Begin in one place — Cuba
Excerpts
from speech given by Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) to the U.S.
Naval Academy’s Conference on Foreign Affairs on Wednesday, April
9.
For
185 years, the United States has cited the Monroe Doctrine as the
basis for repelling foreign intervention, and singularly dominating
the affairs of Latin America.
We
didn’t dominate hemispheric affairs out of vanity — we did so
because we concluded that domination was the best way to pursue and
secure our interests.
With
the rise of "Battleship Diplomacy" in the early 20th
century, we often advanced our strategic and commercial objectives
for the region through the 12-inch barrels of our battleship cannons.
Sometimes
at the request of Latin American nations themselves, our Navy and
Marine Corps warded off the influence of foreign powers in the
hemisphere.
In
1898, the United States launched the Spanish-American war —
America’s first time fighting a war against a major power entirely
outside of our territory.
It
was also the first American war conducted under a naval-based plan
rather than an army plan.
In
the end, this 113-day war marked an important milestone for both U.S.
fleet tactics and the hemisphere:
By
resoundingly expelling a European power, we established U.S. Naval
supremacy in the hemisphere, and proved the importance of modern
fleet tactics, honed at the U.S. Naval War College. […]
Many
would argue that this approach advanced our interests in the Americas
— and it very well may have. But over the last century, this
approach also bred resentment and distrust.
In
hindsight, U.S. policy too often resorted to military and economic
intervention for the narrowest of political and commercial reasons —
evolving into the proxy fights of the Cold War, arbitrated not on the
shores of the United States and the Soviet Union, but on the
battlefields of Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.
During
these years, the U.S. government allegedly backed political
assassinations in Argentina, armed regimes known to have committed
gross human rights violations including Pinochet’s Chile, and
instigated coups against democratically elected governments. We were
retreating from our most enduring democratic principles.
More
recently, since the fall of the Soviet Union, U.S. foreign policy in
the region has evolved even further, to view Latin America only
through three narrow lenses: Elections, Trade, and Drugs.
In
my view, this construct is based on a deeply flawed analysis, not
only of Latin American history and society, but also of how best to
pursue our national interests in this new era, in this new century.
This
flawed analysis assumes Latin America to be a monolith — and sees
political development only in the narrow sense of elections, rather
than in the broad sense of civil society and institutions, of social
contracts and the rule of law.
This
flawed analysis also sees "free trade" as a panacea to
Latin America’s social and economic woes, instead of embracing
holistic development, which includes not only trade, but also
institution-building, infrastructure, education, foreign aid and
direct investment. […]
…
A stronger, more prosperous and democratic Latin America that can
handle it’s own political, social and economic affairs is in
everyone’s interests, especially our own.
I
do not suggest that Latin America is more important than Europe, let
alone China, or East Asia, or that Latin America should demand more
of our attention than other regions of the world.
But
I will make a case that Latin America is of critical importance to
the United States, and our continued engagement with the region is
vital.
Our
southern neighbors are closer than ever to completing the transition
to stable, democratic civil societies, ones with social contracts,
whose governments are responding to the demands of their people.
They
are beginning to tackle crime and violence, promising to reduce
poverty and inequality, and working to end impunity by extending the
rule of law to its citizens.
With
the exception of Cuba, every nation in the Western Hemisphere has a
democratically elected government. And Latin Americans are taking
advantage of the right to vote.
Given
the burgeoning conditions of these democracies, how will we in the
United States adjust our worldview and our policies towards our
neighbors in order to promote our mutual interests without stifling
this progress?
Will
we seek to dominate the hemisphere, or will we work in partnership to
help our neighbors fully manage and complete their transition, in a
partnership that advances all of our interests?
The
answer should be clear to all of us.
I
believe the time has arrived to start fresh and forge a new
"strategic partnership in the Americas," based on mutual
respect and a commitment to three key principles:
• public
security and the rule of law;
• reduction
in poverty and inequality; and
• energy
integration and innovation […]
The
common thread tying all of these initiatives together is bold
engagement.
Working
towards a common agenda on public security and the rule of law;
reducing poverty and inequality; and energy integration and
innovation, all require sustained engagement with every member of the
hemisphere.
If
bold engagement in the Americas is to work there must be mutual
respect.
The
Strategic Partnership for the Americas, which I have just outlined,
can begin in one place — Cuba.
Our
Cuba policy has been agonizingly static for almost fifty years. It
has neither served America’s interests nor brought democracy to the
island.
When Fidel
Castro
ceded power to his brother Raul, we reached a critical moment.
We
all now have a choice — either we engage the Cuban people and
leadership to help shape the landscape for the next fifty years, or
we remain on the sidelines to no one’s benefit.
I
believe we must dramatically alter our posture towards Cuba, by
ending the trade embargo, lifting travel restrictions and caps on
remittances to the struggling Cuban people, and by engaging in
bilateral and multilateral talks on issues of mutual interest.
The
only certainty guaranteed by our Cuba policy over the past forty
years has been the continuation of Fidel Castro’s grip on power.
Once
we embark on this road to reform, I am confident that it will be
nearly impossible for the Cuban government and its people to turn
back.
And
the same will be true for us. […]
