When the Yankees decide to go home

By: Beatrice E. Rangel - 28/10/2024

Share:     

I grew up in an intellectual environment where the slogan Yankees Go Home was often repeated. At the University, there were more signs with this slogan than those describing the reason for the protest. I must, however, note that we were not innovating in Latin America. The slogan was born in East Germany in 1950 in a student demonstration against the Marshall Plan. And we all know the end of that story. Europe rebuilt its communications and production infrastructure, overcame poverty and managed to get closer economically to the United States in terms of GDP, which today represents 19.35 billion dollars.

Meanwhile, on the western shores of the Atlantic, the student, intellectual and political establishments adopted this slogan, which has only served to stop any possibility of progress on the American continent. Because it has created a cultural watershed that rejects a priori everything that emanates from the United States, making the achievement of development extremely difficult. Proof of this was Latin America's rejection of the second pillar of the Initiative of the Americas project launched by President George Bush Sr. The project, whose sole objective was to get Latin America out of the evil cycle of boom and bust with unmanageable debt piles, was destroyed by the Latin American countries when they rejected the creation of a free trade zone of regional proportions, whose development potential was close to 20 billion for this year. That is to say that if the free trade zone of the Americas had been created, the regional product of Latin America would be 20 billion today instead of the 5.86 billion it currently reports. This would mean a reduction in poverty to half of what it is today and a financing capacity for education and health services 30 times what it is today. Faced with such a warm welcome, the Yankees of course decided to abstain from making any further development proposals to the region and to focus on their growing domestic problems.

In these first decades of the 21st century, our region lacks solid development options that are not linked to the consolidation of the digital economy in the United States. Because while it is true that the growth of middle classes in Asian nations (China, India, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea) has a positive impact on the demand for food products in these nations, it is also true that Latin America is now competing in this area. The region has lost the advantage of being the main and best supplier. African nations have invested in the modernization of their agriculture and the development of ecologically healthy species. Thus, this continent is emerging as a competitor in the region in terms of agricultural exports. Secondly, Africans and Asians have given greater importance to economic and commercial infrastructure than Latin Americans. In Brazil, only six of its ports qualify as cutting-edge ports in terms of technology and management systems. Brazil's 7,100-mile coastline could be a better conduit for exports if investment were made in technological improvements to at least 16 of its 23 ports. In terms of communication routes, only Mexico and pre-Chavez Venezuela had been able to meet the transportation needs of their economies. Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Peru and Paraguay lack modern road infrastructure.

Given these shortcomings, many countries in the region - Mexico included, despite AMLO - see the United States as a safe source of investment. But as a consequence of centuries-old anti-American attitudes, I believe that Latin American nations are about to have a surprise. Americans have decided to go home. Now they prefer to invest in their own country or in Asian nations where returns are much higher than in Latin America. And to the extent that popular domestic sentiment continues to prefer isolationism, American corporations will prefer to make investments that directly impact the deepening of the digital economy. In the political arena, the process of returning home is more than evident. The last Summit of the Americas was truly embarrassing due to the behavior of many Latin American nations and that has decreed the death of that initiative. Already during the Trump administration, the meeting was held without the presence of the president of the United States. Today, the best diplomatic resources are deployed in Eastern Europe or Asia. The attention of the United States to Africa has also increased in the last decade as a result of the lobbying of African Americans. In terms of the defense and protection of democracy, the withdrawal of the United States is evident. In Venezuela, a criminal autocracy is rife, which is being copied by Nicaragua and is supported by Bolivia, without the nations of Latin America having the slightest initiative to confront the scourge. The OAS is marching on its hind legs and organized crime is already ruling in Haiti. In short, the withdrawal of the United States is negatively impacting development and political stability in Latin America. This reminds us of the famous Chinese proverb: “Fear what you wish for, because it can come true.”

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».