Outis

I’m being facetious. But, there are many others for whom the title of this entry is a matter of fact, not opinion.

From today’s New York Times, “Rebels Threatened to Attack Capital Unless Leader Resigned :

Mr. Aristide was the first democratically elected president in Haiti’s 200 years of independence, following a long line of dictators, despots and military men. His presidency crumbled as armed rebels seized Haiti’s north this month and Bush administration officials announced an “Aristide must go” stance this weekend.

see also “Veterans of Past Murderous Campaigns Are Leading Haiti’s New Rebellion.”

Now, why is this remarkable?

Consider the following appraisal of U.S. foreign policy from current President George W. Bush:

The United States made military and moral commitments in Europe and Asia, which protected free nations from aggression, and created the conditions in which new democracies could flourish. As we provided security for whole nations, we also provided inspiration for oppressed peoples.

Right.

Critics of United States foreign policy are wrong to assert that the U.S. has a double standard when it comes to promoting democracy in Latin America.

In truth, the U.S. has a single standard: it will do whatever it takes to advance the interests of the ruling party in the U.S., be it Republican or Democrat, and human rights or the rule of law be damned.

The prerogative of the party in command of the U.S. will always be to advance their economic interests, enforce their cultural agenda, and stay in power. Only on occasion do those three goals admit or require the contruction of a free society. That’s even more true if the nation in need of “building” is dirt poor, to begin with, whether of resources intellectual or natural.

Shocking no one but college Republicans and teary-eyed political refugees,
I would thus boil down U.S. foreign policy with regards to Latin America, from the Lousiana Purchase to Teddy Roosevelt’s exploits in the “Rough Riders,” from John F. Kennedy Jr.’s botched “Bay of Pigs” invasion to Ronald Reagan’s nebulous understanding of the Nicaraguan Contras, as a matter of simple, unequivocal self-interest.

Moreover, that self-interest is not to be mistaken with the mandate of the U.S. Constitution, and/or the transcendent principles expressed therein. Rather, the interests at stake in all such exploits are those of the elected rulers of the U.S. — simple and clean.

Havana Knights

Cubans of my parents’ generation made the mistake of assuming that the enemy of our enemy was our friend. I think the last half-century speaks quite unambiguously to the relative failure of this approach.

The benefits of “riding bitch” on the Hog that is U.S. foreign policy may very well be a nice view of “amber waves of grain” but let’s not kid ourselves about who’s doing the steering.

For Cubans who would insist otherwise, I offer you a simple wager:

Ahmed Chalabi’s family may very well reap substantial financial rewards by participating in the U.S. reconstruction of Iraq, but I would be willing to change my middle name to “the Gipper” if that man or his organization is still playing a substantial role in Iraqi politics five years from today.

[05/25/2004: Chalabi is gone. General Anthony Zinni states the biggest mistake of the invasion of Iraq was “propping up and trusting the exiles.”]

What does this mean for exiles such as myself? It’s simple, really: always play the field.

For decades, Cubans in the U.S., from plutocrats to plebians, have bent over for the GOP, with dubious results. Assuming the constant presence of anti-Communist liberals — a vital force in the U.S. — could things really have turned out any worse?

A strategy of containment has been enough for the U.S. but it’s not enough for the Cuban people. As the debacle in Iraq suggests, the alternative is not a military occupation.

What if, instead, we’d attempted to solve this problem by examining it from all angles, approaching it with the honesty of a doctor, rather than the empty promises of a politician.

Of course, that presumes a clarity of purpose mostly lacking in Cuban exile: a steely pragmatism that sees past the romantic poetry of “freedom,” “liberty,” and “democracy,” in order to focus on the dirty details of results: treaties, trade, travel, and, ultimately, inspections and high-level delegations, free elections and a free press.

[postscript: July 12, 2004]

Enough books have been written on the subject of the U.S. and its realpolitik on human rights and democracy — i.e., its support for dozens of dictators and despots — to fill a small library. Cubans would do well to consider recent events very carefully: whether the devolution of Russia into a neo-totalitarian regime (minus the order) or the recent history of Afghanistan.

On the latter, “The Rise of bin Laden,” in The New York Review of Books, should prompt Cubans to reconsider just how well planned our policies of “regime change” have been researched, vetted and implemented. My opinion: hardly, if at all.

The March 6, 2004 edition of The Economist echoes many of the points raised below and elsewhere on this site. You may prefer to read their critique first.

