By JIM GENARO

Despite its democratic rhetoric, Americaís long history of intervention in Latin America ≠ó particularly in support of totalitarian regimes ó has left much of the region with a strong mistrust of the U.S., Dr. Alvis Dunn told the World Affairs Council of Western North Carolina on Oct. 1.

Dunn, a visiting assistant professor of history at Guilford College, discussed the history and political climate of the region during a talk titled ìThe Leftist Challenge to American Interests in Latin America.î

About 75 people attended the lecture at UNC Ashevilleís Owen Conference Center.

It is this resentment and mistrust of the intentions of the U.S. ≠ó rather than a cohesive identity ó that unites the various leftist regimes of Latin America, Dunn said.

ìI have a hard time finding an internal, unified themeî among these governments, he said.

However, he added that ìall, to differing degrees, are aware of the history of the United Statesí activities in the region ... probably a lot more acutely aware than most U.S. citizens.î

Specifically, Dunn said, people in Latin America hold animosity toward two positions of the ìWashington consensusî ≠ó privatization of services and deregulation of the economy.

These agendas have been imposed in the region by the American-dominated World Bank as part of ìausterity measuresî required as terms of loans to developing countries, he noted.

ìWe like to think of ourselves as intimately intertwined with democratic processes,î Dunn told the audience.
However, democracy is not part of the image most people in Latin America associate with the U.S., he said.

The regionís social and political dynamics are rooted in its experience of Spanish colonialism, Dunn noted. This colonialism left the area with a united language, culture and religious world view, but it also left a legacy of ìskewed land ownershipî and unfair labor practices.

ìThe result was, at best, a very low-intensity democracy in which the masses rubber-stamp governments.î

In such a climate, dictatorships flourished, many of them backed by the U.S. government.

American involvement in the region intensified during the Spanish-American War, with the U.S. intervening militarily in numerous countries including Honduras, Mexico and Nicaragua.

However, this dynamic shifted a bit during the Great Depression and, later, World War II.

The necessity for cooperation involved in waging a global war led to ìa bit more of a conciliatory policy toward the region for a time,î Dunn said.

That all changed with the start of the Cold War. The U.S. once again became intensely involved in Latin American politics as pro-U.S. dictatorships came into power and death squads became the preferred tool of those regimes, he said.

Meanwhile, ìfree-market orthodoxy ... became the face of the U.S. in the region,î Dunn said.

He described the spread of a political system he termed ìpolyarchyî in which citizens are ìpermitted to vote for slates of competing elites that are generally considered no great threat to the status quo.î

He demonstrated this concept through an anecdote about a friend of his who was teaching at a highly elite preparatory school in Guatemala.

Only the wealthiest families there could afford to send their children to this school, where classes were conducted in English and most students planned to continue their educations in the U.S.

One day, two boys got in a fight at the school. When the teacher asked the reason, he learned that they were fighting over which one of their grandfathers was going to win the presidential election the following week.

Dunn said that while many of the regimes currently in power in Latin America appear to be populist, it is debatable to what extent this is really a breaking as opposed to a ìstretching of polyarchy.î

He then addressed some of the specific regimes that have been labeled leftist.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has ìthe appearance of a dictator, with no intention of stepping down,î† Dunn said.

However, he noted that Chavez ìis the most elected person in the hemisphere,î having won three elections with strong majorities.

Furthermore, the legitimacy of those elections was ìnot nearly as disputed as recent U.S. elections,î Dunn said.

Chavez also survived a 2002 coup that was supported in large part by the U.S. government ≠ó an incident that furthered the impression of the U.S. in the region as being inherently anti-democratic, Dunn told the audience.

In Brazil, the election of left-leaning Luiz In·cio Lula da Silva caused much fear among conservatives in the U.S., Dunn said.

Da Silva initially ìproposed deep changes,î he said, but since taking office, he has ìbecome a reformer who really works with foreign investors.î

In Cuba, Dunn said that while President Fidel Castro is likely to die soon, unless the U.S. invades, his passing probably will not signal the start of radical change on the island.

Dunn also listed Argentine President NÈstor Carlos Kirchner Ostoic and Uruguayan President TabarÈ V·zquez Rosas as leaders whose governments are generally considered leftist, but are ìmostly united by opposition to U.S. policy.î

Furthermore, he said, socialist or left-leaning governments hold power in Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua.
He noted that the opposition to U.S. policies in the region is not necessarily a matter of economic reality, but of perception.

ìThe perception is that privatization and deregulation harmed people and that the U.S. was behind both, and thus harmed people,î Dunn said.

Furthermore, much of that privatization was carried out by regimes that were not democratically elected, he added.
The leftist governments that have opposed American influence have done so with a counter-position based on egalitarian economic policies, nationalism and striving ìnot to follow the dollar so much,î Dunn said.

He argued that these governments have flourished over the past five years because the U.S. has been largely distracted by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

ìWhen the U.S. has been greatly preoccupied by events elsewhere in the world, Latin America has done relatively well,î Dunn said.

Most importantly, these governments have provided a measure of stability, which has allowed for much-needed economic growth. And they have done so by engaging the regionís poor in the political process, he said.

He then answered questions from the audience.

ìTo what extent does U.S. media affect Latin America?î a man asked.

ìWhat a battle that is!î Dunn exclaimed in reply.

He said that American media is pervasive and that in many rural areas, which lack any local newspapers, radio or even telephones, satellite connections to U.S. media are the only link people have with the outside world.

A man in the audience suggested that some Latin American dictators have traditionally taken on U.S. interests in defense of their people.

He compared this to the legacy of Louisiana politician Huey Long who was accused of seizing dictatorial control of the state, but was popular for his defense of the poor and disenfranchised.

Dunn agreed and said that Latin American politics, in many ways, resemble those of the American South.

The regions are much more similar than many people have traditionally thought, he said.

ìThe main difference is language, and the children are going to take care of that,î he added.

Retired professor Tom Sanders argued that the key to understanding Latin American politics is to realize that the so-called socialist economies there are similar to those of Europe.

He suggested that the term ìpopulistî might be a more appropriate word than ìsocialist.î

Dunn said he agreed and that he wanted to eliminate words like ìleftistî out of his vocabulary when talking about the region. For that reason, he said, he prefers the term ìso-called left.î

A man in the audience argued that the term ìleftistî is used by President Bush and other conservatives as a way of discrediting other governments.

The term, he said, is actually meaningless. Furthermore, the man argued, it represents a failure on the part of Latin American experts that few in academia have publicly denounced such simplifications of the debate.

ìIím sort of mystified by it as well,î Dunn said. ìScholars have abdicated some of their social responsibilities.î

A woman noted that, according to a friend of hers in Bolivia, Evo Morales, that countryís populist president, would lose an election if it were held today, even though he was elected in 2005 with nearly a 54-percent majority.

Dunn replied that what was significant about Moralesí election was that he won in the first round ≠ó without a runoff election.

ìFor him to have 30 percent of support is what is normal,î he told the woman.

ìIt is not as dire as, say, if our president only had 25 to 30 percent of support of the people,î he joked.
†