Failure in Panama

Simón Bolívar, the great liberator of the South American people from the yoke of European dominance, wanted to be like George Washington. Washington had not only liberated North America from the yoke of British colonial rule, but also helped to lay the foundation for the United States of (North) America. To realize his dream of a league of brother nations in South America, Bolívar convened a congress in Panama, in June of 1826.

The “libertador” knew that the huge South American subcontinent would not be able to grow together into a single state. The reason was that the land mass from the tropical Caribbean over the Andes to the frozen wasteland of Tierra del Fuego was huge, and the indigenous peoples and descendants of European colonists were too different. But Bolívar was convinced that those once ruled and divided could only flourish together, and the Panama congress would ensure that.

Fuel for Nationalism

However, as with almost all projects in the twilight of his life, Bolívar failed. Panama was a disaster. The congress had already begun to argue whether the United States should be invited. Bolívar was against it. He distrusted the colossus of the north, which had already far outgrown its role as a trusted brother nation soon after its independence.

The historical parallels between the Bolívar fiasco in Panama 189 years ago and the Summit of the Americas at the same site over the weekend are grotesque. To date, the U.S. “empire’s” obsessive fear has delivered fuel for nationalism and populism to the political left and right in Latin America, where Washington has ignited the fear of power with its political and military interventions since the days of the Monroe Doctrine of 1823.

Wealth with Narcotics

Certainly, the nations and peoples of Latin America have been cheated out of a better future, since they have had to carry the burden of the legacy of exploitation by colonial rulers and the oppression of black slaves and indigenous peoples. Furthermore, they were abused in the world wars and during the Cold War as a representative of European powers as well as the Soviet Union and United States superpowers. And finally, criminal cartels have brought enormous wealth to Central and South America from the north via demand for narcotics, which has further undermined fragile constitutional structures.

The Panama summit may remain in memory as an official rapprochement between Washington and Havana, which was driven by both Barack Obama and Raúl Castro with different motives for years: One wants to satiate his thirst for a foreign policy and security legacy before the end of his term; the other is focused on the survival of his ailing regime.

The inglorious historical significance of the weekend, however, is that it marks a step back, or stagnation at best, in the political and economic development of Latin America. The principle of noninterference, which even Obama has prescribed for the communist regime in Cuba, triumphed again over the finally recognized United Nations “responsibility to protect” for the purpose of respecting universal human and civil rights. Those who want to suppress civil protest and unwelcome press need only use the anti-American reflex to avoid being criticized for anti-democratic activities.

After the end of the price boom in raw materials and food, which many countries significantly owe to the robust growth over the past decade, the successes of many countries in the region in the fight against poverty are again in acute danger. From Brazil to Venezuela, the lack of investment, inflation and recession will first affect the socially vulnerable. These countries will pay the price, namely in high consumer prices, for protectionist “particularism,” which is pushed without fail by the left-wing governments in Latin America in particular.

Free trade as well as the once-democratic cornerstone of the Pan-American movement was virtually out of the question in Panama. However, while the countries of the largest and most capable free trade zone in the world — Mexico, the United States and Canada — have strong growth, the specter of stagnation looms over many Latin American countries.

Long after the commodity boom’s “golden age” and a subsequent return to a rise in private consumption, reforms in education and health, necessary investment into infrastructure and improvements in administration, governance and law remain long overdue in many areas. Many Latin American countries are under the threat of falling further behind in global competition, especially those that habitually make the U.S. “empire” responsible for almost all their ills.