False Promises? Obama's Foreign Policy in Latin America
09/08/2010
Just a few months after taking office, President Barack Obama started hemispheric relations out on the right foot. At the Summit of the Americas held in Trinidad last April, he stated that he wanted to "launch a new chapter of engagement" in the region, establishing relationships with "no senior partner or junior partner". He shook hands warmly with heads of state including Hugo Chavez. He listened more than he lectured. Were we witnessing the birth of a new era in US-Latin American relations?
Not so fast. A year and a half into Obama's tenure, it's a good time to reassess his foreign policy. On balance, it's been a disappointment. True, things have improved somewhat over President George W. Bush's time in office. Then again, during the Bush administration, US-Latin American relations could scarcely have been worse.
Under Bush, the US predominantly viewed Latin America as a potential threat -- as the site of ant-American populists, uncontrolled immigration, drug production, and natural disasters. Response to these "problems" usually entailed more militarization: Plan Colombia was to be extended throughout the region and the US-Mexico border reached unprecedented heights of militarization. The Bush administration engaged in the vilification and even attempted destabilization of elected leaders like Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales. And it turned the US Naval base at Guantánamo into a lawless prison camp for detainees in the so-called war on terror.
So when Obama took the helm, many progressives took heart. Yet events soon raised questions about Obama's commitment to change.
The administration's first major policy challenge arose unexpectedly. In June 2009, democratically-elected Honduran president Manuel Zelaya was overthrown in a coup. The incident offered Obama an opportunity to showcase his new approach to the region by distancing himself from the US's past complicity with right-wing dictatorships. The White House did initially condemn the coup, but did not instate effective sanctions and failed to clearly condemn growing reports of torture and disappearances of protestors. After months of sending unclear signals, the US administration eventually supported the elections that took place under widely-condemned conditions of repression and media censorship. The icing on the cake was Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's casual comment during a recent visit to Argentina that "the Honduras crisis has been managed to a successful conclusion." Latin Americans were left to ponder the troubling precedent that the "managed" coup established.
Shortly after the Honduran debacle, the Obama administration announced the surprising expansion of US military bases in Colombia. Colombia is already littered with US bases, and the country receives a staggering amount of military aid, mostly for the failed and deadly "War" on drugs. So when the Pentagon wlluded to plans to "expand expeditionary warefare capability" through the new bases, it raised distrust in the region. It seemed like an angry repsonse to new Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa's refusal to renew a US military base on Ecuador's pacific coast. The new bases also had symbolic importance, suggesting Obama would not abandon the militarization schemes of his predecessor. The administration has even reverted occasioanlly to the threatening language typical of its predecessors, such as when Hilary Clinton warned Latin American governments seeking relations with Iran that they should "take a look at what the consequences might be."
Cuba also offered Obama a chance to distinguish himself. Since the last time a democratic president held office, the political winds have shifted notably. During the past eight years, nearly the entire foreign policy world has gradually embraced normalizing relations with Cuba to some degree. But, beholden to the logic of the electoral system that unfairly rewards Florida, Obama has avoided confronting the powerful anti-Castro lobby in Miami. He has certainly softened his rhetoric, has taken some minimal steps to reverse the most punitive measures of the Bush administration, and may soon renew the "people-to-people" travel instated under President Bill Clinton. Yet he has so far missed the historic opportunity to put an end to the absurd and anachronistic embargo. And Obama's fading commitment to close America's shameful offshore prison camp at Guantánamo -- surely the most moving promise of his presidential acceptance speech -- sends a disturbing message to the rest of the hemisphere.
Finally, Obama might have reversed the Bush administration's antagonistic relationship with Venezuela and Bolivia. Bush and his foreign policy circle viewed Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales as representatives of the "bad" Latin American left, inspired by Fidel Castro and disrespectful of international capital. Under Bush, diplomatic relations reached new lows, with both countries demanding the withdrawal of their respective US ambassadors in September 2008. Obama has not engaged in the belligerent provocations of his predecessor, but neither has he worked toward smoothing and improving diplomatic ties. As Morales commented recently, "it's just the color of the president that's changed."
Overall, Obama has backed away from the Bush-era aggressive militarization paired with neoliberal economic policy, and has avoided verbal denunciations and taunts. Yet he hasn't replaced that with a progressive, forward-looking, coherent new vision for the region.
What might a progressive policy agenda for Latin America look like? It could start by prioritizing poverty eradication and sustainable, equitable growth over national security and foreign investment. It might view the social-democratic nationalism that has emerged in different guises throughout the region over the past decade as an opportunity rather than a threat. It could include a humane and comprehensive immigration reform that would end the legal limbo of many migrants and help bolster their home countries' economies with their hard-earned remittances. It should end our ineffective, punitive embargo on Cuba. And it should involve a deep commitment to bilateral respect, labor protection, human rights, and national sovereignty.
During this time in office, Obama has been consumed with the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, beleaguered by an unwinnable war in Afghanistan, and confronted with prolonged provocation from Republicans over his moderate health care reform. His earlier intent to revisit US relations with Latin America seems to be getting lost in the shuffle. But it's a region he ignores at his peril.