The May/June edition of Foreign Affairs magazine goes even further in chastising Mr. Huntington’s populist and shallow rhetoric.

Finally, and most notably, the May 10th edition of The New Yorker elucidates with precision and thoroughness the “emptiness at the heart of Huntington’s analysis.”

Not satisfied with casting the future of international relations as the struggle between White Protestants and the rest of the world, Samuel P. Huntington has returned to piss in the well of civil society just one more time. (more)

Mr. Huntington, an astute thinker who really should know better, has now decided that the struggle over America, as defined by himself and his wonderfully selective rendition of the history of the United States, is to be fought on the homefront as well as abroad.

To quote his paranoid, thoroughly unscientific and eerily delusional rant in the pages of Foreign Policy, the invasion began recently as “Mexicans and other Hispanics were also establishing beachheads elsewhere.”

That’s right, folks, “beachheads.” Not communities, not churches, not stores, not PTAs. Beachheads.

Why? Because unlike African-Americans, who were thoroughly tortured upon entry in to the U.S. of yore, Hispanics have not come into the Master’s house as ghosts, denied their history, language, values, dreams and hopes.

That is our original sin — the heinous offense of our self-respect and integrity.

Because, what Samuel P. Huntington wants is not a beautiful America, it is not a prosperous America, it is not even a free America. What Samuel P. Huntington apparently wants is a dead America, a corpse of a nation, to be buried alongside him in his sarcophagus.

But as his ship departs to a more just realm, it will fall to us invisible men and women to translate the works of the early Americans — the White, Anglo, Protestant settlers — into spanish, and beyond.

For then, and only then, will we continue the infinite unfolding of our holy patrimony as citizens of the United States of America, the universal promise of liberty and justice for all.

Oh, and, Mr. Huntington, here’s a little Anglo-Saxon phrase I picked up while assimilating your incomplete, unfinished culture: fuck off.

As for the editors of Foreign Policy: they may feel the obligation to print their co-founder’s grocery lists but they shouldn’t delude themselves, not for a second, that what they have just published is merely “controversial.” Unless, of course, they would be willing to publish tracts on the “challenge” of miscegenation or the “risk” posed by the Papists.

One does not further debate on a real and serious issue by defining the parameters in the parlance of a febrile crank. If this cover story is evidence of the high standard to which the FP editors subject manuscripts, I have some journal entries on the smells of the Martian landscape I’d be willing to submit.

After all, I bet I have more firsthand experience with the surface of the red planet than Mr. Hungtington does with Hispanic Americans.

(4/30/2004) On the fine line between yelling “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater and yelling “Combustion manifested in light, flame, and heat!”

On Huntington’s previous contribution, “The Clash of Civilizations,” I offer the following quote from his colleague, Bernard Lewis:

I think most of us would agree, and some of us have indeed said, that the clash of civilizations is an important aspect of modern international relations, though probably not many of us would go so far as to imply, as some have done, that civilizations have foreign policies and form alliances.

Once before, Mr. Huntington took up an important topic, asked a good question and then proceed with an exaggerated and, some might say, hysterical response.

In both cases, I suspect, the academic has skillfully massaged cool observations of extremism into warm affirmations of same.

(5/03/2004) On cocktail party conversations

By now, I’m almost embarassed at how seriously I take preposterous claims about cultural primacy, the alleged continuity of cultures “suddenly at risk,” and the cowardice of those who would pre-empt the competition between traditions — the same competition that has ushered in progress for eons.

On their face, these are ludicrous assertions but they are expressed with such vehemence, such seething resentment, that a sensitive, kumbaya Christian such as yours truly can’t help but want to answer in earnest.

Yet, a part of me suspects this is entirely the wrong tack. Can you really put out a make-believe fire?

Rather, I think, it’s time to yell “Seltzer!” in response.

Unfortunately, all I can say in response to the essay (and book) cited above is the tired but still powerful African-American phrase:

“Oh no you didn’t.”

Rest assured, kind reader of tomorrow, more incisive and appropriately ludic responses are on the way.

Imagine, if you will, a carpenter and a plumber attempting to discuss their collaboration on “This Old House,” only to discover that they lack even the same blueprints.

Such is the context of too many discussions on matters of immigration, the Americas, and the United States of America.

Just when a critical dialogue is most needed, we appear unable to grasp even the most basic facts of the matter. Instead, all too often, discussions on immigration and the new latin Americans resemble a kind of shadow puppet theater set to a Wagnerian score: vague figures thrust and jab at each other as “the fat lady sings.”

