Adrift on Latin America

Observers from both the right and the left have criticized President Obama for his Administration’s lack of vision on Latin America.  The first hearing gaveled by House Foreign Affairs Western Hemisphere Subcommittee Chairman Connie Mack (R-FL) earlier this year was aptly titled:  “Does the U.S. have a policy approach toward Latin America?”  Columnist Moises Naim recently concluded that American policy toward Latin America is “well-sounding, well-meaning, but cliché-ridden and, ultimately, irrelevant.”

Of course, we live in complicated times and Latin America cannot be on the front burner.  We need our President to focus on the American economy and on our nation’s fiscal crisis.  Internationally, we need to be engaged on China and work through the turmoil in the Middle East. 

But we mustn’t lose sight of our own neighborhood.  Historically, American presidents going back to Jefferson and Monroe always have understood the importance of U.S. leadership in Latin America.  John F. Kennedy articulated an “Alliance for Progress.”  George H.W. Bush envisioned an “Enterprise of the Americas.”  Bill Clinton worked on NAFTA and initiated Plan Colombia.  George W. Bush pursued hemispheric free trade, bilateral trade agreements, and the Merida Initiative to prevent the collapse of Mexico to drug lords.

During his campaign for President, Obama criticized former President Bush for neglecting Latin America.  Obama characterized Bush’s policies as: “negligent to our friends, ineffective with our adversaries and disinterested in the challenges that matter to peoples’ lives.”  He promised to “reestablish American leadership in the Hemisphere.”  Today we can see that these words were just empty campaign rhetoric – and arguably better describe Obama’s own approach than the previous Administration’s.

The Obama Administration will insist that it has a framework for Latin America policy: “mutual respect.”  This is to suggest a shift away from the traditional complaint of American “paternalism” toward our neighbors to the south.  Mutual respect is commendable, but it is a talking point, not a policy.  At any rate, what we have seen from this Administration may or may not be respectful, but it isn’t friendship.  And it certainly isn’t leadership.

Initially, Obama seemed to display some interest in Latin America.  His early attendance at the 2009 Summit of the Americas raised expectations that the U.S. might make Latin America a priority.  The ensuing two years saw no movement, however.  This spring, as American warplanes were beginning to pound Libya, President Obama took his first trip to South America.  Unfortunately, the visit was all style and little substance. 

Lacking a positive agenda of its own, the Administration has been content to respond to events unfolding in the region, with less than satisfactory results.  A closer look at the current state of relations with three countries further reveals how the Obama Administration has, to paraphrase the candidate, neglected our friends, mishandled our adversaries, and diminished American influence in the Hemisphere. 

Honduras.  The Administration botched its first major Latin American crisis.  In June 2009, the Honduran military, acting on orders from Honduras’ Supreme Court, removed then-President Manuel Zelaya from office.  The Speaker of the Congress became Interim President as stipulated by Honduras’ constitution, and the country moved ahead with regularly-scheduled presidential elections five months away.

Immediately, President Obama characterized Zelaya’s removal as “illegal” and a “coup.” The U.S. failed to recognize Zelaya’s anti-democratic aspirations and the steps taken by the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress, which were in keeping with the country’s constitution.  Hondurans were surprised to see America, their long-time ally, siding with pro-Chavez forces.  Honduras was expelled from the Organization of American States (OAS), and the U.S. cut off certain foreign assistance.  The only way to restore Honduras’ standing, insisted the U.S. and others, would be by returning Zelaya to the presidency, which was a non-starter for Hondurans. 

Over time, the Obama Administration realized it had made a mistake in so strongly condemning Zelaya’s ouster and insisting upon his return.  They also recognized the easy solution afforded by Honduras’ November 2009 Presidential elections, which were free and fair.  It still took years for aid to be restored, though, and for Honduras to regain its place in the international community.  Last week, in fact, Honduras’ OAS membership was finally reinstated, thanks to the efforts Colombia and Venezuela.  Noticeably absent was any discernable American leadership role.  

Venezuela.  The biggest headline Obama made at the 2009 Summit of the Americas was his handshake with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez – a bit more “respect” than was deserved for a leader who regularly castigates America and stirs up trouble in the region.  Thankfully, Obama learned quickly that “engagement” with the Venezuelan strongman is fruitless.  Like his predecessor, Obama has decided to simply ignore the rants from Caracas as much as possible.  Chavez’s popularity in the region has been plunging without our needing to get into a tit-for-tat with him.

Ignoring hostile rhetoric is one thing, but the U.S. cannot ignore Chavez’ provocative actions. Venezuelan cooperation with Iran is unacceptable, as are Venezuelan ties to Hezbollah and FARC terrorists.  Last week, Obama belatedly moved to impose sanctions on PDVSA, the Venezuelan oil company, for doing business with Iran.  Venezuelan assistance in helping Iran circumvent sanctions, Iranian Revolutionary Guard activity inside Venezuela, nuclear cooperation between the two countries, and reports of an Iranian missile base in Venezuela raise further concerns.

It’s time for the Obama Administration to consider placing Venezuela on the list of State Sponsors of Terror.  At a minimum, the Administration needs to recognize that Venezuela is an adversary, focus on the gathering threat, and compile hard evidence of Venezuela’s illicit activity in order to develop a robust response. 

Colombia.  During the last two decades, Colombia has been one of America’s most reliable allies.  Former President Pastrana earned the trust of President Clinton and our two countries began working together to stop the country from becoming a narco-state.  Under President Uribe, Colombia came back from the brink.  Bilateral cooperation grew, and the Uribe Administration extradited over 1,000 drug traffickers to the U.S.  In 2006, Presidents Bush and Uribe signed a Free Trade Agreement to boost the country’s economic development and support economic alternatives to coca.

As a candidate and during the initial years of his presidency, President Obama opposed the trade agreement, which sent a terrible message to our ally.  Recently, Obama decided to support it, along with an “action plan” on labor rights.  The agreement continues to languish in Congress, though.  President Obama has done little to prod it along, leaving Colombians to feel that Washington has abandoned them.

A consequence of such poor treatment from Washington has been a realignment of Colombia’s foreign policy, including improved relations with Venezuela.  When Colombia recently apprehended drug kingpin Walid Makled, he was extradited not to the U.S., but to Venezuela.  The move was especially disappointing because of the information we could have gained from Makled about Venezuela’s cooperation with narco-terrorists.  Unfortunately, the Obama had signaled that neither Makled’s extradition nor the U.S.-Colombia relationship was a priority for them.  Forget “mutual respect” – here’s an illustration of the lack of respect Washington is getting from our erstwhile allies. 

Missed Opportunity.  Compounding the tragedy of our country’s lackluster approach to Latin America is the fact that the Obama Administration squandered a great opportunity to enhance ties with our allies and project American leadership.  President Obama’s personal popularity and the expectations of change he brought with him to the White House should have been accompanied by a vision that would make Latin Americans excited about partnering with America.

Crafting a Presidential initiative for the Hemisphere need not have entailed major new funding either.  Mutually beneficial trade agreements are an important way of solidifying relationships, and for most countries are more desirable than aid anyhow.  Alternatively the Administration could have repurposed and repackaged existing foreign assistance to reflect a vision or priority for the region.  This would have sent a much-needed signal that Washington still wants to be relevant in Latin America.

The last few years have been good ones for Latin America.  The region is enjoying rapid economic expansion.  Democracy has become the norm, though threats remain.  While an active China has been expanding its influence in the region, America has been conspicuously left out of Latin America’s dynamism. 

The sad fact is America is becoming irrelevant in our own neighborhood.