Thursday, March 30, 2006

Could The Illegal Immigration Crisis Become A Future Military Crisis?

In the 1960's the Kennedy Administration was very concerned after the 1959 revolution in Cuba that put Fidel Castro into power and free elections did not take place six months after this government came into power as had been promised. By 1962, the Castro government, which had some strong early support from among the American liberal community, which at first believed that Castro was merely an agrarian reformer, eventually became a military threat to the U.S. when nuclear missile sites were dug under dummy apartment house structures in San Crystalbal, Cuba. This crisis brough the U.S., Cuba, and the former Soviet Union very close to the brink of nuclear war.

Eventually a deal was reached with the U.S., Soviets and Cubans to withdraw the missiles from Cuba, as well as a publicly claimed but delinked deal for the U.S. to withdraw nuclear missiles set up in Turkey aimed at the Soviet Union.

Could such a new crisis happen again in the near future? Yes.

While the U.S. is caught up in a debate that merely looks at the problem of illegal immigration, there is a sense of rising political tensions in Mexico in South America as more and more proCastro governments win elections in South America. In Mexico, another leftist President, Andes Manuel Lopez Obrador of the Democratic Revolution Party leads in the public opinion polls with 38% support and the more conservative challengers lag behind at 31 and 29% each.

In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez recruits domestic political strength for himself by antiAmerican tirades and threats. It is only the fact that thousands of Citgo gas stations and oil imports to the U.S. does not prevent more of this antiAmericanism from Chavez. But a large portion of this oil wealth is finding it's way into a military buildup in Venezuela. Venezuela is quickly becoming the largst buyer of international arms in latin America. It is seeking to buy 50 more Russian Su-30 airscraft or 50 Chinese J-10 aircraft. There is also a naval buildup that plans to add another ships or submarines to the military of Venezuela. Venezuela has also adopted Cuban style military uniforms. Alng with a government that that takes a strong antiAmerican line, this government is interested in far more than agrarian economic reform.

In Chile, Socialist President Michele Bachelet takes a far more more moderate left leaning line. Her policies are not strickly aimed at creating U.S-South American tensions like some of the recent South American governments. Her policies seem more aimed at domestic economic reforms as a front line in promotting a sense of social justice in Chile.

But in Bolivia there seems to be more of the Venezuela-type conflict langauge with the U.S. used by the new president in that nation.

What is alarming is that some of these newer leftist governments in South America seek to blame the U.S. for all the economic problems these countries are experiencing. And while the U.S. does share much responsibility for negative influences on the economies of South America such as the dumping of cheap U.S. corporately grown wheat and corn that has driven down wages in Mexico, or has paid poor wages to South American workers in investments that have meant little for the people of South America, it is still a serious matter that these newer leftist governments build their philosophy on antiAmericanism and seem to spend little effort to control the wealthy families in these countries or powerful interests who share a great deal of responsibility for high interest rates in the banks that they control, or low wages in the factories and workplaces they own.

During the 1980's, the Daniel Ortega government of Nicargua represented this same sort of antiAmerica leftism. Even the Communist Party of Nicargua supported the removal of Ortega from power and democratic elections as Ortega did little but drive down the economy of Nicaragua and invite a conflict with the Reagan Administration that led to the use of the illegal Contra efforts by the Reagan Administration. This proCastro form of leftism, that invites conflict with the U.S. rather seeks to repair much of the economic injustice at home represents a real danger to the U.S. in the future.

In states like Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina, a large population of MidEasterners also harbors some terrorist elements that have been involved in Hezbollah backed terrorist bombings of Jewish owned property and organizations.

With a possible antiAmerican President of Mexico with a win by Lopez Obrador, and more antiAmerican governments in South America, these states could form a military alliance and could eventually purchase arms such as Scud missile launchers and arm them with nuclear warheads with the help of North Korea or even Iran in the future. Both Iran and North Korea could hope to further tie down the U.S. in a massive borde security effort to prevent a possible war along the Mexico-U.S. border.

Enough radical states in South America form a future military alliance and could radicalize and indoctrinate the populations of South America for an eventual war with the U.S., making these populations believe that by capturing part of Texas, California, New Mexico or other states could serve some economic benefit to South America.

Leftist movements in Europe often look to reforms they can make at home to make an economy more fair and just. But many of these proCastro elements are far different in ideology as they live on seeking conflict with the U.S. If this grows beyond mere talk could actually present a grave danger for peace betwwen the U.S. and South America.

Leftist agrarian reform in Latin America is one thing. Injustice has been the rule for many years. And the U.S. does share some responsibility for these problems. But any real conflict or threat to the U.S. and a taking of the peace is quite another thing. That should be very alarming for the future.


Post a Comment

<< Home