Against this backdrop of confused and confabulated extremism, it is often quite uncomfortable to engage in a productive dialogue.

Yet, communicate we must. For it is our common inheritance and obligation to realize the stated goals of the U.S. through such a dialogue — to serve as both a beacon of and a workshop for justice and democracy, a task for which I know we are more than prepared.

It is in the hopes of facilitating this discussion that I submit the following facts.

It will be difficult enough to tend to the task before us. We certainly do not need to suffer any longer from the undue burden of misinformation and fallacy.

The United States economy is based on the premise that more is better.

At least two-thirds of our economic activity is based on consumer spending. That spending is fueled by an abundance of choices: between brands, between models, between prices, between lifestyles.

To my knowledge, no respected figure in the U.S. has advocated less choices for consumers, either by restricting the number of makes or models available for public consumption and use.

This we take to be self-evident: that more offerings leads to competition which leads to better offerings and a higher quality of life.

Against this backdrop, consider the absurd fallacy that bilingualism — the opportunity to speak more than one language — is a threat to the American way.

In fact, a choice between languages is just as important to the health and vitality of the U.S. economy as a choice of gasolines or donuts.

It should be noted that many (if not most) of those who publicly declare against bilingualism are, in fact, monolingual. They have lived without choice all of their lives. They simply don’t know what they’re missing, let alone, rejecting.

I say this because language is not only a means to an end (i.e., the way that we communicate), it is also a way of thinking.

Here’s why: let’s say you’re an Eskimo and you live in the North Pole. The year is 1800 and you don’t have a snow plow, you don’t have a stockpile of sand or a dumptruck, you don’t have Gore-tex parkas or a gas motor to fuel your year-round hydroponic hothouse. Clearly, you are living very close to the land.

Now, if this is you, you’re going to get to know your environment very, very well. Not because you’re a nature lover, but, rather, because your very survival — the survival of your family, of your village, of your civilization — depends on your intimate knowledge of the environment.

Is it any surprise, then, that the Eskimos are said to have 15 words for snow?

Clearly, there is more to language than just its usefulness as a tool for communication. To use today’s terms: language is an entire set of software, filled with complicated solutions to all sorts of important problems.

Knowing all of the above, what freedom-loving, hard-working, patriotic American wouldn’t welcome having unrestricted access to not just one language, but two — or three?

The fact is, the period of geographic isolation and colonization that made English the dominant language of the U.S. is now over. Instead, we live in a time (and an economy) where the entire world is instantaneously accessible.

That is our new environment. If the eskimos needed 15 words for snow, surely, we need new and alternate words for our global environment.

The Wall Street Journal reported on February 13, 2002 that “Inglés Sin Barreras is the most heavily advertised brand on U.S. Spanish-language television, ahead of even McDonald’s and Coke, according
to New York ad-tracking firm CMR.”

What is this powerful brand that trumps McDonald’s and Coca-Cola on Spanish-language television?

“English without Barriers” — an english language course.

As the WSJ put it, Inglés Sin Barreras is a “12-part course of videos, audio cassettes and booklets” that promises to teach English to the ”
millions of low-income Hispanics who have come to the U.S. in search of
jobs and a better life.”

According to the National Institute for Literacy:

“ESL programs are the fastest growing component of the state-administered adult education programs. In 1997-98, 48% of enrollments were in ESL programs, compared to 33% in 1993-94. Of these 48% enrollees, 32% were in beginning ESL classes, 12% in intermediate, and 4% in advanced.”

And while we’re talking statistics, let’s look at one that racists are not likely to bring up as they attempt to demean Hispanics and/or immigrants, in general:

When examining the average composite literacy score of native-born adults, the same NIFL report cited above found that “the U.S. ranked 10th out of 17 high-income countries.”

Note the specific terms of this finding: at issue are adult literacy scores, not those of children. Considering that the most recent immigration boom from Latin America began in the mid-1970s, the native-born population whose literacy ranks 10th among other wealthy nations is not, primarily, of a Hispanic background.

Moreover, the sheer size of the adult population in the U.S. versus the minority status of the African-American descendants of slaves, places the onus on white, “anglo” Americans to explain their generation’s poor showing when it comes to a facility with the English language.

I welcome any attempts to defend this poor showing on account of the “influence of Hispanics.” For this is a population that has had access to free and universal public schooling, this is a population that has been immersed in English language media (newspapers, radio, television, movies) from birth, this is a population that has come of age at the height of U.S. wealth and global power.

