In the face of multiple challenges from distant Iran, Iraq,
North Korea, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, it may be easy to forget
that Latin America and the Caribbean are so close at hand. The
region may not be America's backyard, but it is certainly very much
our neighborhood. The United States shares a 2,000-mile border
with Mexico that is still far too porous. Cuba is a mere 90 miles
from Key West, reachable by the desperate on even the most flimsy
of craft. Ready trade partner, democratic friend, and epicenter of
the cocaine trade, Colombia, is a two-hour flight from Miami and
accessible by the ingenious, stealthy, semi-submersible boats
of drug traffickers. We worry about the same legal and illegal flow
of goods and people, the same hurricanes, and shared environmental
hazards.
Across the board, U.S. ties with Latin America and the Caribbean
run broad and deep. From 1996 to 2006, total U.S. merchandise trade
with Latin America grew by 139 percent, compared to 96 percent for
Asia and 95 percent for the European Union. In 2006, the U.S.
exported $223 billion worth of goods to Latin American consumers
(compared with $55 billion to China). Fifty-one percent of U.S.
energy imports originate from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela,
Ecuador, Colombia, and Brazil.
Americans of Hispanic descent now account for 15 percent of the
U.S. population, making the U.S. the largest Spanish-speaking
nation after Mexico. The billions of dollars in remittances
dispatched from the U.S. are vital to the economic health and
well-being of American's neighbors to the south. But the current
recession will create new strains abroad. Illegal aliens,
predominantly Hispanic, exceed 10 million.
Any major change in U.S. relations with Latin America will
inevitably be linked to progress on complex U.S. domestic issues,
notably immigration reform, homeland and border security, and
reducing U.S. domestic drug consumption. These changes are
contingent on prevailing public attitudes toward open markets,
free trade, international competition, and foreign assistance. Any
substantial retreat into protectionism or isolationism on the part
of the U.S. will send a hard shiver down the spine of the Americas.
While Americans generally desire to help their less advantaged
neighbors, they fear the additional tax burdens that would
accompany any increases in foreign assistance in a period when
fiscal discipline is under siege and recessionary pressures
are mounting.
In the new Obama Administration, just as in others, Latin
Americans will first judge the President by what he is able to
accomplish at home. The historic election of 2008 and the orderly
and dignified transition in 2009 speak volumes about the
openness, the maturity, and the majestic continuity of
American democracy. The old adage about the U.S. needing
to lead by example remains fundamental to revitalizing our ties
with Latin America.
The Western Hemisphere, moreover, presents a confusing and
complex patchwork of states, cultures, resources, and ethnic
and linguistic identities, as well as conflicting definitions of
democracy and pathways to the economic future. Just think of the
differences between three of the Southern Hemisphere's
sovereign states: the Bahamas (a small English-speaking Caribbean
nation), Brazil (an emerging multi-racial economic giant), and
Bolivia (an impoverished, ethnically divided, politically unstable
state). Imagine how difficult it is to develop a common policy that
fits not just these three, but the 35 sovereign nations of the
Americas. Therefore, it is important that from the beginning the
new Administration avoid sweeping rhetoric, one-size-fits-all
programs, and cosmetic multilateral fixes that paper over the
region's differences and problems.
Latin America is undergoing changes in geopolitical
orientation. The growth and current crisis in the global economy
and the rise of Asia coupled with a new sense of Latin American
identity and solidarity have an impact on the region's development.
From the establishment of the Union of South American Nations
(UNASUR) to the proposed creation of a Bank of the South (Banco
Sur), a southern rival to the International Monetary Fund (IMF),
South America is demonstrating a desire for greater autonomy
of action as well as separation from the U.S. and the traditional
mechanisms of the international economy.
Even strong trade partners of the U.S., such as Chile, Colombia,
and Mexico have signed dozens of free-trade agreements in all parts
of the world and seek more agile and diverse paths for integration
into the global economy. Many South Americans believe they can
better solve political problems in a divided country like Bolivia
without direct U.S. involvement. Brazil considers itself a rising
power, meriting a place on the world stage on par with India or
even Russia.
Latin Americans are making progress against the traditional
asymmetry that dominated relations between the Northern and
Southern Hemispheres during the 20th century. China's and
India's entry into the Latin American market coupled with the
steady presence of the European Union and a more activist Russia
will ensure that the future field of potential international links
remains far more diversified.
