The End of American Hegemony

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.

Latin American & Caribbean Olympic Medal Standings

These totals will be updated daily and expanded.
Last Updated on SUN. August 24 --Final Update.

Latin America & Caribbean Medal Standings	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total
Jamaica	6	3	2	11
Brazil	3	4	8	15
Cuba	2	11	11	24
Argentina	2	0	4	6
Mexico	2	0	1	3
Dominican Republic	1	1	0	2
Panama	1	0	0	1
Trinidad & Tobago	0	2	0	2
Bahamas	0	1	1	2
Colombia	0	1	1	2
Chile	0	1	0	1
Ecuador	0	1	0	1
Bahamas	0	1	1	2
Venezuela	0	0	1	1

***Proper Olympic rankings are in medal value order, not the total number of
medals***

Congratulations to all of our brothers and sisters from Latin America and the Caribbean for the great performances. 2012 will be even better.

The War on Drugs Deconstructed

by Michael Deliz

While American soccer moms run away from the mere mention of the "evil" plant, coca is a revered and widely used home remedy for the indigenous peoples of the Andean region of Latin America. The difference in perspective is more than mere cultural variation, it is perhaps the longest lasting psychological effect of the Cold War upon the American people and its government.

The War on Drugs was of course never meant as an actual war on drugs but as an excuse to intervene in Latin America against leftist/communist organizations. This pseudo-proxy war of the Cold War allowed the U.S. almost naked support for paramilitary forces throughout the Andes and Central America, during the 1980s and 1990s. This was of course founded upon the shaky premise that leftist groups were being financed by the drug trade, that however was a false premise and merely an invented justification, as most rebel groups were founded and operated significantly in the 50s and 60s before there was a market for cocaine in 1980's America. In fact, Coca production in Colombia was rare until the early 1990s.

Even if the premise were true we would have found large stashes of cash during counterintelligence raids into rebel facilities. There would be testimony from captured rebels about drug operations tying the cocaine sales pipeline all the way to the rebels. But it doesn't exist. Instead it seems as though all the money and military might has done nothing to even slow the flow of narcotics into the U.S. How can this be? How can there be no measurable effect from a program that cost the US $45 billion in 1995 and grew to $143 billion in just three years? In fact if you look at this graph:



Essentially we can draw two clear conclusions from this graph; 1)major interventions have only a temporary effect and only on the retail price 2)Despite the program's intensification over the years the wholesale price has only dropped, widening the profit margin, while maintaining retail prices relatively flat over time.



The importance of the wholesale price cannot be overstated. The fact that the wholesale price drops means that not only has there been a slight over-supply year after year but also that efficiency in the system has increased at a natural pace. This is completely incongruous with the fact that this year the U.S. spent billions to supposedly stop all this. No government can be so consistently inept.

In fact in 2006 Marijuana became the biggest cash crop of the U.S. taking in $35 billion per year, and South American coca produced its largest harvest in 2005. All while the retail price has remained constant and predictable, while the wholesale price has decreased. In fact marijuana which is the most targeted of drugs in the U.S. has seen a ten-fold increase in its domestic harvest. This is still impossible to reconcile even if we take the roll over effect into account.

This roll over effect is the result of the spraying in one area leading farmers to roll over their crops to another field to replace production. Even if this effect is true that there is a kind of "moving target" here. The actual trend of the wholesale price would however suggest that more farms are created and at a faster pace than farms are destroyed, which is logistically impossible. Mass production transfers from field to field would actually create great peaks in the wholesale price, and the price would therefore increase over time. The data doesn't show this.

The total effect upon drug production in fact seems to be much less a "war" than a measured attempt at stabilization of an industry, which could not be more effective than if conducted by the industry itself.

Essentially the economic history seems to suggest a type of collusion among the parties involved, rather than an attempt at eradication. The fact that the three largest initiatives shown on the graph precede a U.S. Presidential election is not a coincidence.

The collusion is mapped in this way.
During the height of the cultural revolution in the late 50s and 60s, drug use became a visible middle class activity especially among the youth. Drug use was therefore blamed publicly for the apparent rebelliousness of the coming of age generation, which was highly critical of government activity (ie: Civil Rights, Vietnam, Watergate, etc...). Accusing the drugs rather than crediting the fact that an intelligent middle class had finally become established in White-America. This latter fact was a result of increased public school enrollment and college attendance among the non-wealthy in the post WWII years. The American public, first taught to blame drugs is then taught drug use is a threat to their standard of living and must therefore fight it. This public perspective promotes into political office individuals who not only promise a get tough approach but perhaps also grew up believing in an apocalyptic version of future society where drug use could become mainstream.

These politicians must promise results against this possible future. And therefore progressively pass harsher legislation against drug use but more significantly approve funding for the cause. As payoff, they get to look like they are seriously attacking the problem, and always claiming to have done a better job than their predecessor.

Funding for the war on drugs is largely spent domestically where the citizens can view the results first hand, through local law enforcement. Out of over 143 billion dollars spent per year less than a billion is spent in the eradication of drugs at the source of production. At the Federal level military efforts are however part of the solution. The end result is of course a sort of trade off.

American military and financial aid is granted upon the ruling elite of Latin America, which puts it to use to suppress political dissent. This ruling elite is propped up by the aid which helps to also secure the well being of the ruling classes over the majority poor lower class. Where the target of the American public is the drugs themselves, the target of the Latin American ruling classes is the poor alone.

This aid, both military and financial, then became necessary to maintain the rich in charge and superior to the poor, a symbiotic dependency system was created. While American politicians could claim reelection, Latin American elites could continue their exploitation of the masses and disruption of indigenous attempts to organize, all financed by the American government. Meanwhile the drug trade continues uninterrupted.

Relevant Media Sources:
NarcoNews - Coca Growers Shake the Andes Once Again
Living in Peru - Civil unrest breaks out between Peru's coca farmers and police
Associated Press - Peru Congress grants president power to fight drugs, terrorism by decree
Sun-Sentinel Report - Bolivian coca crop holds steady

THERE IS NO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION PROBLEM

For the past few years Americans have risen up in arms against what they perceive to be a threat to their way of life, Latin American illegal immigration. However the truth is there is no illegal immigration problem. There are about 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants, yes, but they are not a problem. In order to prove this we will look specifically at Mexican illegal immigration and we'll do this for two reason; one they constitute the majority of illegal immigrants (57% of the total) and two they are the most noticeable group of immigrant (which makes them the most targeted).

So lets take the high number of 12 million and multiply that by .57 (57% who are Mexican), so there are 6.84 million Mexicans residing in the United States illegally.
These 6.84 million Mexicans sent $16 billion dollars back to Mexico last year to support their families, that means on average each sent back $2339.18 from their earnings here, after paying their personal expenses here.

That $16 billion helps to maintain many families in Mexico where 40% live under Mexico's own poverty line. Mexico is a country of 108 million people, which means that there are close to 43 million Mexican in dire poverty. These Mexicans work (only 3.5% unemployment in Mexico) and mostly work for American corporations who are allowed to pay their workers low wages even by Mexican standards. These workers buy most of their goods from American companies, from shoes and clothes to food.

Mexico imported 253.1 billion dollars in goods in 2006, 53.4% of that from the United States which means that Mexico spent $135.2 billion buying American products. The majority of the $16 billion sent back home to Mexico therefore comes back to the United States.

In other words, those 6.84 million Mexicans, not only help to maintain 43 million more from wanting to come to the U.S. but much of their expendable incomes after paying for their own living expenses, returns to the US by way of goods purchased in Mexico.

In terms of jobs Mexicans do take many labor intensive/low skilled positions from American citizens, mostly in agriculture and construction. But there is only 6.84 million of them, in a country like the U.S. of 300 million people that's 2.2% of the population. And that 2.2% is spread out mostly across the United States. In most states barely registering as a percentage. Even if we at this point used the entire illegal community of 12 million, that would only equal about 4% of the population.

Even if we took the often-repeated myth that illegals lower the wages of citizens, which is impossible for 4% to affect the other 96% so drastically as it is claimed, but even if it were true, then we should thank illegal immigrants for helping to maintain jobs in this country from moving away. After all it is the high labor costs that have sent America's manufacturing plants abroad. So if you believe these illegals are actually lowering your paycheck then be thankful for the fact that your labor cost is low enough to keep your job in this country.

So what about the statistics pushed by anti-immigrant groups, don't they have any validity? Those statistics are derived from a set of assumptions that are at the very least misleading.

1) The first assumption is that illegals don't pay taxes. That is false. Over 90% of illegal workers are paid by paycheck, using fake social security numbers. From which taxes are deducted, both income and social security taxes. They however cannot claim any refunds for those and will never be able to claim what they paid into social security even if they all became legal today, because they would be assigned new social security numbers. Essentially, a case could be made that the solvency of the social security system is protected by illegal immigrants, this is one reason why the Federal Government is so reluctant to stop illegal immigration.

2) The second assumption is that illegal immigration is a drain in social services. Most state budgets derive their funds by taxing property and retail sales. While most illegal are denied the ability to buy real property, they contribute through the rent paid to their landlords, who in turn pay property taxes. In addition, due to the inability of many to place their money in banks, use credit, or take loans, most illegal immigrants spend most of their money in consumer goods, often saving to buy a car or truck, but largely spend on personal consumption goods, through which they pay sales taxes, like everyone else does. And their use of social services is often lower than most citizens as they only use what they need like emergency medical help. More often than not however even in cases of emergencies, like pregnancies or accidents, most do not go to hospitals for fear of being turned into immigration authorities. And in most cases due to their illegal status they pay for services in cash and up front. Millions of small businesses rely on these illegal consumers, just as many others rely on their labor.

3) The third assumption is that illegals commit crimes (beyond entering the country) which endanger citizens. Actually illegals are far more conscious of not committing crimes for fear of deportation and are in fact less likely than citizens to commit a crime. They are however more likely to be the victims of crime and less likely to report it, again due to fear of deportation.

In all the statistics used to demean illegal immigrants are loaded with estimates that take numbers pertaining to the whole population of the United States, like the costs of a regular citizen to the government, add the cost of immigration enforcement and then fail to take into consideration the taxes paid by illegals and the fewer services that they consume.

In all, illegal immigrants are an asset not a liability to the United States as their return on investment always yeilds a positive balance. Unfortunately for the U.S., it looks like the only way this lesson will be learned is after all illegals are deported, and the true value comes to bear upon the American economy and society. Many who see illegals as a burden just don't get it, many just don't know, but they are all being led by those who know and just don't care for the consequences, and those are the ones who are pushing you to believe their dribble in exchange for your vote or for TV ratings.

Argentina Tells IMF to F--K Off

Plaza De Mayo, Buenos Aires, December 19, 2001

In 2001 Argentina's economy plummeted due to a combination of foreign influence, IMF policies, and President Mennen's adoption of the Washington Consensus. Following that, Argentina suffered through a humbling period of bank runs and complete economic collapse leading to the threat of defaulting against international debts and verged on the edge of political collapse. Now its, 2007, and Argentina is back, better than ever, and with a vengeance.

During the last meeting of the IMF, Argentina's President Nestor Kirchner said to the IMF Managing Director Rodrigo Rato, "spend your time talking to others, because we’ve almost forgotten about you." And continued to say “the IMF no longer can indicate what we should do, we well know what happened when we did so”. Kirchner then boasted of Argentina's economy as having “one of the highest international reserves in history, 37.430 billion US dollars”.

To the embarrassment of the IMF, while almost every country under its advice languishes in poverty, after Argentina abandoned the IMF after its economic collapse and returned to manage its own monetary policy, Argentina now stands as perhaps the only developing nation who has paid back all of its IMF loans and did so in 2006.

EU Pledges Aid to Latin America

[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.

AP Reports: U.S. losing Caribbean clout

[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.

Copyright © 2007, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

South American Union Becoming a Reality

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.

These are interesting times, don't you think.

Analysis: Is China good for Latin America?

Recently, I found my fortune telling 8 ball, the one you shake and tells you the future. Its a toy, made in China and produced for the American market. Over the last few decades China has increasingly produced consumer goods for markets in the United States, leading to its emergence as an economic powerhouse. This long lost toy spurred my thinking, given the challenge China presents the United States, is China good for Latin America?

Within the past 5 years Chinese influence has grown in the region to the benefit of the people and commerce of Latin America easily outpacing the immediate negative effects some sectors of the economy may face from direct Chinese competition.

