چپ های حامی فلسطین در آمریکای لاتین

هادی اعلمی فریمان، کارشناس مسائل آمریکای لاتین در گفت‌وگو با «صبح نو» اظهارکرد: «آمریکای لاتین از دیرباز، از همان زمانی که مسأله اسرائیل و فلسطین در سال ۱۹۴۸ مطرح شد، یکی از مقاصد مهاجرتی مهم برای اعراب به‌ویژه فلسطینی‌ها، لبنانی‌ها و سوری‌ها بوده است.»
وی افزود: «از همان زمان که این مسأله در عرصه بین‌المللی مطرح شد، فلسطینی‌ها و لبنانی‌ها به آمریکای لاتین مهاجرت کردند. این مهاجران عمدتا از قشر ثروتمند و تجار بوده و به‌ویژه در کشورهایی مانند شیلی، برزیل و آرژانتین ساکن شدند. در این کشورها به ‌خصوص در شیلی، یک فرهنگ فلسطینی قوی شکل گرفته است، زیرا بسیاری از فلسطینی‌ها که بیشتر آن‌ها هنرمندان، تجار و بازرگانان بودند، به این کشور مهاجرت کرده‌اند. این مهاجرت‌ها سبب شد که هسته‌ای از بازرگانان و سیاستمداران با ریشه‌های عربی در این کشورها به وجود آید.»

تأثیر فرهنگی و ادبیات مقاومت
کارشناس مسائل آمریکای لاتین تصریح کرد: «برای مثال، در شیلی فرهنگ فلسطینی بسیار حاکم است و بسیاری از هنرمندان و تجار فلسطینی به این کشور سفر کرده و در آنجا ساکن شده‌اند. همچنین در کشورهایی مانند برزیل و آرژانتین، مهاجران عرب که اغلب از فلسطین، لبنان و سوریه آمده بودند، نقش بسزایی در تجارت و سیاست ایفا کردند و حتی نسل جدیدی از سیاستمداران، بانکداران و بازرگانان را به وجود آوردند.»
اعلمی فریمان اضافه کرد: «وقتی به سوابق برخی از سیاستمداران این کشورها نگاه می‌کنیم، متوجه می‌شویم که بسیاری از آن‌ها ریشه‌های عربی دارند؛ به‌ویژه در برزیل، بسیاری از سیاستمداران از خانواده‌هایی با ریشه‌های فلسطینی، سوری یا لبنانی هستند.» وی خاطرنشان کرد: «این مهاجران نه‌تنها به لحاظ اقتصادی و سیاسی تأثیرگذار بودند، بلکه فرهنگ و ادبیات فلسطینی را نیز به این کشورها معرفی کردند. در نتیجه، کانون‌های ادبیات و شعر مقاومت در این کشورها شکل گرفت که نقش مهمی در معرفی فرهنگ فلسطینی داشتند. این تأثیر فرهنگی هنوز هم در کشورهای آمریکای لاتین قابل مشاهده است.»
کارشناس مسائل آمریکای لاتین تأکید کرد: «یکی دیگر از مسائلی که در آمریکای لاتین مطرح است، حمایت گسترده از فلسطین به‌ویژه در میان کشورهای چپ‌گرای منطقه است. بسیاری از رهبران چپ‌گرای آمریکای لاتین مانند کلمبیا، شیلی، نیکاراگوئه و برزیل همواره از جریان فلسطین حمایت کرده و اقدامات دولت اسرائیل را به شدت محکوم می‌کنند.»

مواضع سران آمریکای لاتین در مجامع بین‌المللی
اعلمی فریمان گفت: «این رهبران معمولا رژیم اسرائیل را به‌خاطر کشتار بی‌گناهان و نقض حقوق بشر محکوم کرده و این اقدامات را به‌عنوان جنایات علیه بشریت معرفی می‌کنند. این مواضع بیشتر ناشی از ماهیت چپ‌گرای این دولت‌هاست که همواره از مظلومان و جنبش‌های آزادی‌بخش حمایت می‌کنند.»
وی تصریح کرد: «در کلمبیا که رئیس‌جمهور این کشور از ریشه‌های چپ‌گرای جنبش‌های مقاومت برخوردار است، همچنین در شیلی و برزیل، رهبران چپ‌گرا مانند لولا داسیلوا حمایت قوی از فلسطین دارند. داسیلوا، رئیس‌جمهور برزیل سال گذشته با موضع‌گیری‌های خود خشم اسرائیل را برانگیخت. در نیکاراگوئه نیز دانیل اورتگا که یک انقلابی قدیمی است، همواره در حمایت از مردم فلسطین موضع‌گیری کرده است.»
کارشناس مسائل آمریکای لاتین اظهارکرد: «این مواضع در مجامع بین‌المللی نیز مطرح می‌شود و کشورهای آمریکای لاتین در سازمان‌هایی مانند سازمان ملل همواره از فلسطین دفاع می‌کنند. به‌ویژه در رسانه‌های این کشورها، مظلومیت مردم غزه و کشتار غیرنظامیان، زنان و افراد آسیب‌پذیر به‌طور گسترده‌ای پوشش داده می‌شود و این اقدامات به‌عنوان بی‌عدالتی و جنایت علیه بشریت معرفی می‌شوند. دولت اسرائیل نیز به‌خاطر زیر پا گذاشتن کنوانسیون‌های بین‌المللی و ارتکاب جنایات علیه بشریت مورد انتقاد قرار می‌گیرد.»
وی افزود: «در نهایت، می‌توان گفت که حمایت از فلسطین در کشورهای آمریکای لاتین به‌ویژه در میان دولت‌های چپ‌گرا، همواره قوی بوده و این کشورها به‌طور مداوم از مردم فلسطین در مقابل اقدامات رژیم اسرائیل دفاع می‌کنند.»