Other less friendly players, such as Iran, are warmly welcomed
by Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela and actively courted by
Brazil. Transnational bad actors from the violent Basque ETA
separatists to terror groups Hezbollah and Hamas are also
seeking to gain entry into the Western Hemisphere. The
diplomatic leverage and economic influence the U.S. wields remains
important, but it is undergoing relative decline in face of growing
global competitiveness. The Obama Administration must make
continued policy adjustments that fit these changing
international realities.
Do Not Feed Excessive Expectations
During the electoral campaign, President Obama spoke of a "new
alliance with Latin America" and promised substantial increases in
U.S. foreign aid. These optimistic promises were welcomed by all
who care about the future of the Western Hemisphere.[1] The
post-inaugural challenge will be to deliver on these promises.
Latin Americans have not forgotten that at the beginning of his
term, President George W. Bush also promised to strengthen
relations with Latin America, particularly with Mexico. But 9/11,
the global war on terrorism, the war in Iraq, and other urgent
challenges directed U.S. commitments in other directions, leaving
dashed expectations in their wake.
It is important that the Obama Administration recognize that
past policies for the region go back one or two decades and have
been the result of considerable bipartisan efforts. U.S.
policy toward Latin America has followed a relatively consistent,
bipartisan track since the fall of the Berlin Wall when the
U.S. ceased to view the region through the prism of
anti-Communism.
From the Brady Plan for debt relief, democracy promotion under
the National Endowment for Democracy umbrella, and the Enterprise
for the Americas Initiative, all products of the Reagan -- Bush era,
through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the
Summit of the Americas process, and Plan Colombia under
President Clinton to bilateral free trade agreements, the
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and the Merida
Initiative of the past Administration, one Administration
after the next has built on the work of its predecessors. Latin
Americans need to be gently reminded of these costly and extensive
U.S. policy initiatives of the past twenty years when they begin
complaining about U.S. inattention to the region.
General consensus and bipartisan support have existed for the
key pillars of policy: support for democratic governance and
institution-building, market and free-trade-oriented development,
structured financial assistance through the IMF, the World
Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), as well as
law enforcement and military cooperation against drugs, crime,
and terrorism. These will remain the central pillars of sound
international policy.
Moving ahead in the Western Hemisphere will require hard-headed
pragmatism. While there was discussion of "bottom-up reform" before
the inauguration, the probable reality is that the instruments
available to the Obama White House to shape U.S. Latin American
policy will remain two-way trade and Latin American access to the
world's largest market. The new Administration also needs to
encourage private capital formation and foreign direct
investment in Latin America. It should also look for ways to
stimulate the growth of the private sector and to promote reforms
that liberate citizens in the region from the heavy hand of
bureaucratic controls.
Policymakers in Washington should not lose sight of the
importance of economic freedom. In country after country, as The
Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal's annual
Index of Economic Freedom clearly demonstrates, the
greater the level of economic freedom, the better the chances to
develop and prosper.[2] Latin America's track record has been
deteriorating in recent years.
Do Not Disparage Bush's Achievements:
Build on Them
"George Bush's policy in the Americas has been negligent toward
our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the
challenges that matter in people's lives, and incapable of
advancing our interests in the region. As the Americas have
changed, we have sat on the sideline, offering no compelling vision
and creating a vacuum for demagogues to advance an
anti-American agenda,"[3] read candidate Obama's Web site.
This was a useful theme for a political campaign. Now that
President Obama has assumed office and has begun the selection of
officials and ambassadors who will design and implement policy, it
is time for a sober review of the Bush Administration, its
accomplishments, and its shortcomings.
In eight years in office, the Bush Administration doubled
foreign assistance budgets, created the Millennium Challenge
Corporation, and launched the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief (PEPFAR). The MCC has begun the disbursement of nearly $1
billion to El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Guyana,
and Peru. During the Bush presidency, Congress, with bipartisan
support, passed free-trade agreements with Chile (2002),
Central America and the Dominican Republic (CAFTA-DR, 2005), and
Peru (2007). The Bush Administration also negotiated
agreements with Colombia and Panama that now await
congressional approval. It is vital that each Member of Congress
push for their approval.
Plan Colombia, begun in the Clinton Administration and
continued under Bush, achieved remarkable improvements in security
and reductions in levels of violence. The streets of Bogota
and Medellin are much safer. The reach of the Colombian
government, from soldiers to social workers, now extends much
deeper into the countryside. The continued projection of civilian
and military power is needed to restore the capacity of the
Colombian state and to win the final battles against the armed
extremes of the paramilitary right and the Revolutionary Armed
Forces of Colombia (FARC) on the left. In North America, the
Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America advances the
concept of working with Canada and Mexico to develop a close
relationship with our most important trade partners, improving
efficiency and competitiveness while enhancing security
at American borders.
