THE CENTURY OF THE AMERICAS

The 20th century was the century of the United States of America as the emerging and, by the end of it, sole superpower on Earth. At the beginning of the 21st century, the idea that the new century would belong again to the uncontested power just because of its merits, lasted only a couple of years. Since 9/11 and all its consequences, which include two not yet won wars, the United States had to fight again not only for its supremacy, which would only be of American people’s concern, but to keep its role model for wealth and progress; also for what the United States means as an example and inspiration to the rest of the world.

This fight is not a minor subject for Latin America, which has always been strained between capitalism and socialism and hasn’t made completely up its mind yet about which of them is more convenient to grow and to spread social justice. Sharing the same continent, most of Latin Americans cannot yet see the United States' failure as affecting their own interests and often rather rejoice on it, wrongly thinking that the difficulties of the main actor in the continent will bring them new opportunities or represent the announced death of capitalism. There is not a clear consciousness, neither in the United States nor in Latin America, that the century of America can only be continued by the century of the Americas. The pending commercial, political and military union is the only one that can give to both the United States and Latin America the necessary volume and strength to grow.

What happens in the States, doesn’t stay in the States. It spreads all over the world, but with a greater weight, on neighbors used to a strong and well defined leadership. When the United States speaks, there is an effect. When it remains silent, its attitude is equally noticed. Liking words more than actions, Latin Americans still weight their fate according to what is proposed as a plan, a blue print to meet success, and nothing seems more tempting to many of them than leaders who dare to defy the United States. The macho style enjoys this type of verbal war explaining the short road to heaven and Chavez represents the perfect example of a “courageous” leader to follow, as Fidel Castro did in the past. When the United States chooses to avoid confrontation –like these days à propos of Chavez’s nuclear deals with Iran – or confuses which is the right thing to do –and in Honduras supports Zelaya and not the Supreme Court -- Latin Americans don’t understand. Those who are against the United States, no matter what the United States does, continue to mistrust, and those who want closer ties and shared plans, feel abandoned. Enemies or friends, they want to be confirmed in their roles. When Chavez in his anti-imperialistic brutality is so clear, they would like to see the same transparency in the United States’ strategy and speech. The lack of a visible appointed official in the American government who can explain the American point of view only worsens the current situation, characterized by a certain hope on President Obama, which is contradicted by his actions.

In the United States as well as in Argentina, to mention only both extremes of the Americas, people live gloomy days, full of uncertainties at a time in which the world is changing faster than it can be thought. There are fears that globalization will take this time its toll on the United States. Considering that there is no possible globalization without a strong leadership of the stellar country, the role model for that world process, all the stakes should be on reinforcing its power and not in minimizing it. Latin America has to play its role in this process, understanding that a strong United States will make a stronger and safer continent and will increase the chances of the whole continent, if united. The United States needs to play its complementary role in the continent, making a clear commercial, political, and military proposal, attentive to the fact that Latin Americans like to be considered and that, for them, there is no stronger cultural mark of interest than being addressed in words that express thoughts of appreciation and plans. Latin Americans understand political silence as a lack of interest and as spurning.

It could be that the Obama administration gets too busy with Europe and the Middle East and that Latin America represents, indeed, an uninteresting region to waste time in it, and that it is actually spurned because the interest lies somewhere else. Then, still, and since the 20th century America cannot be continued but by a larger one, other Americans in the United States should reconsider the two centuries old Pan-Americanism as an option, and prepare the ground for a near future. The Republican Party and think tanks devoted to the permanent reshaping of the nation, could substitute the administration in the dialogue and project for the Americas. Latin America, which only needs to grow, a positive reflection in the mirror of the powerful and a chance to play its part, will respond if positively addressed.

In the meanwhile, instead of sensible words pointing out to a common future, we will continue to hear the speech of hatred and disunion by the Chavez, Kirchners, and Zelayas of Latin America. How Latin Americans who really are friends of the United States can talk in its favor, expecting to be given credit, when the one who is supposed to be the example to follow and the chosen friend, turns its back on them and remains silent?