Must the Left Be Anti-Yankee?

The Colombian intellectual Leonardo Ferreira wittily affirms that “Latin America currently has a varied, multicolored left-wing.” And that is an interesting phenomenon since the new Latin American spectrum presents various hues and options. It is looking more like the European left wing. Yesterday’s radicals have today adopted moderate and tolerant positions with regard to the economy, political pluralism, or favorable multiparty re-elections. But they continue being anti-Yankee. Why? Let’s look at the arguments:

– The Marxist rhetoric maintains that imperialism suppresses and exploits small nations and people.

– Latin America’s history is plagued by U.S. interventions.

– The United States is an enemy of liberation struggles of the people of developing nations that opt for non-capitalist alternatives.

[Here are some] counterarguments: The world is made up of exploiters and the exploited. In politics, there is not just good and bad. And if some country that was on the bottom improved its gross domestic product and per capita income substantially, that does not put developed countries in a bad spot. But it does put the lower countries that have not been able to emerge with dignity in a bad spot. Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Chile deserve respect. Besides, upon reaching an agreement commercially, no one is obligated to buy if they do not wish to do so. In economics there are no “just prices,” only prices adjusted to the costs of supply and demand. But when the leftist elites do business, why don’t they decide to earn the least amount possible in order to thus honor their socialist goodness?

Neither is the world a Hegelian Tower of Babel. It is not all about conflict. There is quite a bit of global cooperation. Wealthy countries help poorer countries a lot with varying cooperation. Of course, not to the extent that we would all like. Hence, more than 40 Latin American, Asian, and African countries improved their GDPs in recent years. Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Morocco, Algeria, Indonesia and the Philippines are examples of capitalist progress.

Venezuela’s example is dramatic. After 15 years of socialism, it is in the worst shape of all countries in Latin America: It lives in constant political crisis, it is dangerous, there is very high unemployment, it is divided and impoverished. Perhaps, it is not the socialist paradise of the 21st century? Why does Cuba, after 56 uninterrupted years of socialist revolution, now celebrate getting closer to the enemies that it always cursed? Latin America is plagued with U.S. interventions. To hate the United States is equivalent to justifying that the Christians forever hate the Romans because they killed Jesus Christ, or that the Germans hate the French for their humiliation in World War I, or that the Americans hate the Vietnamese for the defeat suffered at their hands. Spain lived for 800 years with Arabs in a large part of its territory. That is how the dynamics of history are. Why were the others able to forgive?

If Washington continues involving itself in the affairs of other countries, I see it as pertinent to denounce that behavior. But to be hostile is not diplomatic. It only causes harm. The United States continues to be a primary business partner. Being a developing nation is needing constant help. Why ask with one hand and curse with the other? We cannot continue projecting ourselves as aggressive countries. It creates a warrior-like image of us. Why have dual diplomacy if Russia has acted with impunity in Ukraine, Chechnya and Ossetia, and China did the same in Tibet? The United States is an enemy of the liberation struggles of the peoples of developing countries who choose noncapitalist alternatives. If the radical leftists of today say that we live in a multipolar world, one can assume that the leaders of China, Russia or India have reproachable or questionable foreign policies.

The wicked ones can only be Europeans and Americans? That is simplistic. When we speak of liberating ourselves, are we not justifying it with populist dictators who do not liberate and only enrich the elites? How free are the Cubans and North Koreans? Besides, to the radical left, wealth is an evil that it denounces, but not when they themselves enjoy it. Capitalism has its imperfections, but it has demonstrated efficiency in making nations progress. That is what Washington and Western Europe proclaim, nor do I believe that they do it without calculation or interests. And it is not that the West doesn’t accept the radical leftists. They (the leftists) are the misfits. Or is it intelligent to live under a regime that rations bread in return for the suppression of rights and freedoms and hatred toward the United States? Why don’t the radical leftists demonstrate themselves as being balanced, instead of being fanatical, and equally criticize, for once, the China or Russia of today?