Upload
daysilirion
View
223
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
1/23
http://crs.sagepub.com/Critical Sociology
http://crs.sagepub.com/content/32/1/45The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1163/156916306776150359
2006 32: 45Crit SociolMarco A. Gandsegui, JR
Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Critical SociologyAdditional services and information for
http://crs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://crs.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://crs.sagepub.com/content/32/1/45.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Jan 1, 2006Version of Record>>
by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/content/32/1/45http://crs.sagepub.com/content/32/1/45http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://crs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://crs.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://crs.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://crs.sagepub.com/content/32/1/45.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://crs.sagepub.com/content/32/1/45.full.pdfhttp://crs.sagepub.com/content/32/1/45.full.pdfhttp://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://crs.sagepub.com/content/32/1/45.full.pdfhttp://crs.sagepub.com/content/32/1/45.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://crs.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://crs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/content/32/1/45http://crs.sagepub.com/8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
2/23
Critical Sociology, Volume 32, Issue 1 also available online
2006 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden www.brill.nl
Latin America and Imperialismin the 21st Century
M A. G, J.(Centre for Latin American Studies Justo Arosemena
University of Panama)
A
Imperialism is a useful analytical tool that must be further
developed to comprehend the present day contradictions of a
multi-polar, capitalist system and its implications for Latin
American social struggles. A critical look at the contributions
of Wallerstein and Arrighi are taken as a point of departure
for suggesting how imperialism in the context of its sharpening
contradictions can help inform oppositional forces to think interms of social transformation. A critical look at provisions
within the general framework of regional and bilateral free
trade agreements reveals their tactical relationship to recent
attempts to maintain and further consolidate U.S. hegemony.
The total market utopia of imperialist projects such as the
FTAA can be usefully understood when conceptualised against
the backdrop of neoliberal and imperialist crisis.
K : Imperialism, Latin America, Free Trade, Social
Movement, Neoliberalism, Capitalist Crisis
After years of silence, the Latin American academy has returned to the
analysis of imperialism. Even now, imperialism as an explanatory category
in the field of the social sciences is more fashionable among liberals than
Marxists. The debate among liberals ranges from their extreme right fac-
tions over to the recycled former-Marxists among their ranks. For the
former, we find those who argue that imperialism is a moral burden
by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
3/23
46 Gandsegui Jr.
1 See Samuel P. Huntington (1999): In the multipolar world of the 21st century, the
major powers will inevitably compete, clash, and coalesce with each other in various
permutations and combinations. Such a world, however, will lack the tension and conflict
between the superpower and the major regional powers that are the defining characteristic
of a uni-multipolar world. For that reason, the United States could find life as a major
power in a multipolar world less demanding, less contentious, and more rewarding thanit was as the worlds only superpower. On the other hand, Edward Said (1979), in his
work Orientalism, offers an excellent synthesis of the imperialist ideology that saturated
the decadent period in Great Britain at the end of the 19th Century and at the beginning
of the Twentieth Century. In a talk given in Dublin in 1988 entitled Yeats and
Decolonisation, he argued that . . . and it must also be noted that this Eurocentric
culture relentlessly codified and observed everything about the non-European or presumably
peripheral world, in so thorough and detailed a manner as to leave no item untouched,
no culture unstudied, no people and land unclaimed. All of the subjugated peoples had
it in common that they were considered to be naturally subservient to a superior,
advanced, developed, and morally mature Europe, whose role in the non-European world
was to rule, instruct, legislate, develop, and at the proper times, to discipline, war against,
and occasionally exterminate non-Europeans.2 In 1848, K. Marx and F. Engels were referring in The Communist Manifesto to the
incessant expansion of capitalism that sought new territories and markets on a global scale.3 See Enoch Adames (2002).
that Western civilisation must assume.1 In the case of the latter, impe-
rialism emerges as a mighty bastion that helps order a higher civilisation
in the finest spirit of Kautskys ultra-imperialism (Hart and Negri 2000).
Among Marxists, there are those who look for the conceptual rootsof imperialism by returning to the original formulation of Karl Marx
who defined it as a ubiquitous characteristic of capitalist development.2
According to John Bellamy Foster (2002), imperialism is as proper to
capitalism as the search for profits and it is a necessary product of cap-
italism as a globalising force. Notable authors such as Arrighi (2001) and
Wallerstein (2003)3 provide us with conceptual criticisms of imperialism,
not so much for its intrinsic value, but in the mechanical way it has
been transplanted from knowledge generated by its application during
different stages of the development of capitalism. In the ensuing debate,
the discussion centres upon the polarity of the capitalist system (or cap-
italist world system). A multi-polar world becomes substituted by the bi-
polar world, and finally, for some, it emerges as a uni-polar world. In
this debate, the Leninist notion of the weak links of the system is essen-
tially abandoned.
In this brief essay, I wish to emphasise that we live in a multi-polar,
capitalist system. The conceptual utility of this notion consists precisely
in allowing us to reveal and exploit the multiple contradictions thatcapitalisms own development generates. In discussing the theoretical
by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
4/23
Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century 47
4 For Gramsci, hegemony is the organisation of consent through persuasion and coercion.
scenarios that Wallerstein and Arrighi offer us, we can build offof their
insights concerning the future development of capitalism in an effort to
better prepare us for action. The discussion then turns to the significance
that initiatives such as the FTAA and the various bilateral free tradeagreements have for Latin America. These imperialist initiatives seek to
create a total market utopia that can provide tonic for the hegemonic
development of capitalism during the first part of the new century.
Defining Imperialism
Imperialism is the struggle between capitalist nation-states for rule over
the expanding capitalist world system. Those who manage to exerciserule by establishing its hegemony must maintain it on the basis of force.4
But this gives rise to important questions. Does imperialism disappear
when the struggles cease between capitalist states? Can imperialism dis-
appear if a state transforms itself into an all-powerful one that subordinates
all other states to its rule?
