Waking up From the Big Sleep in Latin America

President Obama is facing multiple crises in Latin America. But for the most part they are not very noticeable to the American public. That region was, as most observers agree, notoriously neglected during the eight years of the Bush presidency. And it was not a topic of any serious discussion during the presidential campaign. But, as in Mexico, we are already engulfed in one of those many crises.

The Americas are crucial to the US future - especially in today's calamitous economic downturn. Just look at the statistics - from 1996 to 2000, total US merchandise trade with the Hemisphere grew by 139 percent compared to 96 percent for Asia and 95 percent for Europe. The US depends critically on Latin sources for its oil supplies - it gets 30 percent of its imports from the region as opposed to 20 percent from the Middle East. And the Latin continent is where most of the illegal narcotics come from. Finally Latinos now constitute 15 percent of the US population, representing nearly 50 percent of recent US population growth.

But we as a nation, especially during the Bush presidency, spent scant time working on strengthening its trade or commercial relations over the past decade. While Washington has signed bilateral free-trade pacts with eleven Latin nations (two are still awaiting congressional approval), it has, as of yet, no deal with Brazil, the continent's largest country as well as our second largest Latin trading partner (after Mexico), and it has not effectively pursued a region-wide free trade agreement covering all 34 countries of the Hemisphere. Instead, Washington has heralded as its main Latin-related policies the following: helping Columbia's fight against its FARC insurgency; tightening the US embargo on Cuba; seeking to break-up of Al Qaeda cells in Paraguay; cracking down on drug smugglers in Mexico and Guatemala and Colombia; and arresting and deporting illegal aliens. And the Bush administration has spent an inordinate amount of its political energy on attempting to counter the more militant leftist leaders in the region, especially those in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, using diplomatic threats and suspension of aid and other retaliatory measures. This has ratcheted up tensions to the point, in the case of the first two of those governments, US ambassadors have been expelled and, in the case of Ecuador, a US anti-drug operation is being shut down.

This intense focus on security has come at the expense of the more pressing needs of the Latin region, namely helping to develop its economic and social structures and raising living standards and creating a more stable Latin middle-class as well as stemming out migration and reducing drug-related violence. The new administration must begin to reorient American power toward a more measured and realistic approach to dealing with Latin America.

First, the new president must devise a comprehensive plan to help elevate living conditions throughout the Hemisphere via broad-based trade pacts and targeted US aid. As of today, forty percent of Latins still live in poverty. Consideration should be given to resurrecting the broad-based social programs like those that have worked in the past with the Latin community - e.g., FDR's Good Neighbor policy and JFK's Alliance for Progress. Second, Washington must begin to reduce its unhealthy reliance on military programs in the Americas. Third, America must also start to reach out to nations and leaders that don't necessarily like us on the grounds that, while we can disagree, we can still co-exist with one another. This especially applies to Cuba, where President Obama has recently eased travel to the island for Cuban-American families.

President-elect Obama gave a lengthy speech last May which suggests that he is aware of this situation. In his address, he called for a new "Alliance for the Americas" in which he promised to support the consolidation of democracy around the Hemisphere, including giving financial backing for independent judiciaries, free press, progressive police forces, religious freedom and the rule of law. He also said he would continue the battle against drug smuggling, but confront it not just with military force but with corruption prosecutions of and crackdowns on drug lords. In addition, he advocated comprehensive immigration reform and stated he would coordinate a new level of economic aid in order to elevate living standards, helping to fulfill the UN's Millennium Development goals of halving poverty by 2015. Finally he vowed to appoint a Special Envoy for the Americas in the White House.

Even in face of the abysmal state of US-Latin relations over the past eight years, there is still a lot of good will to build on - especially given the remarkable democratization of the continent, with the rapid spread of freely elected governments throughout the Hemisphere. Just in the last three years, 21 new leaders have been elected in the Americas. Thus the Obama administration is in office in a favorable climate in which to advance a pro-Latin policy. But President Obama still has to take the hard steps toward working in a multilateral fashion and treating Latin states as partners. He will be able to strike a new note when he attends the 2009 fifth Summit of the Americas where he will be able to reiterate his pledges of last Spring.

Comments

[mjc]

The most difficult "doctrine" to give up will probably be the Monroe Doctrine. Taking care of "our little brown brothers" is far more appealing to many conservatives than free trade. This country has grown up with the concept of lands to the south known as "Latin America" and once that is known, everything else about the region is promptly relegated to some dusty cubbyhole. As many have expressed here, there is no one size fits all policy. If Obama decides that is what he wants, hopefully it will be treating ALL the nations in the region with the same respect and trade rules. We have wasted too much derision and criticism on Cuba and Venezuela and their leaders while not fully understanding that our own leadership was deeply flawed, especially in the last 8 years.

[richmx2]

"The Latin Continent"? Right there is the problem. The author, not seeming to understand that several independent nations, with different aspirations and agendas, are being talked about, assumes that the United States has some right to create "fixes" that apply to all these nations.

The first, and ONLY, thing the Obama administration should be doing on the "Latin Continent" is dealing with these very different nations as equal partners in whatever it is the U.S. is trying to do. And remembering that those nations have their own needs and wants as well.

[GuillermoGodinez]

Our problem is that US Southern Command is the most influential government institution in the region. We need to rebuild our embassies staff, USAID personnel and also get more Peace Corps volunteers out there again. Lots of good people left these institutions over the last ten years, leaving a very partisan footprint on our foreign affairs. Obama should name Bill Richardson as special envoy to the Americas. He is fluent in Spanish, well known and enough of a centrist and free trader to be a good facilitator in the region. He may not pass mustard on Commerce, but envoys don't need approval. Otto Reich never did. Finally, Obama needs to figure out Colombia the most pro-American country in the region with some of the most hardworking people. Uribe may have overtly supported McCain, but get over that. Even Uribe has a good relationship with Chavez, Castro and Morales.

[glitzqueen]

"Pass mustard" -- what a horrible mental image! The phrase is "pass muster," actually.

As for Urribe, he's a fascist with extensive ties to right-wing paramilitaries oppressing and killing peasant farmers and unionists. More labor rights activists are murdered in his horrid country than anywhere else in the world.

[GuillermoGodinez]

Thanks for the correction reina de glitz. I didn't have my grammar hat on while writing. Look, yes Uribe has been at least indirectly involved with some very dark activities (just look at how many of his partisans are in jail), but Colombia has made progress in many areas under his administration. Bogota and Medellin are statistically safer than Washington, Detroit and Atlanta. In the end, Uribe is not that different than Chavez, Morales and Correa. They believe themselves indispensable and seek to perpetuate themselves in power to the detriment of institutions and my mob rule (whether the mob is elections or taking streets depending on context). Obama has been right to create some distance with Uribe, but we have done too much in Colombia and still do too much at a technical level to leave the current government abandoned and hurt. I believe a robust engagement with the current government of Colombia based on concern for protection of displaced and union workers will be more productive than treating Uribe as a step-child. In such an environment other leaders may surface.

[NABNYC]

Probably the only good thing about the U.S. wars of aggression in the middle east is that we have had less time to destroy Central and South America. The U.S. policy in that region has been of aggressor nation claiming the territory as our empire. We stage coups, train torturers, prop up dictators, help to disappear and murder citizens, destroy all efforts of citizens to organize to improve their lives.

We use our military to aid multinational corporations in stealing the resources, using the people as slaves, corrupting their governments, polluting their nations. There is nothing good that the U.S. has ever done for Central or South America other than to occasionally leave them alone. And "free" trade agreements have only served to force more of our southern neighbors to be wage slaves, forced off their farms, undermined by U.S. competition and policies.

Let's get real about this. What we need to do is sit down, listen, start working with the people instead of propping up the governments. People to people aid to rebuild El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, countries we largely assisted in destroying through funding despots and death squads. The best thing we could do for them is to stop intervening in their countries and let them try to recover from the "help" of the U.S. in previous generations. http://nabnyc.blogspot.com/2009/04/reforming-immigration-laws-is-not.html

[Bitsko]

It's incomprehensible that Mr. 0bama is the first sitting president to visit Mexico City in 12 years.

[suec03]

Visits with Mexican presidents have taken place at other locations. I am glad that, even on his way to a conference in Trinidad, President Obama met with the Mexican president in the Mexican capital.

[boitexas]

The Latin nation ? the Latin continent? the Latin middle class? Is there a new verbiage to describe Latin America that I am not familiar with? It struck me as really strange. Ok I said it.

I spent a wonderful vacation March 6-15 in Bogota, Colombia. I was astounded by the energy and vitality of the capital city and its residents. A city of 7 million with lots of problems of course. But the people I interacted with are excited about their future, proud of the accomplishments of their president, and have a newfound freedom to live fully.

Every taxi driver I spoke with mentioned the way of life today as opposed to just ten years ago where you took your life in your hands leaving your home at night.

We took an overnight trip about 200 miles outside Bogota to the countryside with no problems. Our driver told the same story. Even five years ago this was not done, especially by tourists.

Commerce was jumping all over Bogota. People are starting businesses, merchants were everywhere and people are on the move.

What I took from it is that they are going forward with or without the US. In Central and South America there are close to what 800 million people. These countries have awakened and their populations are young and eager. It is time the US, its politicians and its people realized that there really is more to the hemisphere than Canada, the US and Mexico.