روزنامه صبح نو.۲۹مهرماه۱۴۰۳

Bureaucratic Foreign Policy of Obama's Administration in Latin America

Authors

• Cyrus Faizee  1
• hadi aalami fariman 2

1 . Assistant Professor of Regional Studies, University of Tehran

2 Ph.D. of Regional Studies, graduated from University of Tehran

 10.22067/IRLIP.2021.21431.0

Abstract

The current study examines the Obama administration’s foreign policy in Latin America. The research investigates the factors, components, and criteria of the Obama administration's foreign policy in the region. The study hypothesizes that the Obama administration’s Latin America foreign policy falls within the liberal internationalist ideology. Obama’s engagement diplomacy had a profound and different impact on the region's political and economic structures. For example, a strategic shift in relations with Cuba after 70 years of conflict made the US a positive image. In the next step, the Obama administration accepted immigrants from Latin America based on selecting candidates and elites, mainly from the students. The decision-making process in the Obama administration comes first to his former theoretical attitudes and then back to the views of Democratic

https://irlip.um.ac.ir/article_40691.html?lang=en

US Foreign Policy towards Latin America: A Comparison of Obama and Trump Administrations

		The study of this present dissertation begins with a brief study of the foreign policy of all States of the United States to Latin America and then stresses study of the two recent administration, the administration of Barack Obama and Donald Trump. The policy of the United States and, consequently, administrations in relation to Latin America is diverse and includes various aspects and components. On this basis, both the Obama administration has been elected the Democratic agent and the Trump administration as the Republican agent, each of which has taken special and unique steps in the field of foreign policy toward Latin America. Main questions about the foreign policy of Obama and Trump are to be addressed, and the differences and similarities between the two administrations will be examined in the form of theoretical approaches equal to the agent-structure theory, and decision-making theory. The main question is how the United States foreign policy toward Latin America has been in the administrations of Obama and Trump? The main hypothesis of the research is that the foreign policy of the United States in Latin America during the Obama era, according to the Democratic, hemispherical approach, based on soft and peaceful behavior, and during the Trump era due to the anti- hemispherical approach of the Republicans, was hard and militant. Regarding the objectives of the dissertation, it should be noted that the nature of the field of study of regional cognition is studied, so this dissertation focuses on the inherent nature of the field of American studies and is based on existing regional realities. The research method is upon comparative politics and even in the form of combined-comparative method. The research organization has been made up of five chapters and a conclusion, and the study on the foreign policy of the Obama and Trump administrations will focus on the Obama administration's change strategy and immigration, and the construction of the boundary wall and other important issues in the field.https://lib1.ut.ac.ir:8443/faces/search/bibliographic/biblioFullView.jspx?_afPfm=-gs2s90q62

US Foreign Policy towards Latin America: Trump Administration

• hadi aalami fariman 1 
• Cyrus Faizee 2

Abstract
The current essay is about to study Trump's foreign policy as republican's representative toward Latin America. One of the necessities to study this essay is that so far there is not much Persian version available and regional studies requires proper understanding in order to know diplomacy's procedure in this region. So that it could be relatively settled. The method used in research relies more on establishing causes and factors of formation and the process of united states diplomacy in southern hemisphere Thus, the study seeks to answer the question as to which elements and components of Donald Trump's foreign policy behavior after Obama's treatment of a soft nature have now become a hard and challenging one. The main hypothesis of the study is as follows: "US foreign policy in Donald Trump's administration of Latin America has been based on vicious behavior against the Republican anti-hemispherical approach" 
With his first American approach and nationalist logic in his foreign policy toward the world and later in Latin America, Trump adopted a different line of policy than Latin America. It deeply influenced the political and economic structures of the region and created different foreign policy processes. Much of the change has been a consequence of Donald Trump's individual decisions in opposition to the actions and foreign policy of former President Barack Obama, which has been directly and publicly proclaimed as trivial.
These changes have spread nationalist sentiment and racist currents throughout the world that have affected Latin American nations as well.https://interpolitics.guilan.ac.ir/article_3912.html

AMERICA’S OBVIOUS & CONCEALED GOALS IN VENEZUELAN CRISIS

Strategic Council Online: The current US policy in response to internal developments in Venezuela depends on three factors: The Socialist nature of the Venezuelan system, the question of oil, and US homeland security.
Hadi Aalami Fariman – Latin American Affairs expert

The scope of protests and the trend of the developments in Venezuela are escalating rapidly. Last week, JuanGuaido, chairman of the National Assembly also known as Venezuelan Congress, who is also part of the opposition during a million strong rally against beleaguered President Nicolas Maduro, citing Article 233 of the Constitution and in view of the emergency state in his country,  declared himself the country’s “interim president,” until new elections are held.

