Quote:
Originally Posted by tjinaz
Still don't think it is the right word but...
I think the term you are looking for is (gasp) NeoImperialism. (I think Neo is way over used and mostly out of context)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism
The list of practioners of this concept are long and distinguished.
So would you say that when a foreign group comes into a country and tries to change its government to one that is favorable to their aims and interests it is Imperialism?
Doesn't that describe what the islamists are doing as well? Not to mention the Soviets and Cubans in the middle east, Asia, Africa and South America in the 70s and 80s? I don't see America as being the only one doing this. By this defintion Chavez is undermining the Governments of all his neighbors and trying to create an empire of his own. What is the difference between revolution aided or sponsored by a sympathetic foreign government and imperialism? |
I think there is an important distinction you aren't making here. In the case of Chavez, he is going to some of these governments that are either disenfranchised by the United States and parts of Europe, who, at some point, have been victimized by either (but mostly the US in the last century) and saying, "We are united as south americans."
What the US has a history of doing in south america is simply installing not just governments that are 'favourable' to the US, but who are puppet dictatorships (there is also some history of this in the middle east, examples being Iraq in the late 60's and Iran in 1953). Whereas Chavez is saying, "united, we have a better chance of improving our position," the US is simply removing democratically elected officials and replacing them, often with military officials keen on keeping arms shipments coming.
edit: also, what I'm talking about isn't neocolonialism. I'm talking about direct military intervention, funding or training, not economic policies.