Losing Latin America
The New York Times
April 16, 2002
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Many people, myself
included, would agree that
Hugo Chávez is not the president
Venezuela needs. He happens,
however, to be the president
Venezuela elected - freely, fairly
and constitutionally. That's why
all the democratic nations of the
Western Hemisphere, however
much they may dislike Mr.
Chávez, denounced last week's
attempted coup against him.
All the democratic nations, that
is, except one.
Here's how the BBC put it: "Far
from condemning the ouster of a
democratically elected president,
U.S. officials blamed the crisis on
Mr. Chávez himself," and they were "clearly pleased with
the result" - even though the new interim government
proceeded to abolish the legislature, the judiciary and the
Constitution. They were presumably less pleased when
the coup attempt collapsed. The BBC again: "President
Chávez's comeback has . . . left Washington looking rather
stupid." The national security adviser, Condoleezza RICE,
didn't help that impression when, incredibly, she
cautioned the restored president to "respect constitutional
processes."
Surely the worst thing about this episode is the betrayal
of our democratic principles; "of the people, by the people,
for the people" isn't supposed to be followed by the words
"as long as it suits U.S. interests."
But even viewed as realpolitik, our benign attitude toward
Venezuela's coup was remarkably foolish.
It is very much in our interest that Latin America break
out of its traditional political cycle, in which crude
populism alternated with military dictatorship. Everything
that matters to the U.S. - trade, security, drugs, you
name it - will be better if we have stable neighbors.
But how can such stability be achieved? In the 1990's
there seemed, finally, to be a formula; call it the new
world order. Economic reform would end the temptations
of populism; political reform would end the risk of
dictatorship. And in the 1990's, on their own initiative but
with encouragement from the United States, most Latin
American nations did indeed embark on a dramatic
process of reform both economic and political.
The actual results have been mixed. On the economic
side, where hopes were initially highest, things have not
gone too well. There are no economic miracles in Latin
America, and there have been some notable disasters,
Argentina's crisis being the latest. The best you can say is
that some of the disaster victims, notably Mexico, seem to
have recovered their balance (with a lot of help, one must
say, from the Clinton administration) and moved onto a
path of steady, but modest, economic growth.
Yet economic disasters have not destabilized the region.
Mexico's crisis in 1995, Brazil's crisis in 1999, even
Argentina's current crisis did not deliver those countries
into the hands either of radicals or of strongmen. The
reason is that the political side has gone better than
anyone might have expected. Latin America has become a
region of democracies - and these democracies seem
remarkably robust.
So while the U.S. may have hoped for a new Latin stability
based on vibrant prosperity, what it actually got was
stability despite economic woes, thanks to democracy.
Things could be a lot worse.
Which brings us to Venezuela. Mr. Chávez is a populist in
the traditional mold, and his policies have been
incompetent and erratic. Yet he was fairly elected, in a
region that has come to understand the importance of
democratic legitimacy. What did the United States hope to
gain from his overthrow? True, he has spouted a lot of
anti-American rhetoric, and been a nuisance to our
diplomacy. But he is not a serious threat.
Yet there we were, reminding everyone of the bad old days
when any would-be right-wing dictator could count on
U.S. backing.
As it happens, we aligned ourselves with a peculiarly
incompetent set of plotters. Mr. Chávez has alienated a
broad spectrum of his people; the demonstrations that led
to his brief overthrow began with a general strike by the
country's unions. But the short-lived coup-installed
government included representatives of big business and
the wealthy - full stop. No wonder the coup collapsed.
But even if the coup had succeeded, our behavior would
have been very stupid. We had a good thing going - a new
hemispheric atmosphere of trust, based on shared
democratic values. How could we so casually throw it
away?
nytimes.com
Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company |
