open Democracy News Analysis - The reconquest of America, Sergio Aguayo Quezada - Comments

Michael.Dickson on "The reconquest of America"

Michael.Dickson — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 17:53:32 +0100

It´s hard to know where to start with this poor thing. Latin America is forging new partnerships with China, Spain and Iran due to the Iraq mess? The partnerships with China and Spain would have happened anyway. With Iran? If he says so, but I think Latin American leaders, if not the man on the street, know Iran is a de facto dictatorship of religious fanatics, not really the most fertile soil to plant your economic hopes. Then the author pushes the documentary in which he finds a three-pronged focus: 1. The Iraq invasion was an ethical mistake. No, it wasn´t. Saddam was a homicidal tyrant, and the world is better off without him. 2. The invasion was an "organizational disaster." Actually, the invasion went quite well. The period after winning the war was an organizational disaster. 3. The invasion was a "humanitarian tragedy." The regime of Saddam was the humanitarian tragedy. Also, Aguayo Quezada implies that Bush smells a little like Adolph Eichmann! My, my! The author claims the Iraq mess and the "sinister" American wish "to impose on the world its way of thinking and living" has provoked or reinforced intense opposition in Latin America, where the political experiments in Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela -- for all their differences -- share the desire to reduce the United States presence in the region." Bolivia! Venezuela? Cuba?? Boliva´s election of a leftist Indian to the presidency has far more to do with internal Bolivian problems than anything the U.S. is doing. Venezuela is run by a clown who spouts anti-Americanism as a matter of course and political advantage. And the "political experiment" in Cuba, which began half a century back, has nothing to do with current events. "The United States abhors defeat"? Of course. All countries and peoples abhor defeat. The United States wants to "impose on the world its way of thinking and living"? Well, natch. Throughout history, the globe´s leading power, whomever that might have been, has sought that. Nothing unique about it in the United States. It´s how international relations work. Everywhere and with everybody. The fact is that the United States, neither its government nor its people, gives little thought to Latin America because historically the region has not been much of a world player. Latin Americans have been too busy arguing among themselves and shooting each other. Ignoring it had little downside for the United States. The important action was elsewhere. That continues today, and it´s up to Latin Americans to change that, not the United States. All told, I would give this column a generous C-minus.

cseniornyc on "The reconquest of America"

cseniornyc — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 22:04:59 +0100

This a pretentious arrogant article of the lecturring type that assumes the audience is ignorant and has to be enlightened. What does the aurhor says? Not much: that the US screwed up mightly in Iraq and that the Chinese are coming to Latin America. Big findings! The author clearly wanted to add to his resume of published articles.Open Democracy shoudn't allow to be used in this way neither readers should take it. Cristobal Senior

The reconquest of America, Sergio Aguayo Quezada

Grace Davies — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:19:27 +0100

History chastises arrogance. The United States justified the invasion of Iraq by the defence of democracy as well as of its national interests and its world leadership. Today it is paying the very high costs of the adventure. They include the US's loss of influence in Latin America, a continent that is exploring new partnerships with a range of global actors: among them Iran, China and Spain.

In summer 2007, a documentary film directed by Charles Ferguson - No End in Sight, The American Occupation of Iraq - opened in the United States. The script is constructed on a three-pronged thesis: the American invasion of Iraq was an ethical mistake, an organisational disaster and a humanitarian tragedy committed by Washington neo-conservatives whose ignorance and frivolity the film's images strip bare. In a sense, the film is an update of the "banality of evil", a concept coined by Hannah Arendt in order to characterise the grey personality and the motivations of the Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann.

Read the rest of this post...