January 7, 2004

GO SOUTH, YOUNG MAN (via Tom Morin):

The Atlantic Century (Ralph Peters, Autumn 2003, Parameters)

As with Africa, if we look only for problems in Latin America, we will have no difficulty in finding so many that we might easily convince ourselves to stay home. But the current trend in the wake of Operation Iraqi Freedom to downplay our recent differences with France, Germany, and other European powers is wrongheaded. Increasingly, continental Europe’s interests, values, and aspirations diverge from our own. Certainly, we will continue to work together productively in many spheres. But the United States and Europe are growing apart, not converging.

The future—our future—lies elsewhere, in those long-neglected realms where human wastage has been blithely dismissed and every local misfortune was seized upon as proof that “they” simply weren’t in our league. We have been seduced into playing 19th-century European great-power politics in the 21st century; indeed, considering our current involvement in the Middle East, one is tempted to claim that we’re playing 12th-century European power politics.

To the extent strategic requirements allow, we need to reduce our commitments to Europe, as well as combating our psychological dependence on the Eurocentric worldview. We are the children of Mark Twain, not of Proust. Like Huck Finn, we need to avoid Aunt Polly’s attempts to put too many table manners on us. We always need to light out for new frontiers. And the human frontiers of the 21st century are in our own country, in Latin America, and in Africa.

Try a simple experiment. Lay out a map of the world. With a pencil and ruler, connect the United Kingdom, Spain, and Portugal with all the countries in the Americas or in Africa to which they have historical or cultural ties. Next, connect the countries of Africa to those states of the Western Hemisphere to which they have ethnic and cultural ties. Now connect the United States to the countries in Latin America and Africa to which we have ties of population and culture. You have just drawn the most promising strategic network of this century.

It is time for the United States to begin making Castro’s dream a reality, leaving behind his socialist baggage and replacing it with respect for the popular will, individual rights, and truly free markets. We need to begin to bind together North America, Latin America, Africa, and the Atlantic powers on Europe’s western frontier in a mutually beneficial, ocean-spanning network of rule-of-law democracies. Our history laid the foundation. Now we need to build the Atlantic Century.


Other than the fact that such Atlantic-exclusive line-drawing leaves out places like Taiwan, Australia, the Philippines, etc., this is extremely sensible. What's fascinating though is the glaring omission in the Atlantic: France. They've had a bad couple centuries and show no signs of improving, eh?

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 7, 2004 11:23 AM
Comments

Latin America is a mess because we didn't interfere?

Posted by: Sandy P. at January 7, 2004 11:47 AM

Heck, I thought this was going to be the Pacific Century, with the U.S. looking out from it's west coast.

Posted by: Twn at January 7, 2004 12:36 PM

AngloSphere + Southern Hemisphere Century.

Posted by: oj at January 7, 2004 12:54 PM

If you include Quebec as a separate nation, and not part of English Canada, then France has a line into North America. But I would question whether France could exploit those connections, it seems they are more intent on ruling the EU.

Posted by: Robert D at January 7, 2004 3:45 PM

oj -

Agree that Euro-emphasis is unwarranted and unworthy, especially if Europe is defined as mostly "Old Europe". Our aim should be to broaden our relationships such as to(a)hedge that intial bet (on Europe) plus (b) respond to economic/cultural/political changes which should force us to emphasize . Both argue for de-emphasizing Europe and emphasizing regions and countries that we can trust (requirement for "a") and/or which are starting to matter more (essentially, what constitutes "b"). On that score Japan, Australia, Taiwan, India, selected South East-Asian countries e.g., are huge. Russia is purely a "b". EE is more "a" than "b". LA is too hetergeneous to generalize, but only Mexico is a strong "b", and an OK "a". The rest are either not too important or as trustworthy a hedge as France has ended up being.

Posted by: MG at January 7, 2004 4:12 PM

Latin America won't be much of a partner for a long time,the place is a mess.How can you look at Brasil,Argentina,Columbia and Venezuela and think L.A. will live up to it's potentiel anytime soon?

Africa needs a century of progress just catch up to Latin America.

Posted by: M. at January 7, 2004 9:05 PM

The money's in the ones catching up, not the ones going down.

Posted by: oj at January 7, 2004 11:23 PM

Everything I know about economic history says that's wrong. Or, as Braudel put it, after writing three volumes about the rise of capitalism, "I left out the biggest segment of all because it was boring."

Boring maybe but lucrative.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 7, 2004 11:40 PM

Harry:

If, when de Tocqueviulle pointed it out, you'd bought futures in America and Russia, you could have cashed in and made a bundle anytime between 1945 and 1984 on the Russians and anytime between 1865 and now on the US.

Posted by: oj at January 7, 2004 11:46 PM

Aside from Chile,who's going up?

Posted by: M. at January 8, 2004 2:16 PM

M.:

Brazil, Panama, and Costa Rica.

Posted by: THX 1138 at January 9, 2004 5:59 PM
« THE PROTOCOLS OF THE NEOCONS | Main | THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS, RIGHT AGAIN (via Political Theory): »