Home >> United States & Canada >> Foreign Policy & Military

     Email   Print 

Antero Leitzinger Explains US Relations With North and South American States

Ryan Mauro - 4/10/2005

Antero Leitzinger is the editor of the book called "Caucasus-An Unholy Alliance". He is a history researcher on topics ranging from Russia to Islam. The majority of his works are in Finnish, including various travel guide books, textbooks, and works about the history of liberalism and the history of Finnish immigration. He is working with other authors for an English book about Eastern European history and human rights policy in that region, of which he will write about the Karaim minority in Lithuania.

WRM: The US has accused Fidel Castro of supporting terrorism, and the production of weapons of mass destruction, particularly biological weapons. Do you see a similar threat coming from Cuba?

AL: I believe the threat faded away by the 1980s as Castro became self-confident and old. Since the US did not invade Cuba for 40 years, why would it do it in the near future? Castro probably feels that he scared the Yankees for good, and has no more interest in cultivating terrorism or developing new non-conventional arms.

WRM: There is growing anti-Americanism in Mexico. People are worried that within the next decade a pro-Castro leader, possibly the mayor of Mexico City, will come to power. How likely do you think this is?

AL: Anti-Americanism was planted in Latin America early, at least by the 1860s, to serve the restoration attempts of the former colonial masters, Spain and France. The Haitians, for example, imitated France so slavishly, that they set up empires of their own in 1804 and 1849, and always adopted the latest French fashions, from Bonapartism to Marxism. This dependence on European ideas became a serious handicap. Although the US supported Benito Juarez, and liberated Cuba, Mexicans and Cubans developed distrust and mixed feelings toward the northern neighbor, and Germans and Russians exploited these as well. I have no knowledge about the current situation in Mexico, but perhaps the bicentennial celebrations of the exploits of Francisco de Miranda and Simon Bolivar could soon help all Latin Americans to gain a healthy cultural independence and uncomplex relationship with the US, which was, after all, their original role model. The true Bolivarians were by all means no anti-Americans, quite to the contrary.

WRM: Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has been accused by a high-ranking defector of giving $1 million to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda soon after 9-11. He is also believed to be supporting terrorists, and actively helping the Marxist rebels in Colombia. What do you feel US strategy should be in response to this?

AL: Chavez had two friends beside Castro: Aristide and Mejia, the president of the Dominican Republic, who is also very unpopular now and accused of corruption. The Dominicans will elect a new president in May, and it has been speculated, that Mejia might escape prosecution to Venezuela. As the majority of Venezuelan people reject Chavez, the US needs only to guarantee that they are allowed to enjoy their constitutional rights, and that Chavez cannot import troops to his service from Cuba. Even if the referendum is not allowed, the spook should be over by the next presidential elections in 2006, unless massive fraud is possible. By then, Iraqi exports will push the oil price down and cause Venezuela additional problems.

WRM: What course do you see the civil war in Colombia taking?

AL: I am no expert on this. As far as I could observe from standard news reports, the guerrilla activities have been restricted in the last years, but if this is the wrong impression, I can only conclude, that the attention of the world media has been drawn from Latin America to the Middle East.

WRM: Lula da Silva, a pro-Castro Marxist, has taken power in Brazil. He has spoken of withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and allying with other countries to counter US power. Are you concerned about the course Brazil is taking?

AL: At some point, it seemed as the whole Latin America was setting on a wrong course. It started already with the election of Chavez (1998), and Lagos in Chile (2000), but ousting Aristide may have turned the tide. There is no rationality in Lula da Silva's threat, and I would be inclined to discount it as typical left-wing rhetoric.

WRM: How do you feel about the growth of pro-Castro, anti-American leaders in Latin America, forming a bloc against us?

