WHEN the BBC News item on Saturday August 22 2009 said that “Brazil” had telephoned President Barack Obama about the proposed enlarged presence of US troops in Colombia, I was at first perplexed, not to say amazed – but kept hoping the report was accurate and based on fact.

Here was a President, in what used to be in the Cold War era included as part of the US-“backyard”, speaking by telephone to the President of the US and telling him that he (Lula of Brazil) is disturbed by the “climate of unease” being created by US military actions in Latin America. As a result, the President of Brazil had therefore “called on US President Barack Obama to meet South American leaders to calm fears about the US military presence in Colombia.” 

For the record let me share with readers exactly what the BBC reported:

`Brazil’s Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said President Lula told Obama it was “very important” that he attend a South American Summit in Argentina starting next Friday. The Unasur meeting has been specifically called to address the Colombian bases issue.’

That President Lula’s concern was so explicitly conveyed and made public, has significance deserving of due attention for various reasons. At least three of these can be considered in the context of (a) the USA’s reactivation of “spheres of influence Cold War policies”; (b) “the drugs war umbrella for political suppression of Latin America’s drift to the left” and (c) the “deepening of Latin America’s global thrust”.

Only a few brief comments are offered here and the significance for Guyana noted.

From Bush’s `neglect’ to Obama’s `alliances’
The years of “neglect” of Latin America as a priority arena for US foreign policy under the George W. Bush administration have become worrisome both to the Pentagon and of course, the US oil magnates, like Exxon-Mobil and Chevron. The latter suffered nationalization as part of the growing impact and appeal by Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in advancing his Bolivarian Socialist Revolution of the 21st Century.

The failed coup in 2002 against Chavez and with credentials as a democratically elected leader, courting friendship with the Russian Federation for sophisticated weaponry and oil agreements with Iran, are clearly too much for Washington to stomach. Add to Chavez’ “revolution”, the emergence of Bolivia under Morales and Ecuador with Correa along with Ortega in Nicaragua, and the pot was boiling in favour of the growing appeal by left-leaning populist programmes in the US’s traditional “sphere of influence”.

This had to be disturbing to the Washington establishment and with the NAFTA colleague of Mexico increasingly an embarrassment to the US in the failing “war on drugs”, one would be naïve to think that even under an Obama administration, reversal of the leftward trend and declining influence in the US “back yard” would remain handshakes at the Summit of the Americas and the smiling reception by Obama of Chavez’ gift of a copy of the Open Veins of Latin America. That widely read study detailed the historical rape and exploitation of Latin America’s resources by US imperialism.

For the US to boost friends, shore up its “allies” or slow down the “leftist drift” in the hemisphere has become a cardinal feature of Obama’s policy, whether it be by his visit to Mexico to join forces on the war on drugs or by mixed signals on the Honduras coup, now more than six weeks without unambiguous resolve to have the elected President restored to office.

As during the previous ideological war against “communism” in the Cold War era of some 40 years until the 1989 collapse of the Soviet Union, the “Americas” as a US sphere of influence has to be “recaptured” and protected in the current era of the war on drugs and terrorism. This requires additional support to Mexico and Colombia, by intensifying the war with drug gangs in the former and the additional supply of equipment and access for American troops to military bases in Colombia.

It is this move by the Colombia-US agreement that has heightened concerns by many in South America.

One might also note that collaborative efforts with selected and sympathetic allies through military, diplomatic and financial support have been accompanied by continuing depiction of who are “bad’ guys, like Chavez, Correa and Morales, while others like Bachelet of Chile and Lula of Brazil are seen as “moderates”.

So the announcement of US bases and military personnel for Colombia was orchestrated by Secretary of State Hilary Rodham-Clinton as essential for the war on drugs, since Ecuador had refused to extend an agreement allowing US troops access to a military base there.

Faced by the disquiet by Latin American leaders, Colombia’s President Uribe set out on a tour to selected friendly countries attempting to give assurance that the expanded US military presence on its soil would not be a threat to other countries in South America.

Clearly, this has not gone down well, even with “moderate” Lula who has called to “invite, persuade, urge Obama to a face to face meeting of UNASUR in Argentina, expected to be held on Friday.

The changing geopolitics  
The position taken by Brazil demonstrates that the old Cold War strategy of “selecting” who are to be trusted and sympathetic to US designs of what is good and desirable for the South American continent is no longer relevant. This is indeed a “wake-up” call to Obama and his policy advisers that the geopolitics of the 21st century are changing rapidly and profoundly the relations between countries of this “hemisphere”.

The Cold War positions of “spheres of influence” are being buried and attempting to resurrect them will meet open resistance. South American leaders will not allow themselves to revert to being subservient bystanders in what the US came to believe is its “back yard”.

Where Guyana is concerned, one would expect its participation in the UNASUR meeting and this would be consistent with its overall watchful eye of not favouring any escalation of militarisation on the Continent.

Moreover, the deepening solidarity with all its South American neighbours is a longstanding principled position of Guyana. This is aimed not only to advance peace, security and trade relations for the development of its economy and multicultural society but also as a key component of the role Guyana plays on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) as the “gateway” for the mutually beneficial relations in trade, investment, culture and education by CARICOM and the nations of South America.

One can certainly be encouraged that in the larger scheme of “hemispheric” political changes Guyana’s fortunes of geography and its widely known progressive commitment to integrationist policies will stand it in good stead in these days, when “the times they are a changing”. (PHIL PASCAL is an overseas-based Management Consultant & Social Commentator)