Guaido, 35, believes that the May presidential election was fabricated and orchestrated merely aimed at keeping Maduro in power. Therefore, he says, Maduro’s presidency does not have legitimacy. Furthermore, none of the rivals in this election has recognized it.

On the other hand, US President Donald Trump has called Juan Guaido the interim president. Washington’s move was followed by a sharp reaction from Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Now, the question is: what are the reasons for and objectives of the United States in supporting the unrest in Venezuela and what scenario does Trump have for Latin America by pursuing this policy?

The current US policy in response to internal developments in Venezuela depends on three factors: The Socialist nature of the Venezuelan system, the question of oil, and homeland security of the United States. 

The United States, as the center of global capitalism, is hostile to fundamental Socialist systems around the world. Wherever a political system has the essence of Socialist systems it faces strong opposition from the US as the hegemonic center, especially if these countries are in the southern hemisphere. Because it is still possible to attach importance to the Monroe Doctrine at least in security debates and state that the effects of that policy remain relatively in the southern hemisphere.

The next issue relates to the competition and many of these reactions should be checked in the competition bloc. The US national security strategies always regard Russia and China as two main strategic rivals. So, wherever there are governments close to each other, the sensitivity of Americans is naturally increased especially if there is, in America’s opinion, a rebellious anti-American system in the satellites of the capitalist system.

In fact, Washington is panicked over the influence of Russia and China in Latin American countries for military reasons. The US is concerned that this presence would gradually threaten its homeland security. The Chinese are considered a smaller threat due to soft commerce principles. Because the Chinese are men of negotiation and interaction to the extent possible. But the presence of the Russians, especially in military dimensions, is a symptom of the Americans’ homeland security in their macro strategy, so this component is serious for the United States in the debate over the events in Venezuela.

Another issue that contributes to the confrontations is the oil component; the United States views OPEC as a rival and wants to either eliminate the organization or at least undermine the structure of OPEC.

Of course, the anti-imperialist and anti-American component of the Venezuelan government is more significant for the White House officials, because this approach of the Maduro administration has made the surrounding extremely unsafe for the United States.

In the meantime, it should be noted that the US may have difficulty with the Socialist systems at the first stage and pursue a shift-to-the-right approach in countries like Venezuela, however, if a safe system even Socialist comes to power in Venezuela, it would be more desirable for Washington. In other words, the US has no problem with a Socialist system that does not endanger the United States and comes to terms with Washington. Although the US has general problems with Socialist systems, its reaction would be mild if they are safe. The Americans even consider the Cuban system ultimately flexible and reformable. But they do not have the same attitude about Venezuela so that Washington is seeking subversion and regime change in the country.

Moreover, the recent meeting of the UN Security Council on Venezuela is also very important, because when a subject is raised at the Security Council from an international perspective, it means that the issue is really important and may later assume a legal aspect. So, from the three perspectives of security, importance and legality of an issue, its discussion at the Security Council is open to debate. These ongoing trends are a calculated American design whereby to gain legitimacy for Juan Guaido. The signs of this legitimacy are also on the rise. The Americans are boycotting Venezuelan state oil company and intend to block the revenues in favor of the opposition, which is now officially recognized by the United States as the legal government.

Meanwhile, America observes that the trend in Latin America is shifting to the right due to the failure of the left and Socialist systems in meeting the people’s demands and it is taking advantage of this opportunity. In fact, the high rate of violence, crime, and hyperinflation in some Latin American countries has led to the spread of some discontent, and the United States is taking advantage of this opportunity.

Under such conditions, it seems that the United States will fully support Juan Guaido. Because in some cases, Washington voices support for movements and revolutions through a proclaimed stand, and since these supports are often diplomatic bluff, these movements eventually end up in defeat. But as for Venezuela, these supports are not merely declarative, and Washington is taking some practical action in this respect, including the steps taken to legitimize Guaido. Washington’s economic and financial as well as political and intelligence support for the opposition is also very important. As a result, Washington is taking serious action for the transfer of power in Venezuela and would spare no efforts to strip Maduro of power. Signs such as declaring of solidarity by Venezuelan military attaché in the US, announcing general amnesty and amnesty for the military, or appointing a new president for state-owned oil company by Guaido are all clear signs of playing a transition role and actions taken by a full government.

In addition, the United States has given Guaido access to the country’s assets; the Venezuelan government was granted access to national assets on January 25 by the US Secretary of State.

In the current situation, two calls by Guaido for holding rallies on January 30 and February 2 and the announcement of “clandestine” talks with the military are all signs of political obstruction inside and movement towards an extensive internal crisis and conflict. Given the particular political situation of Maduro and reports on the deployment of troops on the border with Colombia, Venezuela’s possible involvement in a foreign war as the last resort for the Socialist government is also likely to be the worst possible option for a government