AL: Fashions are always repeated for two generations. Napoleon Bonaparte was very unpopular after Waterloo in 1815, but by 1840, there was a strong nostalgy, and soon his nephew was elected as the president of France. That tide turned after the Mexico debacle in the 1860s. Lenin died in 1924, but his cult replaced that of Stalin after 1956. Trotsky was expelled in the 1920s and killed in 1940, but the Trotskyites were once more fashionable in the "crazy year" of 1968. Che Guevara died in 1967, but 37 years later, his pictures are on t-shirts. All idiots in this world get a second chance after 25-50 years, but Castro should be soon definitely out of date, a political zombie.

WRM: What do you believe is causing the anti-Americanism in Latin America and allowing these leaders to come to power?

AL: I would search for the reasons in culture rather than geopolitics. The old Marxists are regrouping and replacing their communist ideology with sorts of national socialism. Anti-Americanism has indigenous roots in Latin American history and is trendy now all around the world. In the long run, it may be exploited by foreign powers just like in the 19th century, in order to divide and manipulate the American continent. The difference is that while Queen Isabella II dreamed of reconquest, Napoleon III of a Mexican empire, Wilhelm II of German colonies, and Stalin of world revolution, there is nobody today who would want to use Latin American states for military purposes. Their value lies in propaganda, getting votes in the UN, and possibly influencing emigration to and ethnic electorates in the US. That is why I believe that although Putin is amused by Castro & Co. (in retaliation to increasing UN influence close to Russian borders), he does not yet actually know what to do with any newly won potential allies. Latin America is generally considered the backyard of the US, and keeping it clean is regarded an US responsibility as a matter of image and authority.

WRM: What is the significance of the ouster of Aristide? Most Americans seem not to care. Why should they?

AL: Aristide's predecessor was the first Haitian chief of state in 200 years, who was not ousted from office and did not resign or die before his term was over - with the exception of a couple of "puppet" presidents protected by US occupation between the world wars. Thus, Aristide's era ended in the customary manner. But it used to be no different in the neighboring Dominican Republic either, until democracy took roots in the 1960s. Both states on the island of Hispaniola have had their full share of dictators and coups, but what Haiti is lacking is its own Balaguer - a stable, aged, conservative character, who would lead his country from chronic turmoil to the rule of law, regulated political changes, and democracy. But it is up to the Haitians themselves to find such a personality, and the best the US can do is to provide enough security. I do not think Americans must care too much about Haiti, but it would be nice to have one day a thoroughly free Latin America.

WRM: Haitian activists have claimed that Artistide was overthrown with US support. They claim that rebels were trained in the Dominican Republic, with US assistance, and then crossed over and overthrew Aristide, again with US assistance. The Russian press also has claimed this, saying we did so to make Haiti an "aircraft carrier" between Cuba and Venezuela. What is your take on these accusations?

AL: Whenever a left-wing regime is toppled somewhere in the world, certain people accuse the US for masterminding it. They know very little of history. The Haitians are perfectly capable to oust their own rulers. Russians believe these claims because that is exactly what they would have done in their neighborhood. The US, however, has a tradition of patience and laissez-faire, as exemplified in the case of Cuba. Few great powers would have tolerated such a neighbor and left it undisturbed for over 40 years.

WRM: Canada hasn't been on the side of the US in geopolitics lately. Do you feel this will change? And why do you feel Canada has been reluctant to stick by our side?

AL: Canada could be geopolitically compared to New Zealand or Sweden. Although Sweden has two neighbors and almost waged war against them less than a hundred years ago, both Finns and Norwegians agree that if they too would be blessed by neighbors like those that Sweden has, they would happily afford a similar careless policy of neutrality. Canada has no worries in foreign policy, and thus it can afford to live without responsibilities. The US must accept it as a silent compliment, just as Finns and Norwegians have learned to live with Swedish pacifism and ethical superiority complex. I am sure the Canadians too will provide the rest of the world with lots of good advice about how easy life can be and how we all should consider the UN an adequate guarantee for security, peace, and justice.