Washington's interventions in elections in Latin America continue apace, writes Gamil Mattar* In two days Mexico will join the process of political change underway in Latin America. On 2 July voters will cast their ballots in the presidential elections. There are three main candidates, each representing a different political vision. One is seeking to implement a radical agenda through appealing to the masses, particularly those worst hit by globalisation -- peasant farmers, the indigenous population and the inhabitants of shanty towns. The second, while shying away from the kind of populism that may threaten political stability, also wants the state to side more with the poor, though only through using existing institutions and by gradually scaling down the power of businessmen. The third offers little apart from maintaining the neo- liberal status quo. In other words the election pits two types of elite -- leftist and neo- liberal -- against populists who would have no problem with laws reversing international obligations and nationalising strategic industries. In Latin America the right-wing elite includes Alan Garcia, the new Peruvian president, who defeated Ollanta Humala just a few days ago, and Alvaro Uribe, the Colombian president, who has just won a second term. Felipe Calderon, one of the three Mexican candidates, shares similar ideas, as does Oscar Arias, Nobel laureate and Costa Rica's new president. Arias won the elections by a small margin, but he must be relieved. The US ambassador threatened during the campaign to cut off all investment in Costa Rica unless parliament ratified the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) -- threats that were hardly helpful to Arias. Leftist politicians seek to bolster the role of the state, reduce unemployment and prevent big business from monopolising the profits that accrue from exploiting national resources. They are also willing to press for the renegotiation of international agreements that are disadvantageous to their countries. In Latin America Chile's new President Michelle Bachelet, Argentinean President Nestor Kirchner and Uruguayan President Tabare Vasquez fall into this group. Bachelet quickly became the target of a hate campaign in the US press because she supported Venezuela, rather than Guatemala, as a candidate for a seat on the UN Security Council. In the Mexican elections this trend is represented by Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. During his election campaign Obrador has railed against Mexico's free trade agreement with the US. The agreement, which removed import tariffs on US agricultural products, has angered Mexico's peasant farmers. The populist school is represented by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Bolivian President Evo Morales. The latter won a landslide victory in the presidential elections despite -- and perhaps because of -- a threat by the US ambassador during the 2002 elections to cut all US aid to Bolivia should Morales win. The US is interfering in Latin American politics right, left and centre. Washington reacted to the victory of Morales by upping its intervention in presidential elections in both Colombia and Peru. As a result populist Ollanta Humala, a close friend of Chavez and a man who comes from the ranks of the indigenous population, was defeated in Peru. Washington has also sought to influence the Mexican elections, though it has been an uphill struggle. US stock has slumped in Mexico, thanks largely to the attempts to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing its southern border which has seen US guards deployed in what is the first militarisation of borders since the US-Mexican war ended with the US occupying two-thirds of Mexico. To make things worse, Washington decided that the election campaign was a good time to ask Mexico to close its southern borders to prevent illegal immigrants, especially from Guatemala, from passing through. Washington is confident that the results of the Mexican elections will see the elite remaining in power. Being a president of Mexico is not exactly a walk in the park. It involves a delicate balancing act between Mexico's interests and those of its superpower neighbour. It is analogous to the situation in our region that applies to countries bordering Israel, though we hate to admit it. Washington can live with a Mexican president who tinkers with some economic policies because it knows no Mexican president would dare harm US interests. Israel has the same confidence. Neighbouring countries can do what they please with their economies as long as they cooperate in maintaining Israel's security. Sometimes I wish people paid more attention to the many studies published in the US about America's security, stability, and future. Samuel Huntington produced his thesis about the clash of civilisations, and not so long afterwards we started living the nightmare. Just look at the violent Western presence in various parts of the Islamic world, and at the siege being imposed on Russia and China. It was Huntington who said that the West's most likely foes would be the Muslims, Chinese, and Orthodox Russians. And now Huntington has written on a new subject, the Mexicanisation of the US, which posits that the greatest threat to American identity will come from Latinos outnumbering white Anglo-Saxons. For months now the US, Mexico and Latin American countries seem to have been caught up in Huntington's prophecies. One cannot help but have a wearying sense of déjà vu. It happened before in our part of the world, when the clash of civilisations caught up with us. And it's all part of the same game. The US seeks to tighten its political and economic hold over the world, and the theorists offer it excuses. Civilisations have nothing to do with the ongoing conflict, and Huntington merely provides the gimmicks that justify intervention. * The writer is director of The Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic Studies.