In order to become consolidated, capital requires political will, something
that rests upon a national project. The nation is the political expression
of capital. The expansion of capital as expressed in the political will of
a nation enters into contradiction with other nations and their respective
political wills. The nature of this competition constitutes the essential
object of study for the theory for imperialism.
The first to use the term imperialism in Latin America were Leninists.
Latin American communists affiliated with the Third International identified
imperialism as the principal obstacle for the consolidation of the Russian
Revolution and the new Soviet state. According to this notion, the working
class and its allies had as their central task the struggle against imperialism.
The defeat of imperialism would result in the triumph of socialism inthe USSR and in time for all countries of the world, including the entire
region of Latin America.
Imperialism was consequently analysed from a negative perspective.
In other words, imperialism constituted a force that blocked the develop-
ment of the productive forces of the less developed, semi-colonial and
colonial countries. In this period, the alternatives were, on the one hand,
to consolidate the Soviet state in order to have a solid base for con-
fronting imperialism. On the other hand, there was a need to extend
the revolutionary movement to a world scale based upon a combinedstrategy rooted in the unequal development of capitalism.
by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
5/23
48 Gandsegui Jr.
5 This special issue of the CEPAL Reviewwhich contains Valpy FitzGerald (1998) went
under the title of ECLAC: Fifty Years of Reflections on Latin America and the
Caribbean.6 See the works of Theotonio dos Santos and the anthology produced by Ronald
Chilcote.7 For more discussion on this, recommended are various articles by Rui Mauro Marini
and Ricaurte Soler that appear in the Panamanian journal Tareas.
The debate was interrupted with the onset of the Second World War.
To the extent that the system was incapable of resolving its own con-
tradictions, it had been obliged to expend its efforts in inter-imperialist
wars. Among the political consequences in the aftermath of the devastatingconflagration was the expansion of the socialist bloc with the states of
central Europe and Asia, especially China. Leninist theory appeared to
be proving itself in action, with the weakest links breaking off from the
capitalist system. Later, the first socialist revolution broke out in Cuba,
a country which soon aligned itself with the Soviet bloc. Imperialism
became increasingly identified as merely a strategy for slowing the advance
of socialism that was continually marching forward towards new triumphs.
In the Cold War context, the debate developed in terms of the alter-
natives available in the face of imperialism. Enormous efforts were made
in Latin America to establish a theory of socialist revolution that, by
definition, was anti-imperialist and distinct to the region. The supra-
national Latin American project, originally conceived of in the Southern
Cone, appropriated the imagination of both liberal reformists and Marxists
alike (FitzGerald 1998).5 On the one hand, the necessity to drive for-
ward a national project of capitalist development in order to create the
conditions for socialist revolution was discussed. Many communist par-
ties and other groups committed themselves to this project. On the otherhand, the Cuban Revolution suggested the viable possibility of a national
development project without capitalism. Revolutionary movements of the
period relied upon a variant of dependency theory in order to explain
the role of imperialism.6
The Latin American revolution did not go unanswered. The United
States and its local allies mounted a counter-revolutionary offensive that
lasted at least a quarter century (19641989). This offensive went about
overthrowing some of the most mature revolutionary movements in the
region as well as some of the most original ones. By the end of the1980s, the revolutionary movements formerly considered the most viable
in Latin America had disappeared. Perhaps even more importantly, inde-
pendent national projects no longer had momentum and Latin-
Americanism as a movement was bankrupt.7 In their place, a top-down
by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
6/23
Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century 49
project became installed throughout the region that promoted social de-
mobilisation, combining a democratic electoral discourse with a neoliberal
political economy that applied adjustments which rapidly impoverished
the working and middle sectors of the region. Without any national proj-ect or dream for regional unity, imperialism also disappeared from the
regional discourse of opposition. The collapse of the USSR and their
European allies along with the radical reforms that took place in China
all contributed to the defeat suffered by socialism on a global scale.
The Cuban revolution, the Bolivarian movement and the various social
movements around which workers, peasants and other oppressed sectors
coalesce remain the exception. In spite of the noted absence of imperi-
alism in current regional discourse, it continues to exist as a robust, mate-
rial fact. If indeed imperialism exists as we argue here, it is because
capitalism continues to expand, creating the same contradictions between
core countries as it does at the periphery.
While the Latin American Revolution suffered a setback in the final
years of the Twentieth Century, we must remain aware that imperialism
also suffered profound transformations and this should be the object of
more serious analysis. The decades of populism (19501980) followed by
the neoliberal reaction towards the end of the Twentieth Century have
transformed all contending social actors in a qualitative manner. Therecan be little doubt that revolutionary forces in the region are now re-
grouping for new battles. For this reason, better theoretical instruments
are required that can serve as a guide for their struggles.
Wallersteins Scenario
According to Immanuel Wallerstein (2003), U.S. hegemony experienced
significant transformations in the latter half of the Twentieth Century.Wallerstein understands hegemony, first, in the way that the United States
had controlled the world market. Secondly, U.S. hegemony was displayed
by its indisputable military power. Third, its culture became the point
of reference to which countries around the world aspired to. But he pro-
ceeds to argue that the United States has now lost its hegemony, pri-
marily because it has lost its legitimacy. This loss of legitimacy of its
power, he argues, has resulted from fierce pressures from four distinct
sources: Europe, the Far East, world-wide social movements, and its own
contradictions that emanate from capitalist development (Wallerstein2003).
In the next decade, he asserts, Europe will make some important deci-
sions with respect to its project as a political entity. How exactly will
by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
7/23
50 Gandsegui Jr.
Europe proceed to recover its past global position of power? According
to Wallerstein, it will be difficult but Europe will in the end manage to
reconstruct itself, creating an army in the process. This will be met with
great concern from the United States, mostly because sooner or later,the European army will connect up with the Russian army. With respect
to the East, Wallerstein observes a tendency towards a strategic warming
of relations, with distinct political and economic characteristics, between
China, Japan and a unified Korea. This is because if the East is going
to play an independent global role, according to his logic, it will have
no choice but to move in that direction.
