US Latin America Policy: Sterile and Ugly

Aside from the torrid last minute anti-Castro bashing in search of Florida’s electoral votes, the Republican presidential hopefuls have framed their stance on contemporary US-Latin American relations within the context of sterile Cold War-era doctrines and dated clichés.

By Robert Valencia
After President Barack Obama delivered the last State of the Union address for his current term in office, the Republican leadership and aspirants for the presidency immediately charged that his words read more like a “state of the presidential campaign.” This is an interesting claim to be making in light of the theatrical nature of the Republican candidates’ presidential debates that have characterized the party in recent weeks, not to mention challenger Mitt Romney’s issuing his own “pre-buttal” prior to the address, criticizing the President on any number of issues. Even amid the many instances of the two parties’ ideological-soaked clashes, one common feature is starkly clear -- they hardly have expressed a comprehensive approach on US-Latin American relations.

Aside from the torrid last minute anti-Castro bashing in search of Florida’s electoral votes, the Republican presidential hopefuls have framed their stance on contemporary US-Latin American relations within the context of sterile Cold War-era doctrines and dated clichés. These have not only included weak (albeit intricate) positions aimed at Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, but also claims that somehow Hamas and Hezbollah pose a current threat by way of the Mexico border as a route for terrorism; in short, nothing more than pure invention.

During one recent debate in Florida, Latin America occupied part of the discussion, though this could just have been done to appease the large pool of Hispanic voters residing in Florida, a swing state that could heavily influence the outcome of the November presidential race. For example, former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) said that putting an end to Cuban and Venezuelan dictatorships is essential because these nations “would collaborate with Al Qaeda,” whereas Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, that world-famous medical team, discussed the fate of an ailing Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez.

As for Ron Paul, he forcefully criticized the US trade embargo against Cuba for the way it has been used as a mischievous tool against the Castro brothers by the White House to blame their internal problems on Cuba, a formulation that is largely steeped in science fiction rather than the record. None of these should be considered as anything more than examples of tossing wet offal at the barn door, hoping that some of it would stick. The only relief to this performance are Ron Paul’s classy words calling for the same kind of modus vivendi constructive diplomacy that the State Department is prepared to lodge at Washington’s other ideological foes like Iran, Burma and Syria.

Meanwhile, President Obama focused his State of the Union address on economic matters, such as narrowing the wealth gap, tackling “irresponsible policies that spurred an economic downturn, and tax reforms. His sole reference to Latin America were exaggerations of the recently implemented free trade agreements that the US entered with Panama and Colombia last year, citing that these treaties, alongside South Korea’s, will allow local businesses to contribute to the goal of “doubling US exports over five years.” Obama also proposed a trade enforcement unit that would curb the crossing of “unsafe goods” across the US border and investigate unfair trade practices.

Like the recent Republican debate, President Obama’s speech also proved that immigration, a relevant issue for Latin Americans and Hispanics living in the US alike, continues to resonate as a dominant feature of discussions on US-Latin American relations. He underscored that the decline of illegal crossings over the US-Mexico border was in part due to the fact that his administration “put more boots on the border than ever before,” and called Congress to act on a comprehensive immigration reform.

Ironically, the stars of both the Republican debate in Florida and the State of the Union chose not to use the opportunity to highlight other important areas in which Latin America can play an important role, such as homeland security and energy alternatives. For example, President Obama emphasized his push for clean energy projects, the decreasing reliance on foreign oil under his administration, the development of natural gas, and federal investments that led to an increase in renewable energy use. Yet he did not mention the importance of Brazil, for example, whose production of sugarcane ethanol. According to Brazil’s Union of the Sugarcane Industry (UNICA), the South American giant expects an increase of 12 billion litters of Brazilian ethanol to the United States by 2020.

Moreover, the War on Drugs was not even mentioned during the president’s address and hardly touched upon in the the Republican debate. President Obama seemed to be more concerned about Iran’s nuclear program and cyber-threats, despite the longstanding and menacing issue of gang violence and the illicit drug trade affecting US citizens living along the border area. Save former Republican presidential candidate Texas Governor Rick Perry, who last year brazenly proposed thedeployment of US troops into Mexico, none of the Republican candidates addressed real security issues related to drug trafficking and, like President Obama, focused their concerns on Iran and Al-Qaeda instead.

Should President Obama’s State of the Union and the Republican debate this week in Florida be an omen of what US-Latin America relations could come to look like over the next four years? Regardless of who will become the 45th president of the US, he will not be allowed to overlook the rising importance of Latin America, much less when the region’s countries are in a position to shore up the world economy, as is the case with the International Monetary Fund seeking Brazil’s financial help to assuage them. In addition, the US and other troubled economies can learn from countries like Argentina and Uruguay’s fiscal discipline after having suffered two of the biggest defaults in history.

The US should also collaborate with Colombia and Mexico in continuing to develop more effective strategies for eradicating the illicit drug trade and increasing security. Despite the great strides that Latin America has made in the last couple of years, the improvement still does not seem sufficient enough to register on the radar of US policymakers from any political stripe. Until that happens, it is unlikely that Washington will come to consider its southern neighbors as an intrinsic component of its foreign policy rhetoric, and that is ultimately a sad and ugly truth. (1/27/12) (photo courtesy Internet)

Note: This article was reprinted with permission of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs in Washington, DC.