Hal Weitzman: "Latin Lessons"
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-02-08/hal-weitzman-latin-lessons
The U.S. economy has struggled recently with high unemployment, stagnant wages, and growing national debt. The downturn in the global economy is partly to blame. But while the U.S. has been struggling, South America has been booming. And its political influence is growing too. In his new book “Latin Lessons: How South America Stopped Listening to the United States and Started Prospering” author Hal Weitzman says it’s time to rethink a relationship we once took for granted. Join us to discuss why we might now need Latin America more than it needs us.
Guests
Hal Weitzman
Chicago and Midwest correspondent for the Financial Times
Related Items
Program Highlights
In the last decade as the U.S. has struggled with problems at home and abroad, Latin America has prospered. It's also quietly built relationships with some of the U.S.'s biggest rivals - China and Iran. Our influence in
the region has now fallen to an historic low. Hal Weitzman talks about how - and why - he thinks we lost the south.
Our Shifting Priorities
Prior to 9/11, Weitzman said George W. Bush had made some efforts to put Latin America more at the heart of U.S. foreign policy. But afterward, the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy became the fight against violent Islam. "When the U.S. withdrew and effectively shoved Latin America down to the bottom of a very long list of foreign policy priorities, where it's effectively remained ever since," Weitzman said. "That created a kind of power vacuum in Latin America." Countries like China, Russia, and Iran stepped in to the vacuum.
The Brazilian Story
Brazil has emerged as not only the powerhouse of South America, but also as a global economic power, Weitzman said. Last year, Brazil overtook the U.K. to become the sixth biggest economy in the world. "The real challenge for the U.S. is how to build a partnership with a country like
Brazil that will enable the U.S. to find a new kind of global role in this multi-polar world that's emerging, where the U.S., in a few decades, may no longer be the top dog," Weitzman said.
U.S.'s Attitude Toward Cuba Is A Symbol
Weitzman thinks the U.S.'s attitude toward Cuba is a larger symbol of our attitude to the region as a whole. The U.S. is seen as a somewhat bullying, "We'll tell you what to do" presence in Cuba, he said. In contrast, the U.S. deals with China and Saudi Arabia with a more pragmatic approach. "It doesn't tell them how to run their countries," Weitzman said. There has been an inertia about our Cuba policy, and Weitzman thinks it's time to revisit that.
Resource Exports And Sustainability
Although South America has seen many improvements and successes in recent years, there are still areas where it stands to make progress. Its economies have become very dependent on exporting natural resources and agricultural commodities, Weitzman said. It's hard for them to diversify. South America sends many of its natural resources to China, where they're used to make cheap manufactured goods that are sent back to Latin America. Brazil, for example, is very concerned about shoe, textile, and car industry being undermined by Chinese exports. "Education would be the path out of that...Latin America has not been particularly good in doing that," Weitzman said.
You can read the full transcript here.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The US based corporate traditionalist (conservative) view toward diverging South American nations is a hostile one. They are often lumped with Cuba and called socialist. A practical observer would wonder why this is so if their economic health has been improved by egalitarian changes and decoupling from global financialism. My assessment is that managed democracy in the United States can't hold up to comparison with these innovative forms. (Domestic dissent is already surfacing.) Likewise our crony capitalism is embarrassed by Southern Hemisphere growth and success. Because of hegemony plans over natural resources and disappearing cheap labor, contingency plans are being made in US intelligence agencies and the Pentagon for destabilization of deviating governments, and even for invasions. There is no better instance of unrealistic expectations to prove American Empire has become an insane menace to this planet.
Your guest mentioned the war on drugs as one of the elements that the U.S should re-think. What is he advocating, legalization or another arrangement?
Hi Diane, great show. I listen to the WUNC as much as I can. As regards what Hal says, here in Argentina the term "economical crisis" has been heard since I have use of memory, I'm 42. Governments seems to be struggling to tackle inflation almost all the time, no matter who is in charge, perhaps that's why we're so keen on surviving in harsh contitions.
We're though going through prosperity now a days. However, Argentinians are aware of that situation can change out of the blue. Most of latin American countries seems to face the same problems, corruption, poverty, unfair whealth distribution, etc...
Best from South Argentina
An interesting topic, but the guest failed to deliver. I guess somebody who works for the "Financial Times" has to work within the dominent propaganda model. Before the US was able to impose hegemony on all of the Americas, countries in South America were at parity with anybody in terms of industrial and economic strength. Since then, they've fallen far, far back, exploited economically, invaded militarily, subjected to torture, murder, oppression of every kind. The guest really downplayed this history. He's correct when Dubya got tied down in the middle east, much of the rest of the Americas have slipped the surly bonds of oppression and begun their march towards their rightful, historical place in the world.
Now that the US empire is hopelessly overextended, we're supposed to be able to "hey, c'mon back under the big tent, and help us out!" and they are supposed to do it? How incredibly foolish of us to think this.
Your guest uses that hackneyed and meaningless phrase "Anti-Americanism" as explanation. The problem isn't that the world is Anti-American, it's that the US has a bad case of anti-worldism. Our worst impulse is to violate them, and steal them blind; our best impulse is to pity them and try to make them like us as we steal them blind.
As some of your guests mentioned, the biggest lesson for the US in the present economic growth of South America is about how it is important for the economic prosperity to be shared across class lines. The only way this is possible is through State intervention. When the poor become middle class, their education as well as their health is improved. And despite the author's remarks to the contrary, my experience has been that the health care is much cheaper and easier to come by then in the US. Also, universities, that many times offer courses compatible with those in the US, are either free or very cheap. Your previous show on contraceptives is incredibly deceptive since it tries to make it a religious problem instead of a social one, a social problem that the US already got through a long time ago!!!! Look at the countries in the worst social situations in the present world; they are the ones where "religion", especially women's rights in general, are being put on the forefront to justify practices that restrict women and produce unhealthy backwards nations.