[holeybuybull]

That energy and vitality is the result of inexpensive and plentiful cocaine. Colombia is no more than an American colony.

[LatinAmericano]

Holeybuybull: As a Colombian-American, I take DEEP OFFENSE to your third-grade, vicious and stereotypical comments. Let me assure you that 99% of the coke produced in Colombia is shipped to your neighbor, friend or family and all US soft-and-hard addicts so they can be "energetic and vital" to run their lives normally.

I do agree with you that Colombia has become more of an "American colony" under the right-wing government of Uribe.

[JJGBMAL]

First of all, it's COLOMBIA. With an "o".

Articles about the resurgent role of Latin America (LATAM) in US foreign policy are a dime a dozen. We definitely need to see some action behind the speculation of normalized­/increased relations with LATAM that has been so prevalent since the end of the Cold War.

The US should definitely expand its dialogue with the Western Hemisphere, and should work towards a more equitable distribution of power and decision-making at the OAS. Also, I don't believe we need to or should necessarily pursue free-trade agreements with all of these nations. Traditionally, US economic "partnerships" tend to benefit US businessmen and LATAM elite - let LATAM control its own economic destiny.

Obama & Clinton should also work to remove most restrictions we currently have in place in Cuba. The US should open up all travel to Cuba and draw the Cuban government to a negotiating table to compensate those whose businesses were expropriated in the Revolution. We have to give Cubans the chance to be exposed to Americans and gain a better view of our country, building the case for republican democracy.

Finally, Obama should apologize for the US' foreign policy blunders in LATAM during the Cold War. The regimes we supported, troops we trained, and pockets we filled resulted in some of the worst human rights abuses anywhere. It would be a sincere sign of friendship and a step towards establishing truly strong relations with our hemispheric brothers.

[davidly]

Absolutely correct. I would add, that in apologizing for our direct and indirect human rights abuses, murder, and mayhem - we should in no way throw a "balance" bone to the patriotic American electoral politic, stating that somehow they need to apologize to us as well.

I wholly agree that "free trade" is a farce. Neither of us actually need the other's resources and we should stop pretending that we do. Trade is trade. If you want something, you have to pay for it. In this age of bailout outrage and tea-bagging, the US could learn from the likes of Morales, whether you find his methods just or not.

[holeybuybull]

Make up your mind. Are they militant leftists or freely elected democratic leaders? Many of these leaders have successfully removed the yoke of subservience that the US, the IMF, and the World Bank had imposed upon their countries. They have experienced the Chicago School's disaster capitalism and soundly rejected it in favor of their citizenry. They are advancing along the path to democracy, while the US continues to regress.

[ANuttyReader]

It is time to mend the fences and start looking at Latin America as a partner and not as an annoyance.

The big fiifference between Latin America and China and India, is that Latin Americans do buy US and Canada made products, Latin America is a real partner that can help the US economy to recover and grow.

With strong respectfull relations, the American continent can give the EU a run for their money, if only we can be smart about it.

[khepri]

Time to mend fences indeed. First, by relinquishing the Monroe Doctrine that puts us in the stupid position of trying to manage and monitor states that pose no threat to America; next, by establishing civil and supportive relationships with all nations to the south. If we can live and negotiate with Russia and China, what is it about South American affairs that lifts us to a whole new level of anxiety? The legacy of compulsive, obsessive foreign nation management has to end. It is not profitable, it is not working.

[apduncan1]

"Consideration should be given to resurrecting the broad-based social programs like those that have worked in the past with the Latin community - e.g., FDR's Good Neighbor policy and JFK's Alliance for Progress." ...

Why?

The only thing that is needed is a Fair Market policy instead of the Free Market policies that destroy whatever industry is in LatAm.

During the Kennedy administration The Alliance for Progress was an utter failure and The Peace Corps went to smoke cheap grass. What else is new?

[cynara]

"The only thing that is needed is a Fair Market policy instead of the Free Market policies that destroy whatever industry is in LatAm."

I couldn't agree more. Why are Mexicans fleeing north? Because the average blue collar wage is around six dollars a day, less than the cost of basic necessities for one person in Mexico...

There's plenty of blame to go around for this (corrupt Mexican politicians, inadequate funding by the Mexican government in infrastructure, etc..), but there is no denying that NAFTA was fundamental in driving down Mexican wages. Today, US based Walmart is the biggest employer in Mexico. Their baggers are paid with tips only, and they recently went to the Mexican supreme court arguing to continue to pay their employees with Walmart vouchers! (For once, justice was just, and this claim was rejected). But US trade policies and multinational corporations are a very large component to the income inequality in Mexico and Central America. Unless the US starts being an influence for greater wage equality in Latin America, instead of less, poverty will continue to spurn crime and immigration.