As US President George W Bush gears up for a trip to Latin America this month, Latin Americanists and foreign policy wonks take a look at how the administration has handled relations with the region since 2000. Though Latin America was supposed to be a priority for him, September 11th shifted the nation's worries to other parts of the world, and Latin America was put on the backburner for several years.
Among the issues Bush will need to discuss with his counterparts is what the US army is doing in Paraguay, how to "promote trade and democracy", and the US farm subsidies that Argentina and Brazil would like to see abolished. Though his trip will only include the Southern Cone and Panama, he may hear some complaints as to how Bush has handled his awkward relations with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick's troubles in Nicaragua, and, as always, immigration issues.
How has the Bush administration handled Latin America policy so far? Tell us what you think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
It might be said that there is an ABSENCE of policy.
The Cold War mentality that exsists within the Bush administration is one of the main problems with US policy towards the Americas. (e.g. Otto Reich). Policy cannot be dictated by an oversimplified "us-vs.-them" framework, IMO. Complex problems require complex solutions that are not mere bullet points. (My two cents for now).
My preference is that the U.S. have NO policy toward Latin America. I think the Latin Americans are better off that way.
But why?
Here's a short article I wrote about the issue, entitled, "Wishing Kerry Would Shut Up about Latin America."
"http://counterpunch.org/delacour07092004.html
I agree with Justin. Talking about US "policy" implies the US has a right to interfere in other countries activities.
Why not discuss Venezuela's, or Brazil's, or Mexico's "North American Policy". I really think they need to do something about the rogue regime to the north that violates human rights, doesn't allow fair elections, and invades other countries. That place north of the Rio Grande definitely cries out for regime change.
The American policy towards Latin America has really been the same as always, as we have seen with "deals" like CAFTA and the presence of militia at the border with Mexico. There is a real need on the part of America to keep Latin America subservient to them, and efforts are made in that regard. This would be a teency bit more acceptable to me if the relationship between the US and L. A. were more symbiotic in nature. For example, in a disaster scenario like Stan, the US would put up money for aid in direct proportion to the amount of work Latinos do in this country for which they are desperately underpaid, even legal immigrants. It seems that Americans love Latino hands when they can do the dirty work and cook them exotic food, but they don't want to see Latino faces, even when the fact is we are fast becoming a force to be reckoned with. But the lack of aid from America is not surprising at all when I consider that the US has NEVER helped latin America in any way and has only hurt the region more and more deeply over the years.
I'm actually glad that Bush has not been so hands on when it comes to Latin America as past presidents have been. We are still reeling from the wars of the eighties which, although I know I can't place all the blame for them on America, were propped up by aid from Reagan, and no country in the region has been invaded by the CIA for decades, so we are glad to have a bit of a breather.
Latin American leaders are not so happy in subservient roles these days and are getting a bit restless, which I am very glad to see. This is the time for them to do that: when the patron is looking the other way, the workers can plan their retaliation.
To summarize what I just wrote to my congressman Jim Kolbe, chairman of the House subcommittee on government operations, I am puzzled why you rejoice about the amount of money you have obtained for border security when your votes for free trade agreements have promoted illegal immigration?
Our government has not handled Latin America policy very well at all. The way it has been handled, only the U.S. has been receiving any benefit from the products and resources from Latin America. From my understanding, our government has agreements with Latin America concering free trade. These agreements in turn do not even allow free trade as much as they do help us with cheap trade to earn the most profit.
One reason why there is so much grumbling about immigration but no will to do anything concrete about it is because there is a disconnect between US domestic perceptions and reality.
For example, while it would hurt many sectors of the US economy if we cracked down and sent millions of illegals back south and cordoned off the border, it wouldn't decimate it. And Americans know that. On the other hand, it would decimate many Latin American economies. For example, money sent back home from people working in the United States makes up forty percent of the Bolivian economy (link in Spanish). I am sure it is the same in other countries. So if we cut off this source of income (plus if we cordoned off the border we would also cut off income from drugs, also an important source), the likelihood is that we would see a growth in pre-revolutionary movements across Latin America like we haven't seen since the Sandinista/Salvadoran insurgency era (or maybe even since the heyday of Castro and Che Guevara). To counter this, we would have no choice but to pour in really massive amounts of foreign aid-- money that the government would have to provide (read tax increases) but right now is being provided in small change by millions of private citizens who are employing illegals.
So, because the public is anti-immigrant but the reality is that they actually can't get tough on immigration, what we see is politicans talking tough and proposing bills with tough sounding language that actually accomplish little (the best laugher is the Kyl-Cornin bill that requires people who are here illegally to go back home and apply for citizenship-- talk about locking the barn after the horse is gone! But Kyl is up for re-election and Cornin will be in a couple of years, so they can look tough and the voters will probably eat it up).
And the irony is, the rest of our Latin America policy is so non-existent that it makes our immigration policy look coherent by comparison.
Post a Comment