Beyond Europe and the Far East, Wallerstein identifies the challenge
which the World Social Forum represents for the United States. According
to Wallerstein:
[You] should watch the World Social Forum. I think that is where the action
is. It is the most important social movement now on the face of the earth
and the only one that has a chance of playing a really significant role. It
has blossomed very fast and it has a wealth of internal contradictions that
we should not underestimate. (2003: 7)
Wallerstein emphasises that the movement surrounding the World Forum
does not have a hierarchical centre, but is instead made up of a large
variety of currents which at the same time are representative.
But Wallerstein does not forget about the conflicts between capitalists
themselves, something that is one of the most important contradictions
in the development of capitalism. As he puts it: The basic political con-
tradiction of capitalism throughout its history has been that all capitalists
have a common political interest insofar as theres a world class struggle
going on. At the same time, all capitalists are rivals of all other capitalists.
Now that is a fundamental contradiction of the system and its going to
be very explosive (2003: 8). According to this reasoning, the capitalistworld system is confronting three challenges that are become increasingly
difficult to resolve. They are challenges which precisely arise as a con-
sequence of the success of the capitalist world system. On the one hand,
there is de-ruralisation, by which is meant that the demand for wage
labourers has become a global phenomenon and that accessibility to
cheap sources of this very special commodity is becoming increasingly
difficult to acquire. This results in an increase in the cost of the labour
force that in turn impacts negatively upon the profits of capitalist investors.
A second challenge facing the capitalist world system is the growingcosts of natural resources. The increase in these costs are due, in large
part, to the fact that the same capitalist world system is incapable of
conserving natural resources and tends to destroy them in a systematic
by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
8/23
Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century 51
8 See Gandsegui (2002).
fashion. The result of this increase in the costs of externalities translates
into a reduction of the profits on investments.
The third challenge consists of the so-called democratisation which
must be understood both from a mobilising as well as institutional pointof view. The mobilisation of peoples revolves around the discourse of
democracy and demands for equality and more and better social services,
as well as more and better opportunities. This mobilisation forces political
administrations, or states, to look for the resources necessary to satisfy
these demands. These resources can be acquired through the taxes that
national states manage to collect. In the final analysis, the constant
increase in taxes negatively affects the profits of investors.8
Richard B. Du Boff (2003) presents a synthesis of the evolution that
U.S. imperial power experienced during the last half of the Twentieth
Century. He points out how the United States lost ground in the field
of industrial production, international finances, and foreign investments.
This can be summarised by the following observations:
In 1950, the U.S. economy generated half of the worlds gross product.
At the onset of the Twenty-First Century, it accounted for only 21%
of total world production. In 1950, 60% of manufactured goods world-
wide were created in the United States. In 1999, it represented only
25%. In 2001, U.S. exports of commercial services represented 24%of the world total. In this same year, the exports of the European
Union reached 23% of the world total.
Non-U.S. companies dominated the industrial sector in 2002. In that
year, nine out of 10 of the worlds largest electronics and electrical
equipment industries were non U.S.-based. This was also true for eight
out of the 10 largest automobile producers, seven out of the top 10
oil refinery companies, six out of 10 biggest telecommunications firms,
five out of 10 pharmaceutical giants, four out of the six largest chemicalmanufacturers, and four of the seven biggest airlines.
Of the 25 largest banks in the world, 19 were non-U.S. based (although
the two largest, Citicorp and Bank of America are based in the United
States).
Among the largest 100 corporations of the world in 2000, 23 were
U.S. based. Four countries of the European Union had 40 of the
largest corporations and Japan had 16. In the decade of the 1990s,
the world sales of the 100 largest transnationals based in the United
States declined from 30% to 25%. In contrast, the share of transnationalsbased in the European Union grew from 41% to 46%.
by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
9/23
52 Gandsegui Jr.
9 This discussion of the thought of Arrighi is based mostly on a revised version of a
paper presented at the conference: The Triad as Rivals? U.S., Europe, and Japan,
Georgetown University, Washington, DC, April 2526, 2003. It later appeared in Faruk
Tabak (2004).
In 2001, 21% of direct investments in the world were of North American
origin, compared with 47% in 1960. Between 1996 and 2001, 17%
of new foreign investments were from the United States, while those
of Great Britain, France and Belgium together accounted for 37% ofglobal foreign investments.
During the period 19982000, a total of 25 large mergers took place
in the United States, five of which were acquisitions of foreign multi-
nationals (three British and two German). Among the 20 largest inter-
national mergers carried out during the 19872001 period, only two
were led by North American based transnationals (General Electric
and Citigroup), making up only 5% of the value of all mergers carried
out during that period (Du Boff2003).
Arrighis Scenarios
According to Giovanni Arrighi (1994),9 the accumulation crisis (or crisis
of overproduction) of U.S. capitalism can ultimately result in three alter-
native scenarios:
First, the old centres may succeed in halting the course of capitalist history.
