Goodbye Monroe, Hello Troilo

The United States has not “withdrawn” from Latin America, despite the popular perception. It maintains a significant economic, political, aid and military presence; Latin American countries should not be taken in.

John Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State, recently stated what had been apparent since midway through the last decade: The Monroe doctrine is spent. The current dynamic period has combined global and regional tendencies with far-reaching transformations in many American countries, including the United States. The result is a resetting of the boundaries, of the price of coercive diplomacy and of Washington’s ability to intervene unilaterally in Latin America’s internal affairs in order to achieve the satisfaction of its own key objectives in the region.

Perhaps naively, some Latin American observers detect a new isolationist policy in Kerry’s announcement. Others, with scant empirical evidence, perceive Kerry’s gesture to mean that the United States has “left” Latin America. Both readings point to a single outcome: Goodbye, Monroe and goodbye, United States.

It might be more accurate to acknowledge that the end of the Monroe doctrine indicates neither “withdrawing” nor “forgetting” on the part of the United States. It might even be useful to speak of the “Troilo doctrine” as a symbolic substitute in inter-American affairs. Aníbal Troilo was one of Argentina’s greatest bandoneon players, not a Latin American politician. “Nocturno a mi barrio” (“Nocturne to my Neighborhood”) was an outstanding composition; not only did he write it in 1968, but it was the only one he played in 1972.* The lyrics are fitting. In this melancholy tango, Troilo sings, “Somebody once said that I left my barrio. When? But when? Why, I am forever coming back.” The lyrics could be a metaphor for the fact that, in spite of appearances and some high-sounding interpretations coming out of Latin America itself, recent evidence shows the United States has never “left” the region: Hello, Troilo.

Investment Was Five Times Greater in 2012 than in the Preceding Five Years

It is true that the Free Trade Area of the Americas went up in smoke at the 2005 Summit of the Americas in Mar del Plata. But the United States had already signed and ratified the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada and the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement, as well as bilateral trade agreements with Chile, Colombia, Peru and Panama. Mercosur has failed to establish an even half-consistent posture with respect to Latin America’s Atlantic coast, nor can it reach consensus on the Pacific side. Meanwhile, the Pacific Alliance of Chile, Colombia, Peru and Mexico is looking to its own interests and aligning itself with the U.S. in the so-called pivot strategy. With this strategy, the United States seeks to affirm its power projection in Asia, using regional allies to surround Beijing and limit China’s influence in the Pacific Basin. Equally, and despite the advances made by China in Latin America, the United States is still the main investor in Mexico and the Caribbean, according to the last report issued by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. Moreover, in spite of the United States’ own persistent economic recession, the same source states, “In 2012, U.S. multinationals were responsible for 24 percent” of foreign direct investment in Latin America, which represented “a higher percentage than in the preceding five years.”

As for strategies to combat drug trafficking, on the margins of which the so-called “war on drugs” is repeatedly called into question, Washington has carried out the Colombia Plan, the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, the Mérida Initiative, the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative and the Central America Regional Security Initiative. The creation of the South American Defense Council in 2009 was certainly an historic step, but the U.S. Fourth Fleet, disbanded in 1950, had already been resurrected before that, in 2008. The Fourth Fleet’s main mission today is to combat organized international crime. It is true that the infamous School of the Americas, which was responsible for the training of so many Latin American dictators, closed in December 2000. But a total of 195,807 Latin American insurrectionists received training in the United States between 1999 and 2011, according to the website Just the Facts (www.jusf.org), more than in any earlier decade when inter-military contact was more substantial. In addition, the United States has consolidated military bases in Central America and the Caribbean, and scaled up military facilities with radar deployment and increased anti-drug operations in the area Washington considers its “backyard.”

Despite efforts made by Latin American nations to diversify their aid sources, the United States remains ahead of other countries in the provision of aid: $17.32 billion between 2009 and 2014. The United States provided $6.82 billion in military and policing aid for the same period, more than any other nation outside the region. Although Latin America points to other sources of arms provision, the United States sold $11.19 billion worth of arms to the region between 2006 and 2011. The United States did withdraw troops from Ecuador when Quito declined to renew the agreement to use the Manta military base, and was similarly unable to ratify an agreement with Bogotá over the use of seven military bases in Colombia. On the plus side, though, Washington managed to seal two deals with Brasilia: the U.S.-Brazil Defense Cooperation Agreement in April 2010 and the General Security of Military Information Agreement in November of the same year. It was similarly able to initiate the updating of a 1952 defense cooperation agreement with Peru. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reports that the United States is the second-largest supplier of arms to Brazil, preceded by France and followed by Germany and Sweden.

The U.S. Deploys up to 4,000 Troops Across the Region Year Round

A significant sector of public and political opinion clings to the view that the use of drones (UAVs) and special operations forces is concentrated in non-Latin American countries, in particular, Central Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. Nevertheless, drones currently operate along the U.S.-Mexico border and are already being tried out for use in the interception of illegal drug consignments in the Caribbean. The Washington Post noted in July that the U.S. military has used UAVs known as ScanEagles in Colombia. Special Operations Command South, the special forces component of the Miami-based United States Southern Command, has been developing military exercises with several of the region’s armed forces; Air Force Special Operations Command has been active in Central America since 2009. Notable among recent developments has been the challenge from U.S. drone manufacturers in an effort to supersede Israel as Latin America’s principal supplier of UAVs. Then in 2012, Admiral William McRaven, chief of Special Operations Command, announced the Pentagon’s intent to expand the role of special operations forces in Latin America, despite the fact that Latin America poses no threat to U.S. national security. McRaven’s statements concur with similar statements made by Gen. Sean Mulholland of SOCSOUTH at the start of this year. Finally, the Associated Press reported at the start of 2013 that the U.S. deploys up to 4,000 troops across the region year round.

Summing up, the role played by the United States in recent inter-American relations has been neither passive nor insignificant, whether with regard to economics, politics, aid or the military. The U.S. has never “left” the region; it is still there. The Monroe doctrine may no longer be relevant, but the United States has not withdrawn from Latin America. In fact, Washington is “forever coming back”: Goodbye Monroe, hello Troilo.

The great challenge facing Latin America is how to manage this relationship and advance its own international autonomy while safeguarding the national interests of each of its constituent countries. Latin America should not mistake Washington’s new pragmatism, both in the Americas and the rest of the world, for a lack of activity. Even more damaging would be a failure to understand that Latin America must analyze the issues and be aware of the reality of its relations with the United States. When all is said and done, the U.S. brings both order and disorder to the Americas.

*Translator’s Note: 1968 was the start of the so-called Argentine Revolution (1968-1973), the first era of rule by a military junta. 1972 was the year of the Trelew Massacre, in which government forces shot down 16 political prisoners.