Why Is US Rallying Call Losing Appeal at Its Own Doorstep?

Published in Beijing Daily
(China) on 10 June 2022
by Qi Kai (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Andrew Engler. Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
President Joe Biden has recently been forced to eat crow at America’s own doorstep. As the host country of the Ninth Summit of the Americas, the U.S. insisted on handling the question of what to do about countries it labels “nondemocratic regimes" by slamming the door in the face of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua. This hegemonic behavior left other member countries of the Americas ill at ease, and many objected. Ultimately, more than one-third of the countries invited did not attend. This so-called Summit of the Americas wound up being the "U.S. Summit."

This embarrassing situation highlighted at least two issues. The first is that by deeming Latin America as America’s backyard, the United States has long caused strong resentment among its neighbors. Latin America has gradually taken concrete action to fight back. The second issue is that America’s rallying calls have lost their luster. U.S. prestige and credibility have palpably declined. There are now Latin American countries no longer willing to comply unconditionally when the U.S. calls. Mao Zedong said, “There is absolutely no such thing as love or hatred without any reason or cause.” The reasons behind this new break with the United States are complex and deep.

First of all, from its founding, the U.S. has never managed to slough off the pretentious airs of a vain hegemon. A favorite long-standing subject of people who observe the international community when discussing the Americas is how America regards the Western Hemisphere as its own “backyard,” and that this is the ideological standard for U.S. foreign policy in the Americas. In this era of increasingly diverse global politics, economics and society, the U.S. still retains a colonialist's mindset, and regards all other countries across the Americas as weaklings whose only choice is to dutifully join the bandwagon, leaving the U.S. to do as it pleases without the slightest misgiving. Consider the most recent example. The reason President Biden refused to invite countries such as Cuba to the summit is both simple and crass: The U.S. does not find Cuba’s political system to its liking.

Second, the U.S. has long maintained a policy of only considering how useful the Americas are instead of seeking mutual development. For example, the American government believed that its Cold War objectives required a lengthy military occupation of the Panama Canal, U.S. energy security strategy required Venezuela to fully cooperate with American Middle East policy on oil production and now U.S economic policy requires citizens of the Americas to toil and sweat and slave in supplying the U.S with raw materials and low-end manufactured goods. Brazil must supply appetizing beef and Chile must grow appealing fruit. So, many people in Latin America who become scholars of international relations have come to hate America. Why should the Americas serve as peripheral vassals of the U.S. and accept its systematic economic exploitation?

Third, the Summit of the Americas has long lost its appeal. In 1994, President Bill Clinton established the annual arrangements for officials at the highest level of their respective governments. He hoped to launch a huge trade liberalization agreement for the whole of the Americas. However, America’s so-called trade liberalization has long been the ideological line the U.S. consistently draws in determining which countries do not support the United States enough and which kind of suppression policy is warranted. Particularly in recent years, U.S. trade protectionism has been ascendant and has burst the bubble of trust in America to keep its so-called commitments. In addition, since Biden took office, the tariffs and trade barriers of the Trump administration have continued almost entirely intact. Under such circumstances, it is difficult for the countries in the Americas to believe that the Free Trade Area of the Americas proposal has any chance of being implemented.

Fourth, the Biden administration has enough on its plate just handling domestic issues, and the countries of the Americas would rather take a wait-and-see approach. Although Biden scraped together some ideas for regional cooperation on illegal immigration, economic trade and managing the COVID-19 pandemic, countries are fully aware that America’s chaotic, polarized domestic politics have rendered such promises hollow. Given how inadequately Biden has managed inflation, there is a strong risk that he will lose control of Congress in the midterm. The countries of the Americas are naturally not going to cast a vote of confidence for Biden under these circumstances.

As the strongest political and economic power in the Americas, the U.S. should be striving to achieve regional stability and prosperity. However, the U.S. has done exactly the opposite, stirring up trouble and becoming a serious stumbling block for regional development. As the ancient philosopher Mencius said, “A just cause has many fathers, but an unjust cause is an orphan.” There is no market for the bullying ways of a U.S. foreign policy that places self-interest above everything. There is bound to be widespread resistance.

The author is an associate professor at the China University of Political Science and Law’s Institute of Globalization and Global Issues.