So, tell me again, who doesn’t want to learn English?

In the Christian tradition, the Bible records Paul’s Letter to the Galatians as including the admonition: “God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.”

U.S. companies, on behalf of their stockholders, owners and, supposedly, U.S. consumers, have sown all manner of seeds throughout the world.

In many cases, these seeds are not for “renewable and sustainable” crops (industries with a positive impact on the host economy), but, rather, for “cash crops” (industries with export-only outputs and an emphasis on unskilled labor and undervalued natural resources as inputs).

My suggestion is not that U.S. consumers should attempt to extricate themselves from the global economy. That would not only hurt all involved but it’s most likely an impossible task. Also, and quite emphatically, I am not suggesting that U.S. consumers and corporations are solely responsible for this harvest of shame.

It takes two to tango and just as culpable are the leaders and business men of these impoverished nations who essentially (and, often, literally) accept bribes to undersell their people’s potential and country’s resources.

My interest is only to lift a mirror to the face of the person who yells “They’re turning the U.S. into a Thirld World economy.”

If it’s a First World economy you desire, let’s start by making sure that what we are sowing in Latin America and Asia are the seeds for a First World economy and not, as it is today, the seeds for cycles of capital influx and flight, trade dependence and, inevitably, civil unrest and war.

As Andres Oppenheimer notes in the August 1, 2004 edition of The Miami Herald:

That’s why the periodic calls by both Republican and Democratic politicians to ‘’strengthen our border controls'’ will be a waste of time and money unless Washington tackles the core issue: the huge income gap between Americans and Latin Americans.

As long as the per capita income in the United States is $36,000 while that of Mexico is $9,000 and Peru’s is $5,000, and as long as U.S. Hispanics continue believing in the American Dream, the exodus will continue. The only solution will be helping speed up Latin America’s development.

Emphasis mine.

If this sounds like a tall order, it is. But, any country that can boast having birthed the New York Stock Exchange, FedEx and the Internet, can (and will) upgrade its now, clearly, global economy.

To restate the facts: immigrants from the Third World, the “outer burroughs” of the U.S. economy, are arriving via the same well-traveled roads that bring U.S. consumers a dazzling array of cheaper and cheaper products and services. Their entry into the geographical confines of the U.S. is part and parcel of the supply and demand networks that we otherwise — if thoughtlessly — cherish.

Garment factory, China, 2001.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal on May 17, 2004, the Inter-American Development Bank has found that while Latin American immigrants will send some $30 billion back to their countries of origin in 2004, they nonetheless spend 93% of their earnings here, in the U.S..

It is, as they say, a “win-win” situation, as the host absorbs most of the benefits of a cheap, flexible and mobile labor pool while the country of origin receives an invaluable injection of capital at various levels.

Now, Whether the U.S. should force industries that rely on cheap labor to move abroad in exchange for a decrease in the size of its working class population is another matter altogether.

As reported by the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal on May 27, 2004, “Immigrants who come to the U.S. live an average of three years longer than people born here, new research shows in a surprising finding that challenges some common beliefs.”

The articles goes on to cite sources at the National Institute of Health while adding that a “growing body of evidence reflects both immigrants innate vitality and their reluctance to embrace American’s drive-through, drive-everywhere mentality. They also smoke less.” Unfortunately, concludes this report, “As they assimilate…many immigrants adopt bad health habits.”

From the consumption of junk food (30% of the average American diet), to smoking (the habit of 1 out of 4 Americans), there is much that is, simply, bad about American culture. But this is hardly a matter of opinion: the preponderance of such unhealthy lifestyles adds several hundred billions dollars, yearly, to the overall costs of health care and health insurance.

This incredible drain on the national economy and the fiscal resources of our government, I must add, is a result of bad choices made in the aggregate and individually by a majority of U.S. citizens.
However, it is far easier to scapegoat uninsured immigrants, some of whom are illegal or unauthorized, for the more sensational offense of overcrowding hospital emergency rooms in specific, discrete communities.

Is it a scandal that the uninsured — and those who are, also, working illegally in the U.S. — are provided free medical treatment in the U.S.? In some ways, yes. But it is far worse a scandal to not provide every worker, elderly person and child with an affordable health insurance plan.

But, regardless of how we, Americans, choose to resolve this particular quandary, let’s be very clear about one thing: Immigrants arrive and remain healthy “even though they are more likely to be poor and less likely to see a doctor.”

Entries to be completed anon…