As to there being a system that consistently works in all economical/political situations, I think that is not possible. What works today, might not work tomorrow. Governments should have the flexibility to employ and discard different models according to the present needs of its people. Free markets is a wonderful philosophy, but one in which not everyone is a winner, and one which might not be the best solution to all problems at all times.
Thank you for the chance to express my thoughts.
I was surprised that Hal Weitzman did not mention the repression and anti-semitism which accompanies the governments of Hugo Chavez, Castro in Cuba, and in any of the other Latin American countries who have been getting frighteningly close to Iran of late.
I am in favor of the Scandinavian model of success which includes freedom of the individual, the press, and a caring attitude toward human beings from birth to old age and death!
k
It seems the Sandra Fluke controversy has exposed many hypocrisies and deliberate attempts to distort the facts by the liberal media for political gain. I hereby demand an Apology from the Diane Rehm show and specifically the host herself. Deliberately not revealing well known facts about the controversy and pretending otherwise is the same as lying to the listening audience in order to achieve a partisan political edge. I further demand that Diane Rehm give back and not accept further public tax payer funding that benefits WAMU and Ms. Rehms show. Tax payer funding is given to NPR with the expectation of non biased broadcasts, clearly the host has failed to maintain that trust over the years. The host of this show Diane Rehm has stated many times there is no liberal bias coming from the D.R. Show. Here is evidence of some of the deliberate deceptions by Ms. Rehm on March 7 / 2012 about the Sandra Fluke controversy. If Ms.Rehm claims ignorance, then she has no business being on the air at all and certainly not at tax payers expense. Ms.Rehm did not once correct the inaccuracies put forward by what we are led to believe are "professional journalists" that many of us know better as the liberal media where investigation into the facts as far as republicans are concerned no longer exists. The selective outrage for media sources that insult women is no accident by Ms. Rehm.
Continued
REHM
10:35:59
But, you know, as a woman -- not as someone who has a microphone, but as a woman, I'm just so offended.
LIZ
10:50:01
We had talked about some of the discourse and how toxic it has been, and I agree. I think that it should be much more civil. But in the criticism in Ms. Fluke versus Bill Maher's criticism and lack of apology, at least Bill Maher was criticizing actual political figures, such as Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin are the most quoted by conservatives about, well, you know, what about Bill Maher, whereas Ms. Fluke was a private citizen addressing Congress. And I think that that distinction has not been really clearly...
REHM
10:50:35
Big difference, Susan.
PAGE
10:50:37
You know what, Liz, I was -- I've been struck by the same thing. I mean, I don't actually think even members of Congress or Sarah Palin should open them self up to this kind of language. But especially a 30-year-old law school student who doesn't have kind of -- it hasn't put her -- hasn't been elected to anything, isn't a particularly public person, doesn't have the resources to respond that -- than elected official have, I thought it made it even more egregious.
CILLIZZA
10:51:01
I couldn't agree more. We were talking about this off air. I mean, I think that is a critical difference, not to excuse Bill Maher and his comments, but I do think it is different. I would say if people wanna criticize Diane Rehm, and Chris Cillizza and Susan Page, we are public figures of a sort. We go on the radio. We talk about our opinions. We put ourselves out there. I don't think that Sandra Fluke, in testifying before Congress, is putting herself out there in that same way. And I think as the result, she -- it just seemed -- the words themselves are unacceptable period...
REHM
10:51:34
Totally.
Cont.
CILLIZZA
10:51:34
...whether you're a public figure or not. But it seemed even worse to do so to someone who is not really seeking the lime -- I mean, testifying before Congress is not really seeking the limelight in any meaningful way.
Sorry, but Ms.Fluke has positioned herself deliberately as an advocate for insurance covered contraceptives at a University that did not offer them in it's coverage, she was looking for a fight "the lime". Her desire to be a "public figure" are self evident in her appearance on sympathetic shows like The View. The hearing where Ms.Fluke testified was not a congressional hearing but a media event set up by the democrats with Nancy Pelosi conducting it. To any honest observer the events that led up to this charade of a Congressional hearing would know what this was all about. Changing the debate from Constitutional rights to an attack on women's health. Ms.Fluke did not drop out of the sky, in time we will learn exactly how her appearance was so perfectly timed to create a politcal trap for the opposition. Diane Rehm's claims of being offended as a women look more than suspicious when she dismisses similar or worse commentary from the left for conservative women. Ms.Rehm has spoken out many times at her disgust with Rush Limbaugh and has decided at this opportune time to pile on in a subversive way to do what she can to remove him from the airways. Read the entire transcript and it is plain Diane Rehm had a goal in mind to facilitate a narrative to diminish Rush Limbaugh and all republican candidates to please her personal objectives.
Ms. Fluke is a known feminist activist, the "journalists"on the D.R. show know it, if they did not know it at the time of the NON congressional hearing they certainly knew it before this show aired.
http://mrctv.org/blog/sandra-fluke-gender-reassignment-and-health-insurance
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sandra-fluke-a-fake-victim-of-georgetown...
m
Diane talks to Hal Weitzman, Financial Times correspondent and author of "Latin Lessons: How South America Stopped Listening to the United States and Started Prospering" about the mistakes the U.S. has made in Latin America, and the high price he says we will pay for them.