The course of capitalist history over the lastfive hundred years has consisted
of a succession of financial expansions during which there occurred a change
of guard at the commanding heights of the capitalist world-economy. This
outcome is also present as a tendency in the current financial expansion. But
this tendency is countered by the very extent of the state and war-making
capabilities of the old guard, which may well be in a position to appropriate
through force, cunning, or persuasion the surplus capital that accumulates in
the new centres and thereby terminate capitalist history through the formation
of a truly global world-empire. (Arrighi 1994: 355)
The result of this scenario is domination without hegemony. In contrast,the second alternative would come about if:
. . . the old guard may fail to stop the course of capitalist history and East
Asian capital may come to occupy a commanding position in systemic processes
of capital accumulation. Capitalist history would then continue but under
conditions that depart radically from what they have been since the formation
of the modern interstate system. (Arrighi 1994: 355)
by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
10/23
Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century 53
This outcome would signify domination and a new hegemony. The third
alternative would involve a continuous growth in violence that results
with the destruction of the world order:
. . . to paraphrase Schumpeter . . . it may well burn up in the horrors (or
glories) of the escalating violence that has accompanied the liquidation of the
Cold War world order. In this case, capitalist history would also come to an
end but by reverting permanently to the systemic chaos from which it began
six hundred years ago and which has been reproduced on an ever increasing
scale with each transition. Whether this would mean the end just of capitalist
history or of all human history, it is impossible to tell. (Arrighi 1994: 3556)
According to Arrighi, the confrontation (or bifurcation) that results from
the tendency towards the formation of a world-empire centred in theWest and of a world-market anchored in the East has serious social con-
sequences. The possibilities that one or the other tendency may prevail
depends upon the capacity that each has for resolving systemic problems
left behind by the United States. He considers that the principal chal-
lenge confronting the world-system is how to resolve the seemingly
unbridgeable gulf between the life-chances of a small minority of world
population (between 10 and 20 percent) and the remaining vast majority
(Arrighi and Silver 1999: 289). He maintains, however, that the con-
tinuing rapid economic expansion of China can ultimately be recognisedas the major force which could bridge that seemingly unbridgeable gulf
(Arrighi 2004).
Arrighi asserts that there exist two grand obstacles to a non-catastrophic
transition towards a more egalitarian world order. The most immediate
obstacle consists of U.S. resistance towards making adjustments and
accommodating to the new circumstances. Arrighi reminds us that in the
case of the British and Dutch world-system transitions, it was both the
appearance of new and aggressive (bellicose) powers as well as the lackof flexibility in accommodation that broke up their hegemony.
For Arrighi, there is no new power in the immediate present that can
put the U.S.-centred world-system in check. Indeed, the United States
enjoys better conditions than Great Britain did a century ago for con-
verting its declining hegemony into an open domination. This will depend
on the capacity that Washington demonstrates for adjusting and accom-
modating to the increasing economic power of Far East Asia. This would
involve following the line of a non-catastrophic transition towards a new
world order. Arrighi assures that if the system breaks down in the nearfuture, it will occur on account of U.S. resistance to carrying out the
necessary adjustments and its failure to look for the best ways to re-
accommodate to the new reality (Arrighi and Silver 1999: 289).
by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
11/23
54 Gandsegui Jr.
The second big obstacle to resolving the confrontation (or bifurcation)
refers to the questionable capacity of East Asia to create its own new
path of development. Arrighi argues that this could provide the world
with a radically different model from that which is presently constitutedand which has exhausted its possibilities. He argues that this is a task
that the dominant groups of East Asia have scarcely begun to contemplate
(Arrighi 2004)
For Arrighi, there are three important conclusions that can be useful
in our comprehension of the present conjuncture as well as the coming
period. In the first place, the belle poqueof the United States appears to
have reached its end and we are in the throws of the terminal crisis of
its hegemony. While the United States continues being the most powerful
country, its present relationship to the rest of the world can best be
described by the phrase mentioned earlier: domination without hegemony.
Second, the terminal crisis of U.S. hegemony is being provoked not
by the emergence of other aggressive powers but rather by its resistance
to adjusting to the changes and accommodating to the new world that
is coming into existence. The description that the United States employed
concerning Iraq prior to the invasion, i.e., as a new world power, was
never seriously accepted. Arrighi shows us that the strategy of national
security adopted by the Bush Administration in 2002, essential in orderto resist any adjustment or accommodation to the new realities, goes far
beyond even the vision that he himself had developed in his earlier works.
Arrighi suggests that the terminal crisis of U.S. hegemony is a case of
attempted suicide on the part of a superpower that outdoes any previously
known example in history.
Third, Arrighi alludes to the possibility of a state of systemic chaos.
He does not, however, commit himself to show whether this consists of
a permanent state or some sort of transition. Another possibility is that
the transition that is being observed becomes carried out rapidly andcleanly. Arrighi suggests that the force that could halt the tendency
towards systemic chaos would rest in the consolidation of the economic
rebirth of the Far East, with China at the helm. This tendency, according
to Arrighi, is reinforced and not weakened by U.S. resistance to adjustment
and accommodation.
According to William Greider (2003), the United States and the global
system will confront, in the near future, many obstacles and surprises.
Some years ago, Japan as the most vulnerable U.S. partner proposed
that it wanted to negotiate a ceiling with respect to this trade deficit
with the United States. It was a treaty for administering trade that was
rejected by the United States. Greider cites one of his well-placed sources
by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
12/23
Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century 55
who explains that one of the strategies of Japan is to help avoid that
the United States commits any major blunder during the next 15 years.
By that time, they would be more self-sufficient and better able to con-
tinue advancing on their own path to development without the UnitedStates (Greider 2003).
The resistance to adjustments and accommodation on the part of the
United States as described by Arrighi can contribute to an understanding
of the doctrine of preventive attacks that has been developed by the
Bush Administration. According to Harries (2004), the tone and impulse
of Washingtons present doctrine is one that rejects the traditional notion
of hegemony based on prudent and restricted use of force and the search
for consensus-building, something more typical of the decade of the 1940s.
According to Harries, the United States previously forced itself to create
an institutional network allowing it to develop initiatives based in coop-
eration, always with the notion of being the first among partners. This
vision contrasts vividly with the doctrine now enunciated by the Secretary
of Defence Donald Rumsfeld who argues that the worst thing you can
do is allow a coalition to determine what your mission is (Harries 2004).
The Bush Doctrine should be taken very seriously, warns Harries, and
its rhetoric should not be ignored. This has been put to the test in Iraq.
