Lost in Translation: U.S. Security Agenda in the Americas
washingtonpost.com Friday, May 2, 2003; 2:40 PM
If the United States has had reasons to be "disappointed" in the failures of Chile, Mexico and others in Latin America to understand how significantly its priorities changed 20 months ago and how neatly the war against Iraq fit into them, Latin America has reason to be "disappointed" too.
Latin America has been frustrated with the U.S. inability to clearly explain how after Sept. 11, 2001, the rules of engagement in the hemisphere changed so drastically. Since that day, Washington has come to expect that every country would intuitively know how to adapt to the new world environment of security-first, even if the threat of terrorism that created it seemed distant and intractable to most of them.
Latin Americans are entitled to a clearer explanation. After all, even U.S. observers acknowledge that the frequent clash of wills inside the Bush administration has left the world mostly confused and often suspicious of Washington's vision after Sept. 11. For its harshest critics, the U.S. diplomatic establishment failed to comprehend, let alone articulate, that vision to hemispheric allies.
At a State Department conference on the Western Hemisphere this week, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell offered a chance for a new beginning and welcomed the prodigal nations back into the fold, declaring "disagreements come and ... disagreements go." Yet curiously enough, it was not a diplomat who offered the most concrete example of how Washington's security imperative should shape everyday thinking, actions and decisions in Latin America.
Gordon England, second in command at the new Department of Homeland Security, described a hemisphere where some day cargo containers arriving at U.S. shores would not need to be inspected. From their point of departure, whether at a Latin American or Caribbean port, such containers would have been checked, sealed and tracked to U.S. satisfaction.
Governments and industries that fail to understand the need for such a level of security and the work needed to get there will be doomed to irrelevancy, England insisted. In his mind, this logic was not a threat, but a statement of fact.
According to security-first thinking, Washington expects that governments all over the hemisphere will do much more to control their borders. Concerns about third-country nationals sneaking into the United States across those borders are not new, but the potential that these individuals may now mean harm to others must be promptly recognized and addressed. In addition, old transborder crimes of weapons and drug trafficking as well as money laundering must be regarded now as activities that may benefit terrorists.
In today's environment, Washington considers itself to be as vulnerable as the most vulnerable of its partners or neighbors. For that reason, it can no longer wait for new governments to come along and build new agendas of cooperation. It needs leaders who see here and now what must be done and who have the will to do it.
Those Latin American leaders outside the select seven (Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama) that Powell publicly recognized Monday "for their courageous stand for what is right, what is necessary and what is just," have another chance.
They have a new opportunity to show the kind of leadership they lacked before the Iraq war, when, U.S. officials say, they let popular opinion in their countries dictate their opposition to the conflict.
The expectation here is that leaders will cast off the old habit of pandering to anti-Americanism that makes the United States a scapegoat and blames it for all manner of ills. Rather, Washington says, it is time for leaders to fearlessly take on the new tasks and rally support among their people for NOTHING LESS THAN the future of Western civilization.
There is a demand here for leadership in Latin America that will look beyond national boundaries and dare to challenge long-held principles of noninterference in other country's affairs.
This is not just about offering support to help reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Powell pointed to other areas in which Latin American leaders could take even more significant action, like vigorous multilateral assistance to Colombia to confront its terrorist and drug trafficking threats, renewed engagement to help Venezuela resolve ITS internal political upheaval, and aid to Cubans working for a democratic, free COUNTRY and condemnation of its leader who stands in their way.
That is Latin America's onus and Washington's expectation. It is now up to Latin America to respond. If the response is inadequate, will Washington again be "disappointed," or offer some understanding of its own?
Stay tuned.
Marcela Sanchez's e-mail address is desdewash@washpost.com.