When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch
eyes on the U.S.

Washington And Latin America: Time To Undo A Warped Alliance

How have U.S. governments treated their deferential Latin American allies and admiring societies in the past century? A hard look from Bogota.

Colombian President Ivan Duque at the White House on March 2
Colombian President Ivan Duque at the White House on March 2
William Ospina


BOGOTÁ — For more than a century, Colombia has been the most trusted ally of the United States and its regional policies. This is actually surprising, since the 20th century began with Colombia's loss of Panama, a secession backed by this big neighbor to the north in order to implement its canal project.

It is natural however that Latin American countries should in time have sought in an alliance with a formidable country, which in a few decades rose to superpower status as the hardest working, most industrious, innovative and in time, most welcoming nation in the world.

Its light bulbs, cars, home appliances, highways and constant inventiveness changed the way the world has come to live. Its commercial techniques, industry, consumer society, peaceful neighborhoods, and vertical cities that "scrape" the sky have all given human life another direction. U.S. telephony, radio and television, and the dream machine that is its film industry all blossomed from seemingly nowhere, to shape and define our epoch.

And there was also the vision of democracy dreamed of by Walt Whitman, the demented lucidity of Edgar Allan Poe, Emily Dickinson's reflective solitude and refinement of the senses, Edgar Lee Masters's novels woven of poems or Henry David Thoreau's reasoned romanticism. There was Ralph Waldo Emerson's serene humanism and the poetic rebellion of Ezra Pound and Allen Ginsberg, William Faulkner's torrential labyrinths, Ray Bradbury's galaxy of dreams, Henry Miller's symphonic eroticism and Philip K Dick's visionary paranoia.

But the rulers of that country have been less admirable than the society they govern, and today, after a long century of being their allies and venerators, our countries may ask themselves whether or not the alliance is worth it. Because a good deal of our troubles and the violence affecting our societies are due to the policies occasionally sketched out for us, and much more frequently imposed on us.

The Peruvian novelist Mario Vargas Llosa recently published his novel Tiempos recios (Hard Times), wherein he questions the moment the United States crushed the democratic project of Guatemala's President Jacobo Árbenz, and scuppered a worthwhile experiment in liberalism, with the pretext of fighting communism. That opened the way for revolutionary radicalism on the continent, because it wasn't just Guatemala. A succession of U.S. governments entrenched themselves in anti-communist hysteria and not only canceled great democratic efforts and aborted liberal reforms, but sponsored coups, backed bloody tyrannies and even taught the continent's armies the practices of repression, torture and kidnapping.

If we seek alliances outside their sphere of influence, they react as if we were violating certain sacred norms.

One only need look at what Latin America has become to understand, that we may not have had the best neighbor. That is not because the United Sates owed us something, but because it came to expect of us unflinching loyalty, or simple obedience to its counsels and an unqualified application of its recipe. In Colombia, it found the most servile of servitors.

While the Cold War is supposed to have ended, U.S. governments still behave as if we were their backyard, and every time our countries seek alliances or collaborations outside their sphere of influence, they react as if we were violating certain sacred norms.

Clearly however, their dictated development theory has subjected us to a state of hopeless subordination. Their ban on drugs and handling of a public health issue as a military problem are what have turned this part of the world into a killing zone, and their neo-liberal consensus policies have ruined our economies. The multinationals take the lion's share of our contracts, but the policies toward the tragedy of migrants show they do not see us as allies, but as invasive and undesirable.

U.S. troops during 1983 invasion of Grenada — Photo: U.S. Army Sgt. Michael Bogdanowicz

Daily life and politics force the poor to migrate and become clever, pragmatic and astute. Certainly, precarious education and a total lack of opportunities have not made Latin Americans into silent, courteous neighbors. As Colombia recalls, the banana firms did not exactly treat us with kid gloves, the book México bárbaro (Barbarous Mexico) relates blood-curling happenings, and there are reasons for Cuba's distance from its opportunistic neighbor. Guatemala's Jacobo Árbenz, the Dominican Juan Bosch and Chile's Salvador Allende knew the great power to the north did not hesitate to thwart the wishes of majorities in other countries. Its 1983 invasion of Grenada and dropping parachutists into Panama were not peaceful takeovers.

Certainly we are responsible for our problems, but the policies of a bad neighbor have undoubtedly helped. Many countries on the continent are now reconsidering this alliance, and some are cured of illusions and busy finding themselves new partners. Colombia should probably start to do this too.

Today, when climate change is the world's foremost challenge, when its consequences of calamities, pandemics and mass extinctions are becoming clearer every day, we cannot go on with business as usual. We cannot remain beholden to those who take our riches but raise walls and shut their door when they see us coming in destitution.

There is another hope of course, that people inside the United States should now understand the scale of this threat, and how much is at stake. We can hope that they will not just change their government, but recover the lofty dreams that shaped that great nation.

Then, they may come to respect us again, even as we too must learn to respect ourselves, and understand the value of our world. It was precisely an American woman, the poet Emily Dickinson, who found a great secret of life and death, when she wrote, "Who has not found the heaven below, Will fail of it above."

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

FOCUS: Russia-Ukraine War

How Vulnerable Are The Russians In Crimea?

Ukraine has stepped up attacks on the occupied Crimean peninsula, and Russia is doing all within its power to deny how vulnerable it has become.

Photograph of the Russian Black Sea Fleet headquarters with smoke rising above it after a Ukrainian missile strike.

September 22, 2023, Sevastopol, Crimea, Russia: Smoke rises over the Russian Black Sea Fleet headquarters after a Ukrainian missile strike.

Kyrylo Danylchenko

This article was updated Sept. 26, 2023 at 6:00 p.m.

Russian authorities are making a concerted effort to downplay and even deny the recent missile strikes in Russia-occupied Crimea.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

Media coverage in Russia of these events has been intentionally subdued, with top military spokesperson Igor Konashenkov offering no response to an attack on Russian Black Sea Fleet headquarters in the Crimean city of Sevastopol, or the alleged downing last week of Russian Su-24 aircraft by Ukrainian Air Defense.

The response from this and other strikes on the Crimean peninsula and surrounding waters of the Black Sea has alternated between complete silence and propagating falsehoods. One notable example of the latter was the claim that the Russian headquarters building of the Black Sea fleet that was hit Friday was empty and that the multiple explosions were mere routine training exercises.

Ukraine claimed on Monday that the attack killed Admiral Viktor Sokolov, the commander of Russia's Black Sea Fleet. "After the strike on the headquarters of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, 34 officers died, including the commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Another 105 occupiers were wounded. The headquarters building cannot be restored," the Ukrainian special forces said via Telegram.

But Sokolov was seen on state television on Tuesday, just one day after Ukraine claimed he'd been killed. The Russian Defense Ministry released footage of the admiral partaking in a video conference with top admirals and chiefs, including Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, though there was no verification of the date of the event.

Moscow has been similarly obtuse following other reports of missiles strikes this month on Crimea. Russian authorities have declared that all missiles have been intercepted by a submarine and a structure called "VDK Minsk", which itself was severely damaged following a Ukrainian airstrike on Sept. 13. The Russians likewise dismissed reports of a fire at the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet, attributing it to a mundane explosion caused by swamp gas.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has refrained from commenting on the military situation in Crimea and elsewhere, continuing to repeat that everything is “proceeding as planned.”

Why is Crimea such a touchy topic? And why is it proving to be so hard to defend?

Keep reading...Show less

The latest