Protecting U.S. Security Remains Job
No. 1
A hydra of violence and insecurity troubles the Western
Hemisphere. Recent surveys of public opinion indicate that security
is becoming the primary concern for Latin Americans. Making an
impact in fighting crime and drugs in Latin America will require a
mix of the elements of hard power- helicopters, aerial and maritime
patrol craft, radars, and law enforcement technology-and soft
power-computers, systems networks, and investigative and human
rights training. It will also require close coordination of all
elements of national power in the U.S. and abroad and a seamless
web of cooperation with neighbors across a spectrum that runs
from community policing, crime prevention, and demand reduction in
Latin America and the U.S. to intelligence sharing, improved
investigation and forensic skills, and improved capacity for
seizures, take-downs, and arrests.
It will be important for President Obama and the new
Administration to speak forthrightly about the United States'
dangerous drug habits. Decreasing U.S. consumption is critical.
Consumption of cocaine and other drugs fuels a bloody chain of
violence and narco-terrorism running from the alleys and
streets of U.S. cities through Mexico's Tijuana, Sinaloa, and
Michoacan, through Guatemala's Peten to the hidden runways in
Venezuela and cocaine labs and coca fields in Colombia, where FARC
guards the trade, hold hundreds hostage, and siphons off massive
revenue from the cocaine trade. The U.S. needs to impart fresh
urgency to help President Felipe Calderon and Mexico win the
horrific fight against the Mexican cartels. It is also
imperative to continue efforts of Plan Colombia and build upon
the Merida Initiative for Mexico, Central America, and the
Caribbean.
To garner domestic support, President Obama should consider
convening a bipartisan commission to map out a balanced drug
strategy for the next four years. Such an exercise was conducted
during the first Reagan Administration (1983) to deal with the
Central American crisis.[4] It helped to lay the basis for a bipartisan
policy for Central America. When the study is completed, President
Obama should invite the heads of state of the Western Hemisphere to
review the policy and to develop a new hemispheric anti-drug
compact and strategy.
The problem of transnational gangs (maras) is often seen
abroad as originating in the U.S. and being aggravated by the
process of criminal deportations from the U.S. Regardless of
origin, the gangs are a shared challenge. Developing a
comprehensive and effective response will find a wide and favorable
audience in the region.
The U.S. Southern Command under the energetic and
forward-looking leadership of Admiral James Stavridis has worked to
enhance security partnerships in the Americas and to interweave
civilian and military components into combined actions. Efforts "to
demilitarize" U.S. foreign policy should not overlook these
efforts.
Building the Partnership: What the
U.S. Should Do
Embrace Free Trade. Former Bolivian president Jorge
Quiroga recently remarked that two key commodities, oil and
cocaine, enter the U.S. duty free while the U.S. Congress debates
duty-free entry of legal products from the U.S. into
pro-American Colombia (which already has access to the U.S.
market).
It is critical for policymakers on Capitol Hill to work with the
congressional leadership to pass the pending Free Trade Agreements
(FTAs). A full spectrum of the wisest voices-U.S. and Latin
American presidents, former senior officials, both Democratic and
Republican-and the Council on Foreign Relations, the Brookings
Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage
Foundation, to name a few, as well as mainstream media editorials
are unanimous in urging swift passage of pending agreements with
Colombia and Panama.[5] Colombia will certainly be willing to work
with the Obama Administration to accommodate additional
reasonable measures aimed at protecting labor and
environmental standards.
Leadership also needs to be applied to progress on the Doha
Round of trade talks and reduce agricultural subsidies at
home, which will spur progress on a U.S. -- Brazil FTA. President
Obama should also quickly put an end to speculation that he will
attempt a renegotiation of NAFTA with Canada and Mexico.
A question of principle arises regarding assistance to
Bolivia and Nicaragua. The U.S. suspended Bolivia's trade benefits
in 2008 following Bolivia's groundless expulsion of the U.S.
ambassador and the cessation of counter-drug cooperation. In
Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas are engaged in a
concerted assault on the fragile fabric of democratic governance.
This has caused a suspension of the MCC grants. The Obama
Administration should make it clear that U.S. assistance and
trade benefits will only be granted with a reasonable expectation
of adherence to democratic principles and continued cooperation in
key areas of mutual interests, such as anti-drug-trafficking
cooperation.
