# Posted 9:56 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

SUDDENLY, LATIN AMERICA MATTERS: Thanks to the ongoing crisis in oil-rich Venezuela, Latin America is finally getting some attention from the North American media. What's especially nice about this round of coverage is that some of it transcends the enduring stereotypes that often prevent Washington journalists from providing any sort of informed analysis.

The place to begin is with Peter Beinart's attack on the Bush administration's neglect of Latin politics. As Beinart points out, Bush has done nothing to fulfill his campaign promise that "I will look south, not as an afterthought, but as a fundamental commitment to my presidency." Fair enough, but then again virtually every President since Eisenhower has attacked his predecessor's neglect of our neighbors to the South, only to ignore them himself once in office. JFK was the exception to this rule, and for that reason he is still worshipped throughout Latin America. For details, see the work of historian Stephen Rabe.

Still, one could have expected more of Bush despite the fact that September 11th forced him to focus on more pressing matters. The administration's response to Venezuela's April coup attempt was an embarrassment. Paul O'Neill's pointless provocations of Argentine and Brazilian politicians provoked constant tension in the United States' relationship with those nations. New American steel tariffs and agricultural subsidies have undermined Latin support for free trade. Bush has completely ignored Mexican Pres. Vicente Fox despite their once-close relationship.

Still, Beinart goes to far when he asserts that "While the Bush administration looks the other way, anti-Americanism is making a comeback. Left-wingers have won elections in Brazil and Ecuador, and governments across the continent are retreating from free-market economics."

Just like Josh Marshall, Beinart assumes that left-wing cadidates are anti-American and anti-free market yet presents no evidence to back up that claim. In fact, Brazil's Lula and Ecuador's Lucio Gutierrez have run on moderate platforms despite their identification as leftists.

On the bright side, Beinart avoids the bleeding-heart alarmism of the NYT's latest round-up of Latin politics. In it, one learns that Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela and Cuba are going to form an "axis of populism".

While associating Lula with Hugo Chavez is bad enough, implying that he in any way resembles an iron-fisted dictator like Castro is offensive. While Lula shares the (Latin) American left's nostalgia for Castro's popular revolution, he is a democrat through and through. (In contrast, it's hard to know what to make of Gutierrez, since he has a record similar to Chavez's but has embraced democratic politics in a way Chavez never did.)

Ironically, the Times article ends by quoting Latin America expert Michael Shifter, who observes that "The worst scenario [for Latin America] would be if the United States begins to lump all of these leaders together, in other words sees Lula and Gutierrez the same way they see Chávez, and talks of an axis of evil," Mr. Shifter said. "Then the risk is it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy." From context, it is apparent that the Times is quoting Shifter sympathetically. Why, then, does it engage in exactly the sort of alarmism that Shifter warns of?

Before answering that question, one has to recognize that the Beinart-Marshall-NYT fear of a Latin backlash against the US is not a recent development, but a constant trope of US coverage of the Western Hemisphere for at least twenty five years. In response to the marked Republican prefernence for supporting right-wing Latin dictators, liberals in both Congress and the media insisted on emphasizing the danger of a Latin backlash.

In context, such concerns made sense. Supporting Somoza, Pinochet, et al. solidified the US reputation for disregarding its ideals south of the border. The liberals' concerns, however, have degenerated into a primitive form of alarmism that has begun to overlap with anti-Communist paranoia of surviving cold warriors such as Henry Hyde, chair of the House I.R. committee, who declared that Lula will join Castro to form a Latin "axis of evil".

If the left wants to correct its perceptions, it will have take its own advice and pay more attention to Latin America. As I learned in Argentina this past summer, living in Latin America for even few months enables one to see through the US media's stereotypes of the region. Of course, as long as the Times and Post are only willing to send a single correspondent to cover the entire region, there is little hope for improvement.

Frankly, neither paper would lose out if it decided to fire its Latin American correspondent and just reprint articles from The Economistand the Financial Times instead. (Though, in the Post's defense, it ran a very sensible editorial on the Argentine economic crisis just yesterday and publishes continually good work by Marcela Sanchez.)

Perhaps what disturbs me more than anything else about misguided US coverage of Latin America is the possibility that coverage of every other region may be just as misguided, but that I wouldn't even know it because I never had the chance to spend time in and study those regions the way I did Latin America. I guess that why, on the eighth day, God created The Economist.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion