The Challenges as a Nation for the New Year

In a previous paper we stated that “new times mean a new mindset” in reference to the future of our country’s foreign relations, changes in the economic model, and, in general terms, the “new politics” that the government of “change” is obligated to follow. We expect, for example, that after 2010 there will be individual and coherent treatment for each state in our continent, in accordance with the particular rules that govern each nation.

This is quite important because Latin America, as a union of interests, purpose, and historical destiny, does not even exist in the imagination of the current U.S. government, with which we have excellent relations but no common roots.

Indeed, the Department of State adopts certain parameters and profiles for each country in this region, and we will be judged as good or bad, friend or foe, and worthy of aid and friendship or negligible. The independent and sovereign nations, which are members of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), are not seen in a “positive light” by United States foreign policy for the simple reasons of not having folded to U.S. hegemonic interest and having opted for the integration and unity of Latin America. It is unfortunate that in the 21st century we are still plagued by the notions of Manifest Destiny, America for Americans, the Backyard, or the policy of the “big stick.”

We do not say this by whim or folly. One need only look at the world stage to confirm that the U.S. continues its policy of hegemony and domination of strategic regions. Its invasions and wars in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are aimed to expand or affirm its areas of influence.

Of course the U.S. maintains bases, fleets (Incidentally the Fourth Fleet and military bases in Colombia are a latent threat to the ALBA countries), and large military contingents in several African countries, not to “protect democracy and civil liberties” but to control and exploit mineral resources while, of course, in its own country, oil and gas resources are exhausted.

Since Mr. Obama has become president of the United States, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has developed dynamic diplomatic activity, even when veiled by apparent reasons of peace, which does not necessarily establish forms of understanding and common interests. She measures and marks the fields of harmony and potential conflicts in her own way.

In no way can these global conclaves and high level meetings of the industrialized nations be seen as isolated. In this grouping of nations, which may now seem a mere game of diplomacy but tomorrow will transform into economic realities and finally, perhaps, into military arrangements, weak countries run the risk of being moved as ancillary parts if they do not have firm, net defenses that are ideological, political, and moral.

When it is said for example, that El Salvador demands to be taken into account in international decisions, it is only declaring a utopian aspiration. The nations decide and tip the scales according to what they really weigh or by their union with neighboring countries of comparable importance in the globalized world.

Our relations with the United States must be maintained and expanded, but it is also necessary that we share many of the principles upheld in the countries of Latin America.

Our “efforts” or struggles to constitute ourselves as defenders of American policy should not prevent us from making alliances or agreements with our neighbors. There is evidence that, standing alone, we are nothing, and we are not able to move towards superior goals.

The same global financial crisis is currently affecting the great powers, and therefore there is very little we can expect from them in terms of economic, technical, and scientific assistance.

Furthermore, it is not necessary to indicate the conditions of inferiority in which we reside in relation to other peoples of the third world and, specifically, with some of Latin America. Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay, and Argentina practice policies that are defined and unmistakable. On the other hand, Brazil with its peculiar government is, of course, not an enviable model; however, it has its own outlines.

Mexico, Peru, and Colombia are at the hard right and present a lamentable image. Little by little, their appearance has become blurry and hazy. Today, guided by technocrats and bureaucrats who are reactionaries at heart, they have already lost their attractive, bold beauty, not simply by folding to the designs of imperial power but by having turned their backs on their traditional allies in the region of Latin America.

To our rulers, in this early New Year, we reiterate that the primary core task of a government is to choose a certain and definite idea of a nation. Once this concept is fixed, all of the other work will flow smoothly and naturally while the country acquires character and strength.

The truth is that the hours of the bitterest trial are forthcoming. The more critical and difficult the trances of the empire under whose circle of influence we live, the greater danger our future, sovereignty, and self-realization as an authentically free nation will be.

As we have said countless times in reference to the oligarchy: wounded in its agony, the empire will be more dangerous than ever.