Luis Schenoni’s note on the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, published in the December 17 issue of LA NACION, enables a constructive conversation about foreign policy in turbulent times when the need to position oneself for the future overrides the established rules of coexistence: The threat to survival or one’s own freedom and power takes precedence over the rules.
Schenoni’s thesis is that Latin America became relevant to the United States because it represents a problem for it, particularly on immigration issues, and that therefore its relevance will disappear again if the problem disappears or is replaced by another. I dare to take a more complex view.
In reality, the whole world is on the move, not just our region. Europe, for example, is confronted not only with the Russian threat from the east, but also with a possible migratory invasion of an Africa that is estimated to have seven residents for every European by the end of the century. The European response to this phenomenon is to work and provide finance to ensure that Africa develops and maintains its population with adequate levels of prosperity and opportunities. The problem that several regions of Africa have is that states are losing their monopoly on violence because they are challenged by criminal, insurgent, terrorist groups or anything else. In Latin America, too, the dominance of organized crime has increased in an extremely worrying manner. Especially in connection with drugs and money laundering, which have been observed for many years in Mexico (where drug traffickers support the popular election of their judges), in Colombia and parts of Bolivia, in the Brazilian commandos or in the suburbs of Rosario and Buenos Aires. These criminal movements are growing so much that they are spilling over into politics. Furthermore, they had visible complicity from extra-regional powers such as Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia and perhaps Argentina. All of this can be seen as a threat to Europe or the United States. But it is undoubtedly a greater threat to countries like ours.
If we think, as some Eurocentrics do, that Latin America and Africa are a disaster and cannot be fixed, we may conclude that our relevance will end when the United States has another problem. But this argument, supported by our past, may not be supported by the future: What would happen if Latin America (or Africa) were not failed states dominated by criminals and money-laundering politicians? What would happen if their economies were stabilized (as is the case in Uruguay, Chile, Paraguay, Peru or Brazil) and right-wing governments could control their natural resources and develop their human resources through quality education, the rule of law and public and private freedoms? In other words, What would happen if nation states defeated narcoterrorism?
Foreign policy always strives to create order so that there is stability, which is the guarantee of peace. Many of us believe that states can prevail against irregulars by maintaining order and applying the law. Countries like Mercosur and our neighbors can form alliances that guarantee Brazil’s motto (order and progress), Rocas (peace and administration) or Kennedy’s (who is nicer to progressives than Trump) with his alliance for progress. There is a window of opportunity if we organize our economy to utilize its resources in education and infrastructure and give our people freedom and stability. This does not mean that we do not have serious, predictable and long-term relationships with all the powers of the world that respect us, as our Constitution provides, but rather the opposite.
Acting President of the Senate (2015–2019)
About The Author