It is useful to remember that China is still a developing nation still seeking to balance its economic potential with its domestic scarcity in many areas including civil liberties, entrepreneurship, and basic necessities outside the urban cores. However it is catching up quickly and reassuringly with the OECD countries and in fact carries more economic weight than most. So to regard China as a "developing country" is often a misrepresentation that will increasingly seem ill fitting.

This "developing" status is nevertheless important because it still places China as a direct competitor to Latin America. However, with cheaper labor and greater resources than any individual Latin American nation, China is quickly reaching the sweet spot in development, the window in time in which domestic production and domestic consumerism represent the greatest economic safety net. This same window in time was experienced by the United States and Europe in the post-WWII era. However once consumerism expands beyond the means of the domestic capacity to produce a nation begins to transfer wealth out to foreign markets, much like the United States, beginning in the 1980s through today.

Latin America never having successfully industrialized has developed a consumerist's appetite without ever having developed the capacity for production to meet the domestic demands. The production supply has always been met primarily by the United States, and running at a far second Europe, then Asia. But the recent trends in the political and economic understanding of the situation, represented most pointedly by the rise of left-leaning governments, has begun to shift the focus of policy making in different ways specially through diversification of what Latin America sees as its consumer markets.

China, which today sits on the world stage with an unparalleled budget surplus, is a much sought after consumer market for Latin America and China for its part is willing to share in a trade relationship. The lack of a manufacturing base in Latin America however still places the region in the role of a support player trading its unfinished, unrefined resources for Chinese manufactured products. This is not dissimilar to the region's existing relationship with the United States but by including China as a consumer of its resources, thereby diversifying its market, Latin America can better enhance its position against both.

Dependence, the dirty word every Latin American nation, excluding Cuba, lives by but hates to admit, is the very system of economic bondage that the recent leftist surge in Latin America seeks to deconstruct and eradicate. The problem is that Latin American dependence upon the United States is not merely economic, but by default political in its implications. Pinned under the American sphere of influence and lacking for breath, the only recourse left is to thrust against that overriding power and establish a proper living space that allows for diplomatic, economic, and social communication with the rest of the world.

China, as an emerging global power stands as a good samaritan to the Latin American struggle by continuously nudging the weight of the American Empire and leveraging it with Chinese production and investment capabilities. The trick however is not to replace one empire with another, but to play the two as opposing forces which will increasingly repell each other and allow for a gap through which the sun will finally reach Latin American soil.

This will certainly strike many as a Machiavellian interpretation, but que sera sera. For the past 100 years Latin America has been the recipient of Machiavellian politics directed from Washington, it can now hardly be blamed for having learned the game from the masters. If Latin America can reach a stable and consistently integrational process towards a Latin American Union it will enable itself to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the quickly developing U.S./China rift.

Perhaps the greatest advantage for Latin America is the USA's dismissive attitude to the idea of regional integration in Latin America which belies a far more dangerous belief in American superiority. That self confidence is blinding the US to the developments of the region which are set to focus on political self-determination.

First, however, the shadow of colonialism must lift or be lifted from the minds of Latin American communities in which many still see themselves as culturally inferior perhaps even genetically inferior to their northern neighbor. Its a shadow of self hatred and self doubt that has stripped the region of its possible future and one that Simon Bolivar would be ashamed of today. China in this aspect has something to teach Latin America. While the model of self love presented by the United States relies heavily upon the teaching of selective history and a reliance on military might, China's recent rise is preceded by an effort of the government to instill pride through largely scientific accomplishment, not the least of which is China's pursuit of space exploration.

In the meantime, while North American investments have looked to the Far East, Chinese investments are looking increasingly to Latin America. At this moment it seems that China's self interests include weakening American power and influence in throughout Latin America and by doing so Latin America regains sovereignty in the world stage. The emphasis on economic development promoted by Chinese policies in the region have thus far proved much more effective than the failed Soviet strategy to promote an ideological shift away from the United States.

In general, I would argue that playing ball with China will set the stage for a future power play by Latin America in global politics. Surely time will tell whether or not this will come about, but my fortune telling 8 ball has been shaken and 'all signs point to yes'.

by Michael Deliz