The use of U.S. military force in a preventive action is a very clearindication that the U.S. is willing to act without consensus and in a uni-
lateral form. The overthrow of a regime considered to be tyrannical and
the attempt to replace it with a representative liberal democratic gov-
ernment has implications that transcend the Middle East. If the invasion
of Iraq culminates in a success for the United States, the errors and
losses will be considered the necessary price that must be paid in order
to give girth to a new and revolutionary strategic doctrine. If on the
other hand, it fails and proves incapable of generating a new political
order, it will have to completely reconsider its global strategy. In thiscase, the limits of U.S. hegemonic capabilities will become evident for
all to see and the inclination to resist it will become stronger (Harries
2004).
The FTAA and Bilateral/Sub-Regional Free
Trade Agreements
The period of U.S. military aggression that accompanied the populistdevelopment model in Latin America from 19641989 eventually shifted
in large measure to the economic sphere, albeit with several well-known
by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
13/23
56 Gandsegui Jr.
exceptions. The FTAA project and the various Free Trade Agreements
being imposed upon region represent the new economic instruments of
domination and hegemony. According to Joseph Stiglitz:
The Bush administration has been bragging that it exemplifies the way its
economic policies can build new ties and new friendships around the world.
This is especially important in the Middle East, where, in other respects,
Americas foreign policy seems to have left something to be desired . . . [This
kind of cooperation] . . . is meant to demonstrate our broadmindedness, our
willingness to offer a carrot (rather than the proverbial stick) to those who
behave reasonably. (Stiglitz 2004)
While in other parts of the world, the United States has had to wave
its big stick, as Stiglitz says, it has been relatively successful in culti-vating collaboration for its policy of neoliberal economic adjustment in
Latin America. In reality, the new hemispheric policy goes well beyond
the economic realm and invades the remaining spheres of public, pri-
vate and everyday life. The new policy has been referred to as a total
market utopia (or authoritarian utopia). According to Edgardo Lander
(2004), the tendency today is to globally impose, both ideologically as
well as in tactical terms, a potent utopia about the construction of the
future that constitutes the total market utopia. This is not some abstract
vision that springs from the imagination, but rather the design of a globalorder that comes along with the most powerful communications, political
and frequently military mechanisms.
Lander (2004) further argues that the total market utopia projects the
ideological vision that the criteria of resource allocation and decision-
making rooted in the market leads to maximum human welfare. For that
reason, it is desirable and possible to reorganise all human activities in
accordance with the logic of the market. Polanyi would call this the mar-
ket society, a construct signifying that the operation of society becomesviewed essentially as an appendix of the market. Instead of the econ-
omy being framed in social relations, social relations are framed in the
economic system (Polanyi 1997).
The organisation of privatisation, globalisation and economic deregu-
lation has been imposed during the last decade and a half through diverse
mechanisms, among the most important of which figure the World Trade
Organisation (WTO). Beginning in 1995, the United States considered
that the WTO negotiations were not likely to move forward as rapidly
as they would like. This marked the beginning of a renewed push fornegotiations towards the creation of regional free trade areas. The first
negotiations that were set in motion the same year were those involved
with the FTAA or the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Since then,
by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
14/23
Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century 57
10 GRAIN is an international non-governmental organisation (NGO) which promotes
the sustainable management and use of agricultural biodiversity based on peoples con-
trol over genetic resources and local knowledge.
the United States has tried without much success to develop a similar
level of regional negotiations in Africa and Asia (GRAIN 2004).10
The U.S. initiative has not gone unperceived. Peoples all across the
world have suffered the effects of so-called free trade and gradually havebeen accumulating forces aimed at rejecting the ruling economic model
(GRAIN 2004). That discontent achieved a dramatic expression in Seattle
in 1999 when thousands of social activists from around the world engaged
in several days of protest in the presence of ministers from more than
80 countries of the WTO. They were meeting to advance their agenda
in favour of accelerating the existing processes of globalisation. Beginning
around that period, discontent began to become more generalised,
expressed more massively, and developed in multiple ways.
These protests have continued in recent years. In 2003, the ministerial
meeting in Cancun, Mexico resulted in major demonstrations, with a
strong presence on the part of peasant movements whose representatives
participated from various parts of the world. The protests managed to
make an impact on the negotiations sufficient to impede the achievement
of results that had been planned by various governments. Many of the
non-industrialised countries came to understand that if they continued
to hand over their economies so openly, it was likely to have important
political costs. Meanwhile, the United States and Europe failed underthe bright glare of protest to reconcile their insistence upon maintaining
their own domestic subsidies with their hypocritical demand for developing
countries to eliminate any remaining form of protection over their domestic
agricultural production. The result was that the Cancun meeting ended
ahead of schedule and without agreement.
A few weeks later, the ministers involved with negotiating the FTAA
met in Miami. The protests were repeated in spite of an unprecedented
police presence. Once again, the room for manoeuvre was small and the
margin of giveaway on the part of the Latin American governments wasagain being reduced by the social pressure provided by the protests. This
was especially the case for the Brazilian government that firmly defended
certain minimal conditions for industry and agriculture, something that
ultimately made an agreement at that summit impossible. Just like the
WTO meeting in Cancun, the FTAA meeting in Miami ended ahead
of schedule having failed to reach a consensus.
by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
15/23
58 Gandsegui Jr.
It became clear that social protest, if it is sufficiently massive and
focused, can detain even that which has been presented as inevitable
(GRAIN 2004). But no sooner was the WTO being detained in Cancun
and the FTAA collapsing in Miami, that we saw an epidemic of treatiestake shape in a bilateral or sub-regional form. The United States has
closed in on more than twenty different countries in order to formally
initiate bilateral free trade treaties. This has already yielded signed treaties
in some cases, with each intent at a new treaty presented as an indis-
pensable initiative for overcoming the unacceptable obstacles to increased
commerce under the exigencies of globalisation.