美国在“家门口”的号召力为何下降了,尴尬局面至少折射出两点
这几天,美国总统拜登在“家门口”也吃了瘪。作为第九届美洲峰会举办国,美国生拉硬扯“非民主政权”等问题,决定将古巴、委内瑞拉和尼加拉瓜拒之门外。霸道行径让美洲其他国家大为不爽,一时间抵制者众。最终有超三分之一的美洲国家领导人缺席,所谓美洲峰会这下成了“美国峰会”。
尴尬局面至少折射出两点。一是,美国一向把拉美视为自家“前庭”或“后院”,早已引得众邻舍强烈不满,并渐渐开始用切实行动予以回击。二是,美国的号召力与威信出现了明显下滑,一些拉美国家不再像过去一样,愿意无条件服从美国指令。“没有无缘无故的爱与恨”,这些现象背后,有着复杂而深刻的原因。
第一,美国始终不能摆脱高高在上、唯我独尊的霸主心态。长期以来,国际社会观察家们在美洲问题上最爱谈及的观点就是“美国视西半球为自家的‘后院’”,这是美国“门罗主义”的残余,也是美国美洲外交政策的思想准绳。在一个全球政治、经济、社会形势日趋多元化的时代,美国却依然保留着殖民主义心态,将所有其他美洲国家视为自家的扈从,毫无顾忌为所欲为。就拿这次来说,拜登拒绝邀请古巴等国参加峰会的原因非常简单粗暴,即它们的政治制度不符合美国的喜好。
第二,美国对美洲长期保持单纯利用而非共同发展的政策。譬如,在美国政府眼中,为了美国的冷战利益,巴拿马运河需要长期被美国军事占领;为了美国的能源安全,委内瑞拉的石油生产必须全力配合美国的中东政策……在经济上,美洲国家也应该按照美国的需求,成为后者生产生活原料与低水平制成品的供应地,巴西应该为美国做好牛肉供应工作,而智利则理所当然要种植好水果。以至于很多拉美裔的国际关系学者常痛心疾首:美洲国家为何要做美国的外围附庸,接受其系统性的经济剥削?
第三,美洲峰会早已失去吸引力。美国前总统克林顿于1994年在迈阿密创立这一首脑年会机制,是希望启动一个庞大的美洲全区域贸易自由化协议。然而,美国所谓的贸易自由化长期以意识形态划线,对不够亲美的美洲国家一贯实行打压政策。尤其是近些年,美国贸易保护主义势力不断抬头,进一步戳破了上述所谓承诺。此外,拜登上台以来,对特朗普政府种种加征关税、树立贸易壁垒的措施几乎是全盘延续。在这样的情况下,美洲国家很难相信所谓的美洲自由贸易区有任何落实的可能。
第四,自顾不暇的拜登政府让美洲国家更愿意保持观望态度。尽管拜登政府表面上提出了一些有关非法移民、经济合作、防治新冠疫情的美洲合作思路,但这些国家都很清晰地认识到,美国混乱极化的国内政治将会让这些政治口号并不具备现实意义。眼下拜登政府应对通胀不力,中期选举失去国会控制权的可能性极大。这种情况下,美洲国家自然不会给其投下“信任票”。
美国作为美洲地区最强大的政治与经济力量,本应帮助该地区实现更好的稳定与繁荣,然而事实却相反,美国不停惹是生非,俨然成了地区发展的“绊脚石”。“得道多助、失道寡助”,将“美国私利”凌驾于别国之上的霸凌做派没有市场,必会遭到更广泛的抵制。

作者:戚凯(作者系中国政法大学全球化与全球问题研究所副教授)

This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Austria: Musk, the Man of Scorched Earth

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

Mexico: EU: Concern for the Press

Germany: Cynicism, Incompetence and Megalomania

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Topics

Mexico: EU: Concern for the Press

Austria: Musk, the Man of Scorched Earth

Germany: Cynicism, Incompetence and Megalomania

Switzerland: Donald Trump: 100 Days Already, but How Many Years?

     

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

Germany: Absolute Arbitrariness

Israel: Trump’s National Security Adviser Forgot To Leave Personal Agenda at Home and Fell

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Related Articles

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary