The Heart of the Beast

The term the "White Man’s Burden" was coined in the title of a poem by Rudyard Kipling celebrating the superiority of western culture, and the responsibility, thus the "burden" of western nations to "civilize" non-white peoples presumed to be culturally and racially inferior. The poem was published in 1899 under the subtitle of "The United States and the Philippine Islands" and served to place a humanitarian face on the US violent exploitation of the Philippines.

While not as blatantly racist, today this mindset of superiority and obligation of the United States to intervene in the affairs of other nations in order to save a "lesser" people from themselves continues to remain part of the US government’s justification to pursue its interests in the name of humanitarian concerns.

The history of US intervention in Latin America demonstrates the emptiness of this supposedly humanitarian agenda. While the US rhetoric publicly championed the ideals of democracy and human rights, such ideals mean absolutely nothing when they stand in the path of US interests. Whether this means overthrowing democratically elected regimes as in the case of Chile, Guatemala and Haiti or the sponsorship of death squads and brutal regimes through out Latin America, the history makes clear where the US government’s priorities really lie.

Barack Obama may possibly be the very first US president of color. He has promised a departure from the US foreign policy on Latin America embraced by the Bush administration and the similarly militant policies supported by John McCain, but in reality is the very same policy with the familiar patronizing concern. In his speech to the Cuban American National Foundation, Obama made very clear his Americentric view of the world and his belief that US interests can be advanced in the region by preventing "lesser" people from behaving "foolishly".

According to Obama, in light of the Bush administration’s policies it is "no wonder, ... that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum."

Obama would have us believe that it was the US government’s failure to act that resulted in people democratically electing leaders such as Hugo Chavez. Similarly Chavez’s unchecked influence is responsible for the powerful social movements in Bolivia which have lead to the election of Evo Morales and the rise of MAS. These social movements in Bolivia and other parts of Latin America have little to do with Chavez but instead are a reaction to unresponsive governments and bankrupt economic policies pushed on Latin America by the US and other developed nations through the IMF and World Bank.

Obama continued his tirade against Chavez and demonized him for his "anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy", the first two being the standard blanket criticisms the US likes to hurl at those that oppose it’s interests and the last can only be aimed at Chavez’s commitment to policy to reduce poverty and increase regional cooperation.

When it comes to the embargo on Cuba, which only serves to punish the Cuban population and for years has been condemned by the UN as a violation of international law, Obama states the embargo is "strong, smart and principled diplomacy" and that such hostility will inevitably "bring about real change in Cuba." This despite the fact that the embargo has not toppled the Cuban government as the US had hoped and can only serve to make progressive change in Cuba more difficult.

Obama means to remedy the Bush administration policies which have proved "incapable of advancing our interests in the region" while insisting that "the United States must be a relentless advocate for democracy." Predictably the two have often proved incompatible and when push comes to shove it is the US interests that have prevailed at the expense of the democratic freedoms and human rights of those we profess to care about.

When it comes to foreign policy in Latin America Obama offers nothing more than "The White Man’s Burden" mentality. It is this same mentality historically held among the US politically elite and that many Latin American nations have fallen victim to.

---

Other articles of Interest
Obama Is a Truly Democratic Expansionist - by John Pilger
Losing Latin America: What Will the Obama Doctrine Be Like? - by Greg Grandin
Obama and the US-Latin America Time Bomb - The Narco News Bulletin
Obama on Latin American Trade: Muddled and Confused - Council of on Hemispheric Affairs
Text of Barack Obama's Policy Speech to the Cuban American National Foundation

Sections of this are partially adopted from a paper I wrote on Bolivia a few months back.

While the food subsidies held by the US and EU, whose institutions, the IMF and World Bank preach the virtues of the "free" markets to developing nations and use of crops for Bio-fuels are important contributors the Food Crisis. The need for land reform in developing countries is an important and necessary reform to fight hunger in these nations. Land ownership in developing nations is typically very concentrated among a small minority of the population, much of which is often sits idle.

Land re-distribution addresses economic capabilities and sustainability in a number of ways the most obvious being decreasing poverty by providing the poor with assets. The use of land can further improve conditions of the poor by providing opportunities to grow crops for sustenance or to be sold on the market. However economic policies that promote agriculture, particularly policies which targets small scale production are important determinants to the success of such land reforms. (Boyce, Rosset, and Stanton 2005) For example farmers may need access to credit or assistance to purchase necessary tools and equipment to cultivate crops. Government policy such as trade negotiations with other nations may help to provide small farmers with foreign markets to sell their crops.

Although small scale farming is generally less productive in terms of output per labor unit than larger scale farming, the circumstances in which reforms often take place is one where land is scare and labor abundant. In a number of ways small scale farming can be more productive in that small farmers tend to cultivate a larger percentage of their land, grow more crops per year given on a given amount of land, grow higher value crops and produce greater yields per acre. (Boyce, Rosset, and Stanton 2005) Additionally since often times the land being targeted by these policies is idle, redistribution increases agricultural output by placing ownership with people that often have greater incentive to cultivate and make use of the land.

Small scale farming may also be more environmental friendlier than larger scale production because of the labor intensive methods used depend less on chemical herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers, which may result in harmful toxins and degrade the quality of the soil compared to the use more organic methods whose use over time has proved to be successful and sustainable. Small scale farmers may also possess greater knowledge about the local environment such as weather, crop varieties, soil, insects and plant disease. Use of local crop varieties may encourage biodiversity since such seed varieties may be better adapted to various local conditions such as seasonal flooding or growing on hill side terrains. Small farmers may also have a greater incentive in sustainable farming out of concern of their economic livelihood as farmers and their ability to pass the land on to future generations.

References
Boyce, James K. Rosset, Peter. and Stanton, Elizabeth A. 2005. Land Reform and Sustainable Development. University of Massachusetts. Working Paper Series.

Additional articles of interest
Market Madness: How Speculators are Manipulating & Profiting from the Global Food Crisis
Manufacturing a Food Crisis
Historical Failure of the Capitalist Model Food Crisis - Part 1
Capitalism, Agribusiness and the Food Sovereignty Alternative Food Crisis - Part 2

By Jane Corbin
BBC News
Tuesday, 10 June 2008

A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC's Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources.

A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.

The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.

War profiteering

While George Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.

To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq.

The president's Democrat opponents are keeping up the pressure over war profiteering in Iraq.

Henry Waxman who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said: "The money that's gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, its egregious.

"It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."

In the run-up to the invasion one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth seven billion that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company, which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice-president.

Unusually only Halliburton got to bid - and won.

Read More