GRAIN (2004) argues that these bilateral or sub-regional free trade
agreements are simply an attempt to accelerate the pace of hemispheric
consolidation. The United States has been very explicit in this respect
and its strategy has been termed competitive liberalisation. This con-
sists of approaching and pressuring weaker or submissive countries to
sign on with them so that as the process advances, those countries that
continue displaying some interest in maintaining a measure of sover-
eignty must eventually cede on account of the threat of economic iso-
lation. For that reason, the agreements signed with Chile and Central
America, from the U.S. point of view, have little economic importance
in themselves, but instead represent momentum towards a much biggerprize. This accounts for the rush to sign with Panama, to include the
Dominican Republic into CAFTA, and to consolidate the Andean coun-
tries into similar agreements.
Due to the presence of so much negotiation in the region, it has
become difficult to follow the process step by step, even more so when
each case is essentially being negotiated in secret. Nevertheless, based on
the processes already finished and the texts that have been signed and
published, it is possible to see that what is occurring is an imposition of
pre-established frameworks. In fact, Washington has let it become wellknown that the model agreement they are interested in generalising to
other countries can be found in that which was signed with Chile. In
that sense, negotiations across the region have become centred only on
formal aspects with very few modifications, while the corresponding prop-
aganda is designed to have us believe in a set of myths concerning what
is supposedly in play during the negotiations process (GRAIN 2004).
Stiglitz (2004) tells us that the policy of President Bush is incompre-
hensible and hypocritical. While they speak of global campaigns against
AIDS and offer large sums of money to finance them, that which it gives
with one hand is being taken away by the other. But he suggests that
the greater part of U.S. citizens would, for example, be in favour of per-
mitting more open access to generic medications that are capable of sav-
by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
16/23
Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century 59
ing lives. The losses of the pharmaceutical companies would be relatively
small and certainly will be compensated for by the enormous fiscal benefits
that the U.S. government receives.
Regardless of the fact that the free trade agreements are promoted bygovernments under the label of free trade, these treaties incorporate
aspects that go well beyond issues dealing with the exportation and impor-
tation of goods (Moreno 2004). Indeed, they extend out into areas as
diverse as investments, the rights of intellectual property, government
purchases, services, policies for competition, telecommunications and the
financial sector, among others. In this way, they define the framework
that determines the orientation of public policies of the smaller economies
subscribed to the treaty.
Through all of these extra-commercial provisions, the free trade
agreements invade the sovereign jurisdiction of states such as their national
economic policies and strategic control over the provision of services.
These agreements moreover compromise their ability to fulfil and to
ensure the social, economic and cultural rights of the population. The
norms established in those portions of the agreements concerning gov-
ernment purchases, commerce in services, intellectual property rights and
investments serve to promote the processes of privatisation of public serv-
ices by way of concessions.The region is up against an instrument with a broad reach, with far-
reaching implications among its range of mechanisms. There is a whole
set of prohibitions on government policies that all add up to increasing
the power of foreign companies in the area of investments, non-
discriminatory treatment, intellectual property rights, liberalisation of
services and open access to public licences. The free trade agreements
guarantee the legalisation of privileges and convert them into rights
for the transnationals. With their ratification on the part of the legisla-
tive branches of each country, the treaties become converted intolaws of the land that display higher jurisdiction than any secondary law
passed domestically, something that is manifestly not true in the United
States.
The structured contents contained in the free trade agreements con-
form to a transversal logic that privileges profits over human rights and
ecological sustainability. It is overwhelming and disproportionate to note
how these treaties contain such an extensive list of rights ceded to for-
eign companies, in sharp contrast with the omission of mechanisms that
can guarantee compliance with the social and economic rights of the
respective populations and the conservation of ecosystems.
The United States especially seeks to establish advantages in four basic
areas:
by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
17/23
60 Gandsegui Jr.
Government contracts
Pharmaceutical markets
Agricultural markets
Intellectual property (GRAIN 2004).
The clauses relevant to intellectual property assigns legal guarantees to
the United States for:
a. Appropriation and monopolisation of living beings and their parts,
without exceptions (thereby including plants, animals, human genes
and tissues). This will make it a crime to freely reproduce plants
and animals, or freely exchange seeds.
b. Appropriation and control of the circulation and use of information,
including traditional and scientific information.
c. Monopolisation over the manufacture and sale of medicines, including
the power to block others from producing inexpensive medicines,
even those used to prevent or cure illnesses of great social importance
such as malaria, tuberculosis or AIDS.
d. Appropriation of artistic and cultural creations, including all kinds
of music, literature, dance and design, granting permissions for their
use only in exchange for payment.
e. Restriction of creative activity in information management and tech-nology when that endangers certain monopolies.
f. Appropriation and restriction of the freedom to use prayers, icons,
symbols and rituals.
g. Restrictions on photocopying texts, including their use for study.
h. Punishing with fines and imprisonment those who do not respect
(or are accused of not respecting) the previously described regulations.
i. Applying such controls and punishments without the need for proof
of guilt, rather, the accused must demonstrate their innocence.
j. Persecuting those that might intend not to respect some of theseregulations.
k. Ensuring there are no exceptions for professors, students, researchers,
schools, universities, public libraries or national archives (GRAIN
2004: 7-8).
The clause concerning agricultural goods also has the same logic for the
United States. According to WTO data, the European Union and the
United States accounts for 51.8% of the worlds agricultural exports, of
which 81.4% corresponds to just 15 countries (Len 2003). The mostimportant countries in Latin America for receiving these exports are:
Brazil with 3.4%, Argentina with 2.2%, Mexico with 1.7% and Chile
with 1.3%; while at the same time, the agricultural imports of the
by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
18/23
Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century 61
European Union and the United States make up 51.2% of the total,
and in Latin America, the most representative of exports to that market
is Mexico with 2.2% (Leon 2003). At the world level, the relative weight
in this category for other mostly agrarian countries is almost imperceptible.Moreover, tropical countries in the Equatorial region where the greatest
number of farmers are to be found are catalogued as markets where
transnational products can increasingly deepen their incursion (Len 2003).