Revitalize Democratic Governance and Promotion. On
September 11, 2001, while the world watched al-Qaeda's unfolding
assault on America in horror, Secretary of State Colin Powell was
in Lima, Peru, with the region's foreign ministers. Before
departing for his stricken home, the Secretary joined in signing
the Inter-American Democratic Charter. The charter guarantees every
citizen in the Americas the right to a democratic government. Seven
years later, a significant minority of Latin American states have
begun to abridge citizens' rights and turn to the streets to
silence political debate, while the Organization of American States
has sat by inertly without invoking that charter.
The United States is founded on sound principles. Americans
should not be afraid to defend them. Constitutions exist to protect
the rights of minorities as well as majorities. Democracy means
more than finding ways to manipulate the electoral process in order
to remain in executive office.
But the U.S. cannot be the only nation in the Americas ready to
speak out in defense of the charter. The challenge is to
encourage fellow democrats in the Americas to speak up in the halls
of the OAS and elsewhere. It is incumbent on President Obama and
his new Latin American team to find new strategies for winning
the battle for pluralistic liberal democracy in the Western
Hemisphere.
Promote Energy Cooperation. Much of the U.S. presidential
campaign was conducted at a period when energy prices soared,
siphoning off precious American dollars and leaving the U.S.
vulnerable to energy blackmail by Venezuela's anti-American
president, Hugo Chávez.
Even with currently lower oil prices, a sound comprehensive
strategy will require expanding domestic oil and energy supplies,
more nuclear power, economically sustainable alternative energy
sources, and greater energy efficiency and conservation. The
U.S. must work closely with Canada and Mexico, America's nearest
and most reliable suppliers. Realistic steps to promote energy
alternatives in both Americas will include elimination of the tax
on sugar-based ethanol, collaborating to develop research in
second-generation bio-fuels, and supporting a regionally
integrated system of pipelines and liquefied natural gas
facilities.
Earn Trust, Work with Pivotal Leaders. It is important to
move quickly to develop a strong personal rapport with Latin
America's current breed of genuinely democratic leaders. President
Calderon in Mexico, Brazil's Luis Lula da Silva, Peru's Alan
Garcia, Chile's Michelle Bachelet, and the Dominican
Republic's Leonel Fernandez are among prominent leaders who
share forward-looking attitudes on democracy, free-market growth,
and poverty alleviation. The Obama Administration needs to reach
out to them early and often. Special attention needs to be given to
Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe whose program of democratic
security and efforts to build what has been absent for decades, a
strong Colombian government, merits early consultation and
continued support in the final stage of two remarkable presidential
terms.
Develop a Bold Education Initiative. The Obama
Administration needs a bold initiative capable of touching the
lives of ordinary Latin Americans. Education is the key to
permanently reducing poverty and making more equitable societies.
The U.S. is well positioned to present a broad, multifaceted
educational initiative. Support for elementary and secondary
education is important and can include loans from the World Bank
and the IADB. Rejuvenating programs at the higher education level
could be a signature initiative for the incoming Administration.
They can reach directly to future leaders and spur innovation in
sciences and technology, areas where Latin America lags behind
on the global scale. President Obama should consider creating a
senior-level voluntary Western Hemispheric Education Council
to energize and revitalize the gamut of education strategies. The
challenge is also to develop a stronger synergy to promote
coordination and cooperation between government efforts,
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and civil society. Additional
educational efforts should also advance English-language education
and develop a basic program that identifies the fundamentals
of democratic capitalism.
Revitalize Regular and Citizen-to-Citizen Diplomacy.
While there is anti-Americanism in the Western Hemisphere, there
remains an abundant hunger for the American brand. The new
Administration, drawing on a commitment to public service and
to the revitalization of a service ethic, should work to recapture
and revitalize what is best in the U.S. President Obama and his
team should work to develop a strategic communications plan to
closely coordinate democracy promotion and public diplomacy,
making sure the Departments of Defense and State and the National
Endowment for Democracy carefully define a strategy, work together,
and remain on message.[6]
Restoring a special envoy for Latin America may signal fresh
interest in the region but the envoy needs genuine access to the
Oval Office and the ability to inject fresh discipline and energy
into the Washington policy process.
Increasing the number of Peace Corps volunteers, as
proposed, is a wise idea. So is making the government a
clearinghouse and point of assistance for the large number of
American NGOs and faith-based groups that are active in the Western
Hemisphere. Finding ways to energize and engage the U.S.
Hispanic population to work constructively with their home
countries is another avenue that needs to be pursued.
