Mimi Thi Nguyen argues in The Gift of Freedom: War, Debt, and Other Refugee Passages that by bestowing upon others some benefits, countries are actually attempting to maintain their future hegemony through placing the recipients in positions of indefinite indebtedness (2012). This opinion is still applicable to the current global power system. Under this system, the voices of the powerful, mainly the United States, are given enough expressions, while the voices of those powerless or that receive the help of the US are frequently suppressed. For example, the notion of establishing Free Trade Area of Americas (FTAA) was firstly proposed in 1994 by the United States, but it has been meeting pressures from the Latin American nations. The resistance of Latin America to FTAA, or global trade and globalization, is its effort to make its voice heard. Latin America, which has a long history of colonization and in the oppressed status, has been closely involved in the global trade network. In the past several decades, as the pace of globalization quickens and the international ties become more and more intimate, international trade is rising in both importance and popularity. Under the force of globalization, at present, almost all Latin American nations, regions and areas are involved in the international trade system to different degrees. In fact, during the colonial period, Latin America was integrated in global trade system. The current global trade network or globalization system
In Stewart Patrickʻs article discussing the complications of incorporating newly developing countries into the global economy, he argues that these emerging states are unwilling to conform to the parameters that the United States has asserted over the global economy. In addition, he contends that these emerging states presume that they are able to modify the international system to correspond with their own interests and needs (Patrick, 47). Throughout the article, Patrick references various actions and preferences that demonstrates this entitled attitude that he argues emerging states embody. One example he alludes to regarding economic relations is the opposing views between established states and emerging states on the new
While many see free trade beneficial not only to America, but to all nations as well, others would argue that the entire concept of free trade is now a major misconception. What has become commonplace in the U.S. economy is now “tradition” enough to discourage the very thought of disagreeing with free trade. The incorporation of this government deal has long since been a part of history, making it hard for one to plea the case of operating otherwise. Whether viewed as good or bad, analyzing and recognizing the various factors of free trade only serves as a fundamental measure in strengthening the argument.
Latin America cannot be categorized as one homogenous block. In spite of sharing multiple aspects—culture, language, and history—there is not a single standard culture that distinguishes the region. One aspect of Latin American culture, regarding foreign policy, is a prevalent respect for the norm of sovereignty and non-intervention. There exists a strong disposition to follow international law as a means to prevent war or at the very least ward-off potential intervention by extraregional powers. Accordingly, the factor of self-interests and self-preservation creates a divergent spectrum of foreign policies within these countries. Thus, there is a unique propensity of domestic politics—primarily from those leaders in
Colombia’s economy is one of the largest among the Latin American countries. Presently, it is classified as the 34th freest economy ( heritage.org: 2015); improvements have resulted in trade, monetary growth, labor, decrease in corruption, and investment. In Caruthers and Babb’s Economy and Society, Globalization is defined as “the intensification of world wide social relations that has resulted in the linking of distant localities” (2013). The Economic Complementation Agreement, the Latin American Integration Association, and most of all, Plan Colombia with the U.S, represent this. In 1994, Colombia attempted to make agreements with various countries to better there trade and increase their globalization. The geographic location of Colombia and its involvement with drugs lead Colombia into isolationism (Reina and Zuluaga: 2012). Therefore, the Latin American Integration Association allowed and The
The analysis of Latin America is a compelling argument for the exploitation of peripheries in the WST. There are numerous examples of cases where a core or core countries have benefited from situations where a Latin American state has been unfairly treated within the international economic community. It is natural that some countries in South America were more greatly affected by the inequalities of the modern economic system because there are differences in their their economic structures; some countries interacted more closely, more frequently, or under different agreements with core powers compared to other countries. However, a significant proportion of Latin American experienced some form of exploitation under the conditions of the capitalist
A pink tide has lit iridescent gleams in the eyes of LAtin American women, men, and children. Neoliberalism -- of free trade and economic growth -- is our new manifest destiny. Yet this time, we seek the expansion of the US throughout the entire world. It is justified and even inevitable because our neoliberalism provides the model for the new world.
Tonight’s plenary speaker, Ian Bremmer, founder and president of the Eurasia Group discussed globalization. Bremmer’s idea of “guarded globalization” presented in The New Rules of Globalization addresses the shift occurring in developing countries in order to protect local interests. Points made by Brenner in both the article and the plenary can be proven by assessing the country of Ecuador under its current president, Rafael Correa.