According to a news release from the Bloomberg Agency, the agrarian
income of the United States reached a record US$ 65 billion in 2003,
fully a third more than in the preceding year, thanks to greater exports
and almost US$ 20 billion in government subsidies (La Prensa 2003).
According to the former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman in
a speech to the Farm Journal Forum in Washington:
The sales of grains, meat and other agricultural products to foreign buyers
totalled [in 2003] to US$ 56.2 billion, more than 5% above the previous
year. It has been calculated that exports will increase to US$ 59.5 billion in
2004, close to the record US$ 60 billion in 1996. Part of this is due to bet-
ter prospects for exports in the coming year. The demand for agricultural
products are being stimulated by the lower value of the dollar, low inflation,
low rates of interest, and the tax reductions put into place by President Bush.
(La Prensa 2003)
Soy futures increased at the end of 2003 by 36% relative to the previous
year, in part due to strong exports, especially to China. The demand by
foreign buyers for soy, corn, wheat, and cotton in 2003 will widely surpass
the previous year according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture Report.
Orders for the purchase of corn, the principal crop of the United States,
rose 26% in the commercial year that began September 1, 2003. The
same report showed that requests for soy increased 20% and for wheat,
28% while cotton was up by 38% relative to their previous commercialyears (La Prensa 2003).
Du Boff (2003) shows that the United States has also developed an
aggressive agricultural policy on the home front. Only two months after
increasing steel tariffs in 2002, President Bush approved a subsidy law
for the agricultural sector that increased subsidies to farmers by 80%
over previously existing levels of assistance, costing US$ 190 billion to
be distributed over ten years (Du Boff2003).
The U.S. strategy in Latin America has not been entirely homogenous.
Washington understands well the varying levels of economic and politicaldevelopment in each county and sub-region. A strategy for political nego-
tiation has been developed for each and every one of these areas. This
heterogeneous analysis is being carried out despite the praises being sung
by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
19/23
62 Gandsegui Jr.
11 According to Fenton (2004), the Coup in Haiti was planned and facilitated over a
four and a half year period by the U.S. government.12 In Rosario (2004), ex-President Carazo states that Costa Rica accepted a negoti-
ation without the participation of distinct sectors and with considerable hurry on the
part of public officials.13 Cali Manifesto of the Andean Labour Consultative Council (Manifiesto de Cali del
Consejo Consultivo Laboral Andino) on April 3, 2004. In one part of the declaration,
it states: The free trade agreements are part of the tactics employed by the U.S. gov-
ernment and the transnational corporations in the development of their strategic plan
to co-opt the countries of Latin America so as to strengthen their own negotiating bloc,
with the objective of confronting negotiations in a global framework with the European
Union, China, India, Japan and MERCOSUR. The FTAA is part of this strategic plan
designed for their own benefit, which also includes Plan Colombia, Plan Puebla Panama,
and the Andean Initiative. Signers of the Manifesto included:
by the State Department to the effect that Latin America now has a
nearly homogenous profile of democratically elected regimes.
In the first instance, the United States identifies countries where the
economic adjustment process has advanced in the most satisfactory man-ner. In this area we find Chile and Mexico. In the case of Chile, the
Pinochet Dictatorship (19731991) tendered the productive sectors and
repressed the popular sectors with relative success (Lara Corts 2004).
The governments under the ruling Concertacin coalition (19912004) have
continued the policies of adjustments and signed a Free Trade Agreement
with the United States. In the case of Mexico, both the Salinas and
Zedillo governments (19882000) established the bases for deepening
structural adjustments and implementing the NAFTA agreement signed
in 1994.
In the second instance, the United States has created a list of countries
with serious problems of economic development and political stability.
At the same time, they are countries that are highly dependent upon
the United States. On the one hand, their structural adjustment programmes
failed and on the other hand, their transition to electoral democracy has
encountered serious problems. This list is made up of the five Central
American countries, four of the Andean countries (Gallardo 2004), Panama
and the Dominican Republic. The lack of viability on the part of Haitihas made it the exception. The United States, with the complicity of
various countries in the region, has had to occupy that Caribbean country
militarily (Fenton 2004).11 Costa Rica is also an exception to the extent
that its electoral regime has enjoyed considerable stability (Rosario 2004).12
In the case of the Andean countries (including Venezuela), the workers
movements have jointly declared themselves in opposition to the free
trade agreements through the Andean Labour Consultative Council.13 In
by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
20/23
Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century 63
BOLIVIA: Central Obrera Boliviana COB; COLOMBIA: Confederacin de
Trabajadores de Colombia CTC, Central Unitaria de Trabajadores CUT,
Confederacin General de Trabajadores Democrticos CGTD; ECUADOR:
Confederacin Ecuatoriana de Organizaciones Sindicales Libres CEOSL, Confederacinde Trabajadores de Ecuador CTE, Confederacin Ecuatoriana de Organizaciones
Clasistas Unitarias de Trabajadores CEDOCUT; PERU: Confederacin General de
Trabajadores del Per CGTP, Central Autnoma de Trabajadores del Per CATP,
Central Unitaria de Trabajadores del Per CUT, Confederacin de Trabajadores del
Per CTP; VENEZUELA: Central Unitaria de Trabajadores de Venezuela CUTV,
Unin Nacional de Trabajadores UNT, Confederacin General de Trabajadores
CGT, Confederacin de Sindicatos Autnomos de Venezuela CODESA, Confederacin
de Trabajadores de Venezuela CTV.14 According to Javier Diez Canseco (2004), member of the Peruvian Congress, the
free trade agreement is not only a trade agreement, but it also treats crucial issues related
to sovereignty and national defence, autonomy in the design and application of state
policies, the legislative powers of the Congress, the jurisdiction over our laws and courts,
and the rights and duties of all Peruvians.15 As affirmed by Fidel Castro in his speech on July 26, 2004 in response to the
attacks being levelled at Cuba by the Bush Administration.
