So what is the Barack Obama administration's strategic plan with respect to Latin America? It's tempting to conclude it simply doesn't have one, at least at the moment. From a political perspective, the man who should be behind policy towards the region, Arturo Valenzuela, hasn't even taken up his post yet, nine months into the administration, as his nomination as assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs has been blocked by Republican senators led by Jim DeMint in protest of Obama's stance on the Honduran coup. The irony is, of course, that Obama doesn't really have a policy on Honduras either, being mildly critical of both elected President Manuel Zelaya and interim leader Roberto Micheletti, but clearly preferring not to get too involved. And apart from a lot of pleasantries about there being no senior or junior partners in Washington's relationship with Latin America, so far Obama himself has shown scant interest in his southern neighbors. He's only set foot in Latin America once since taking office - a very brief visit to Mexico in April while on his way to the fifth Summit of the Americas in Port of Spain - and has generally adopted a "let's be nice to everyone and sit on the fence" approach, even with regards to Hugo Chávez & Co.
But rather than ask what the strategic plan on Latin America is, maybe first we should ask whether the Obama government needs a plan at all? If his policy is going to be what we've seen so far, perhaps not, but with respect to trade at least, he should have one, as the region needs it. Yet, here again there's not much cooking. While visiting Chile last week, Obama's commerce secretary Gary Locke made it pretty clear that we shouldn't expect much in the way of more free trade agreements with Latin American countries, let alone deals on a more regional basis. Asked about the prospects for ratifying the FTA reached under George W Bush with Colombia, Locke declined to give any indication of whether or when it would get the nod from Capitol Hill, saying the priorities for the Obama administration in terms of passing legislation are healthcare and energy.
That's perhaps not surprising, considering the strong opposition to free trade in the US congress, mainly among Democrats like Obama (many of whom prefer protectionism), the lack of the fast track authority for ratifying deals and the current economic climate. But what was perhaps surprising was that Locke, when asked about the topic by a reporter, obviously was not even aware of past attempts - led by US governments - to create the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which was supposed to be the free trade bloc par excellence, from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego (conveniently excluding Cuba) and be in place first by 2000 (according to George Bush Sr) and then by 2005.
Indeed, the Summits of the Americas were in a sense born out of attempts to maintain the moribund process of FTAA and continental integration alive, a process that fell apart amid unseemly squabbling between free traders and Chávez's Alba bloc of nations over everything from intellectual property to US farm subsidies, with Bolivia's Evo Morales calling the FTAA "an agreement to legalize the colonization of the Americas."
October 18, 2009
bnamericas