Exercise Caution with Cuba. On May 23,2008, Senator Obama
declared that, "My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word:
Libertad. And the road to freedom for all Cubans must begin with
justice for Cuba's political prisoners, the rights of free speech,
a free press and freedom of assembly; and it must lead to elections
that are free and fair."[7]
It is important to keep clearly in focus the fact that Cuba,
after 50 years under a single revolutionary, anti-American
leader, remains a totalitarian state-an ideological dinosaur and
island prison with a stronger kinship to the regimes of Stalin and
Mao than to modern social democratic states. The island belongs not
to the people but to an aging Raul Castro and his military
comrades. Cosmetic economic changes have done little to alleviate
dire economic conditions.
In Miami, candidate Obama proposed potential carrots for a
relationship with Cuba that is often seen as all stick, and no
carrot. While the desire to remove barriers that separate families
and infringe on rights of free travel is commendable, it is
important to remember that Cuba's restrictive,
bureaucratic regime, with its rigid controls and dual-currency
system, is skilled at monopolizing as many of these fresh resources
as possible in an effort to help perpetuate the regime's
stranglehold on Cuban economic life. Waves of Canadian and European
tourism have done little to open Cuba politically.
There is little evidence, as suggested in the rare interview
Raul Castro recently granted to actor Sean Penn, that the Cuban
political system is a negotiable item on any possible U.S. -- Cuban
agenda.[8] There is a good chance that the
Cuban regime is already planning ways to eviscerate any fresh
opening by the U.S. that does not fit with its visions of
perpetuating Communist rule.
Don't Send an Ambassador to Venezuela. Noting the
shortcomings of U.S. policy and the lack of a U.S. presence in the
region during the campaign, Senator Obama stated that, "demagogues
like Hugo Chávez have stepped into this vacuum. His
predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric,
authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the
same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past."
This was an excellent analysis. Yet what Secretary of
State-designate Hillary Clinton suggested before the U.S.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee-that we "need to care less
about what Hugo Chávez does and more about what we do"-does
not go far in mapping out a strategy for dealing with a Latin
American leader whom President Obama described just before
taking the oath of office as an "obstacle to progress" and who
makes anti-Americanism the cornerstone of his domestic and foreign
policy.[9]
The challenge of dealing with Chávez is
considerable. He is an outsized despot, a study in
contradictions in a country torn between an impulse to
populist socialism and the preservation of political and economic
pluralism. He enjoys a significant following among Venezuelan
citizens and is lionized as Fidel's successor.
The battle for the political soul and future direction of
Venezuela is for its people to determine. But the U.S. has a
legitimate, if still undefined, role in working with the majority
of Venezuelans who do not want a president for life, and bolstering
democratic pluralism as a right.
The primary concern of the United States is dealing with a
Latin American leader who routinely insults the U.S. and warmly
embraces every rogue and tyrant from Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe
to Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Chávez has forged a
strong relationship with an increasingly threatening Iran and a
resurgent Russia. Moreover, he intends to become the energizing
axis for Latin America's socialist integration as well a pivotal
player in a world that he hopes will freeze out capitalism and
globalization, and weaken the U.S.
Chávez has all the subtlety of a perpetually burning
American flag. Sending an ambassador to Caracas should be quietly
buried on the White House's to-do lists. A U.S. ambassador should
not return to Caracas without a comprehensive, tough-minded
strategy for dealing with Venezuela, one that focuses foremost on
actions harmful to U.S. interests, such as drug trafficking,
terrorism, Venezuela's support for the FARC insurgency, and
fronting for Iranian sanctions evasions. There needs to be
serious and satisfactory resolution of these issues before seeking
agrément for another ambassadorial sitting duck.
A one-on-one with Chavez at the upcoming Summit of the Americas in
Trinidad and Tobago in April is a bad idea. Cuba's presence should
not be welcomed either.
Conclusion
The Western Hemisphere will eagerly anticipate President Obama's
participation at the Trinidad and Tobago Summit of the Americas in
April. In Port of Spain, all eyes will be on our newly elected
President and the vision he puts forward for the future of
hemispheric relations. The President should be realistic and
present only proposals that can and will be funded by the U.S.
Congress and supported by the U.S. electorate. He should also make
clear that the fundamental principles of the U.S.'s Latin America
policy are defending democracy and liberty, advancing
democratic capitalism, combating poverty and exclusion, and working
together with our neighbors for a safer Western Hemisphere.
Ray Walser, Ph.D., is Senior
Policy Analyst for Latin America in the Douglas and Sarah Allison
Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and
Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The
Heritage Foundation.