Peru, there is resistance being expressed within the national Congress to
the approval of a free trade agreement with the United States (Diez
Canseco 2004).14
In the third category are four countries affiliated with MERCOSURalong with associate member Venezuela. In practice, it was Brazil whose
demands for a competitive and equitable commercial trade agreement
led to the U.S. failure to reach a consensus for the FTAA in their 2003
meeting in Miami. It was Argentinas support for Brazils position that
led Washington to fire up its motors and launch an offensive seeking
bilateral free trade agreements all across the region.
In the fourth category is Cuba who remained uninvited by the United
States to the FTAA negotiations and marginalised from any possibility
of signing a free trade agreement as long as its socialist government is
in power. On the contrary, the Bush government continues a policy of
military threats against this Caribbean island, something that has been
in effect for more than forty years.15
Conclusion
It seems reasonable to expect that the crisis of U.S. hegemony can impact
upon Latin America, especially over the medium term. The challenges
to U.S. domination developing in the Middle East and on the part of
the European Union can be felt on a global scale and in various forms
across the Latin American region. Thefigures presented earlier by Du Boff
by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
21/23
64 Gandsegui Jr.
16 As Theotonio dos Santos (2003) put it, this is perhaps the most brutal effect of
this cultural and ideological situation. Nothing can be hoped for from a humanity that
does not believe in its own power of transformation.
(2003) are very clear in this regard. Japan has strong investments in the
region, especially in Brazil. China has recently entered into the region
and one of its companies administers the ports of the Panama Canal.
In this context, what remains to be consolidated is the regions own polit-ical project, be it Latin Americanist, Bolivarian or one in the spirit of
Martis Our America, that can enable a transformation adequate to
the task of confronting the realities of the 21st Century.16
The architects of such a process and of all great social transformations
are the people, organised and consciously involved in defining the emerging
lines of battle. In this essay, I have insisted that they require theoretical
tools in order to guide their social movements and to comprehend the
historical implications of their actions. We must continue to develop these
tools so as to ensure that the people of Latin America can take control
over their destiny.
References
A, E
2002 Las ciencias sociales. Una perspectiva desde los sistemas mundo. Tareas112:1937.
A, G1994 The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power and the Origins of Our Times.
London: Verso.2001 La globalizacin, la soberana estatal y la interminable acumulacin
de capital. Tareas, 109:107138.2004 Rough Road to Empire. In Tabak, Faruk, ed.,Allies as Rivals: The
U.S., Europe, and Japan in a Changing World-System. Boulder, Colorado:Paradigm Publishers, 2004.
A, G BJ. S1999 Chaos and Governance in the Modern World System. Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota Press.D C, J2004 El partido que el Per se juega con el TLC.ALAI-AMLATINA, April 2.D S, T2003 La recuperacin de la economa mundial y sus lmites.Argenpress Info,
October 24.D B, R B.2003 U.S. Hegemony: Continuing Decline, Enduring Danger.Monthly Review
55(7) December.
by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
22/23
Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century 65
F, A2004 Entrevista a Stan Goff, investigador del papel de EEUU en Hait.
Znet & Rebelin.
F
, V
1998 La CEPAL y la teora de la industrializacin. Revista de la CEPAL(October special issue): 4761.
F, J B2002 Capitalism and Ecology: The Nature of the Contradiction.Monthly
Review54(4): 627.G, L2004 Ecuador: El Acuerdo de Libre Comercio, la propiedad intelectual y
el acceso a los recursos genticos. ALAI-AMLATINA, June 1.G, J, M A.2002 El sistema mundo y la transicin. Tareas112 (Sept.Dec.): 519.G2004 Mitos y consecuencias de los TLC con EEUU. Buenos Aires, May
20. http://www.grain.org/briefings/index.cfm?id=183.G, W2003 The End of Empire. The Nation (September 23).
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtmlH, O2004 The Perils of Hegemony: Washington learns that democracy is not
made for export. The American Conservative ( June).H, M A N
2000 Imperio. Barcelona: Pados.H, S P.1999 The Lonely Superpower. Foreign Affairs78(2): MarchApril.L P2003 Subsidios empujan la agricultura en EEUU. La Prensa (Panama),
December 8.L, E2004 La utopa del mercado total y el poder imperial. Caracas (mimeo).L C, C2004 Las trampas del acuerdo entre Chile y EEUU. Economa Crtica y
Desarrollo, Santiago de Chile.L, I2003 ALCA-OMC: La agricultura al centro del debate.Agencia Latinoamericana
de Informacin, ALAI, (Quito), November.M, R2004 El Tratado de Libre Comercio entre Centroamrica y EEUU.Alaiam-
latina, July 14.P, K1997 La gran transformacin. Crtica del liberalismo econmico. Madrid: Ediciones
de la Piqueta. (First edition published in 1944).
R
, M
2004 Secretismo rodea negociacin de TLC EEUU. El Panam Amrica,June 5.
S, E1979 Orientalism. New York: Vintage.
by Pepe Portillo on July 30, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/8/12/2019 5 Latin America and Imperialism in the 21st Century
23/23
66 Gandsegui Jr.
S, J E.2004 New Trade Pacts Betray the Poorest Partners. The New York Times,
July 10.
T
, F
(E.)2004 Triadic competition? U.S., Europe and Japan, Boulder, CD: Paradigm Press,
2004W, I2003 U.S. Weakness and the Struggle for Hegemony.Monthly Review55(3)
JulyAugust. http://www.monthlyreview.org/0703wallerstein.htm.