continuing impasse will definitely help to stave off statehood, it will not however solve the island's problems and will simply allow for further procrastination while the island continues to fall apart.
The problem is a lack of choices.
See, statehooders want economic stability and security above all, Independentistas want sovereignty and cultural security above all, while pro commonwealthers want both, the stability and security provided by the United States, and the cultural security that statehood threatens. Essentially the problem is one of perceptions and fears.
So is it possible that there is a fourth option? An alternative that still lies unexplored? Yes there are several, all of which disappear from the list of options if the issue is only seen from an American-centered point of view. If we step back, however there is another highly promising alternative for Puerto Rico; an option that provides all Puerto Ricans with everything they want and makes the fears vanish; The European Union.
The European Union is a conglomerate representative system of sovereign nations who maintain their individual character while acting through a solid economic block. It is also an integrationist system that seeks expansion, not through conquest, but through commonly shared economic and social goals. Allegiance with, and integration into, this system would guarantee all the Puerto Rican political parties their desires while eliminating their fears.
For statehooders membership into the European Union would provide the security inherent in the system without the American penchant for going to war. Economically, the money elite would have access to the world's most stable currency and the one of the most diverse and dynamic. While equally guaranteeing a democratic government in an independent Puerto Rico. As many members of the EU also do, if Puerto Rico chooses, it can retain the American military presense in the island, as many European nations have.
For independentistas membership would provide a sovereign government, with representation in all international bodies. These would include the UN, OAS, EUC, WTO, ect. It means that English would never be forced down Puerto RIcan throats by Congress, it means that local courts will not be overturned by a foreign court. It means that no Puerto Rican will be threatened with Capital Punishment as it is outlawed in Europe. More importantly it means that Puerto Rico will be able to protect its history and culture.
For Commonwealthers it would provide the best of both worlds without the risks of either statehood or independence.
The questions are then: Can Puerto Rico envision this possibility? And would it be welcomed by Europe. The answer is yes on both counts.
CAN PUERTO RICO ENVISION THIS POSSIBILITY? Yes, if the political leadership of Puerto Rico sits down and discusses the idea, the result will be consensus, and if all three political parties can look past their ties to American interests and or regional movements, they will be able to present this as a welcomed solution to the people of Puerto Rico.
WOULD EUROPE WELCOME PUERTO RICO? Yes, the European Union is neither dominated by a single ethnic group nor does it restrict membership to nations based upon arbitrary rules. Instead it practices a system of integration which is based on meeting certain social, economic, and political criteria. These are already met by Puerto Rico and in many ways surpasses the ratings of many aspiring members.
Puerto Rico also presents a number of opportunities that many interest groups throughout Europe would look favorably towards Puerto Rican integration. 1) Puerto Rico would serve as the only Spanish speaking member in the Caribbean, providing the EU greater influence in a region typically dominated by the United States, a domination many Europeans are looking forward to challenge. 2) Puerto Rico is a overwhelmingly Christian nation, around 98%, providing a balance to the increase of Muslim citizens in the Union and the upcoming membership of Turkey which many influential Christian interest groups oppose. 3)Puerto Rico's close relationship with the US will then be also an asset as European corporations will be able to look to the island as a bridge to the US, not just Latin America, as many others see turkey as a bridge to the Middle East. 4) The relative poverty of Puerto Rico in comparison to European nations, however would provide Europe with inexpensive labor within the Union and on the doorstep of the United States and Latin America, while the island also serves to restrain inflation in Europe. 5) While relatively poor, however the island is often regarded as the richest in the Caribbean, and is richer than most of the eastern European nations seeking membership. Its position in the Caribbean would also strengthen the economies of European dependencies in the region.
The final question is whether this opportunity to provide for Puerto Rico and to provide for Europe will be more than just thoughts on a blog.
.jpg)