Lebergott argues that imperialism from the United States was actually beneficial because when colonizers went into Latin America, they created jobs for the local people, paid workers fairly, and eliminated monopolies. Rostow created the modernization theory, which states that given enough time, poorer countries will eventually develop. Both of these arguments have weaknesses. Although Lebergott was correct when he stated that the United States created jobs for Latin Americans during the time, it was not a permanent solution with beneficial and long-term effects. Currently, many Latin American countries struggle economically and are politically volatile. Rostow’s theory is outdated because ever since the theory was released years ago, most developing countries still have not become important and influential
We can related this article to our class because it shows the hegemony and global relationship between the United States and Latin America. The involvement of United States throughout Latin America was to prove its power over the Soviet Union during the cold war. It was also a way of ensuring the protection of its economically and political power in Latin America. Therefore when communism started gaining massive support in El Salvador, the United States called for its US train salvadoran army to eliminate the supporters. As the author of our reading, “The Hegemony of U.S Economic Doctrines in Latin America” states “ When Latin America strayed from the path of virtue, they have been reminded to get back on the straight and narrow by the United
The first locomotive aspect of contemporary globalization, offered by the IMF, is the movement of capital. The economies of nations have become increasingly interlinked due to the free flow of capital, and semi-unrestricted global trade via a reduction in protectionist measures (birdsall 2003). However, this movement of capital occurs in a highly asymmetric fashion across international borders. The post-colonial reality of countries of the Global South, which saw their resources plundered, has a profound effect on the ability of these countries to freely engage with and benefit from globalization in the same way as countries of the Global North. The wealth accumulated by highly industrialized nations from historical imperialism, has allowed them to produce a wealth of institutions which in-turn creates a reputation of stability and reliability for them. These institutions and reputation allow them to benefit
When the Central American Free Trade Agreement CAFTA was passed, it created a free trade zone between the United States and six less developed Central American countries. The creation of a free trade zone would increase the standards of living for all countries involved by driving down production costs. By opening the markets, CAFTA aimed to create more economic opportunities to produce in areas where a country has a comparative advantage and import where it does not. The type of laborers differ in the US and these countries, allowing for specialization, reduced costs, and increases in consumption and demand for labor. As a result, countries from around the world are showing new interests in these six Central American countries.
Free-Trade Agreements are entered into by parties expecting to mutually benefit from the terms of the agreement. Over the course of the past three decades the United States has entered into numerous Free-Trade agreements, most notably with nations throughout the Latin American region. Latin American countries are geographically and economically similar to the U.S., which makes them valuable partners in furthering America’s global initiatives. The United States has seen considerable economic returns since the advent of these free-trade agreements; however, there is a sense of uncertainty when the analysts examine the effects of FTAs on Latin American nations.
One of the economical trends in the past years is to have open markets and to trade among different states. This can be seen more then ever in the Americas where the majority of states are involved in regional trade blocs and also bilateral trade agreements. Since the 1990’s the Free Trade Area of the America’s (FTAA) as been in negotiation, which involves two main groups Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), which is an economic and political agreement between states such as Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Venezuela and associate states Chile, Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru. Then there is The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA is an
In many eyes, the USA could be perceived as the world leader, the innovator and main influence across the world (Eftimiades, 2014, p32). However, I believe that compared to the late 20th century, the USA is not as influential as it once used to be. This has been seen by numerous embarrassments and mistakes by the USA in the past 15 years (McCoy, 2010). Examples such as leaked confidential American documents, political gridlock and unsuccessful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has undermined the power of the US and home and abroad. Another reason why I believe America has lost power in the 21st century is the trend of creating ‘communities’ of countries such as the European Union and the ASEAN, which allow for free trade and other agreements,
In 1994, the leaders of the thirty-four democratic countries of the Western Hemisphere launched the process of creating a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The FTAA will be established by 2010 with the aim of gradually eradicating barriers to trade and investment in the region. The final characteristics of the FTAA will be determined through negotiations by government officials from the thirty-four participating countries. The trade issues that are presently under discussion are: market access; investment; services; government procurement; dispute settlement; agriculture; intellectual property; antidumping, subsidies and countervailing duties; and competition policy. Guiding principles for these negotiations