Latin American politics important to U.S.

March 9, 2009 by Eva Rodriguez-Saenz 

Ignoring Central, South America will prove detrimental

Brazil’s President Lula da Silva said, “The U.S. must look at Latin America in a greater context than that of drug trafficking and organized crime.” Since his inauguration as the leader of the free world, President Barack Obama has aggressively pursued a vast agenda that deals with an economic recession, a handicapped health care system and an on-going Middle East conflict. 

However, Latin America awaits the approaching Fifth Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago as the perfect stage for the American president to unveil his true intentions. Prior to the world recession, recent years had seen economic growth in certain Latin American countries such as Brazil. 

At the same time, Latin Americans have experienced a gradual shift in their ideological spectrum. In a recent 2008 Gallup Poll of 19 Latin American countries, individuals described themselves as leaning more toward socialism than capitalism in a ratio of 2.52 to 1. 

It is important to note that the socialism Latin Americans seem to promote is not necessarily in line with Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez’s approach of a “strong headman.” It is, however, indicative of a region that seeks strong leadership whether it is through a socialist or a capitalist approach. 

Socialism is not necessarily a dirty word in Latin American politics, as it seems to be in the U.S. It is perhaps this understanding that has propelled some heads of state to call for a lessening of embargos on Cuba, as well as Cuba’s inclusion in events such as the Summit of the Americas. The U.S. hard line approach to Cuba has always been questioned by academics, but it has now gained more popular consciousness and many see the U.S. as a regional bully. 

It is no longer enough for the U.S. to show that its heart is in the right place when it comes to the region. This is a progressively dynamic area with great potential for economic development. Even Russia and China have taken a keen interest in enhancing diplomatic and economic ties with the region. 

As a result of a U.S. embargo on Venezuela, Chavez has sought Russia to buy military equipment in exchange for letting Russian armed forces have access to Venezuelan soil. China, prior to this economic recession, was one of the fastest growing economies in the world, which recognized the Latin American region as an important source of raw materials. The U.S. still retains its integral role in the region through its geographical ties and overwhelming economic ties. But the question is for how long. 

It would be unheard of for a Mexican head of state in recent years to use strong language when making a reference to the U.S. Yet in a recent interview with the Associated Press Calderon said, “Mexico is not a failed state. Our greatest challenge is having the world’s greatest consumer next to us.” 

American foreign policy has been inadequately focused in dealing with the region. For years it was primarily focused on the emergence of democracy and the war on drugs. 

However, now, the U.S. Council in Foreign Affairs has issued an independent task force to focus on migration, public security and social inequality. It is time to rethink the Latin American issue as a primary international policy matter. Our foreign policy shouldn’t merely be a reactionary policy only to be addressed when drastic situations like drug trafficking arise. 

Latin American policy spans beyond Fidel Castro and Chavez who are easily laughed off in American mainstream media as being “much ado about nothing.” 

Changing our foreign policy is about reshaping American perception of this region. Millions are dedicated to the region in international aid but with little, if any, diplomatic communication its impact remains inadequate in addressing the reality of a transforming Latin America. Books, journals and articles continue to title the region as the “forgotten continent” and if such is the scenario then the White House might wish to indulge in greater political accountability unless it wishes to deal with grave regional instability. 

The region was rarely, if ever, fully discussed in the recent presidential debates. Latino voters have to intricately weave the topic into the political agenda in order for it to be discussed. Hopefully, this is not an assessment of future policy but rather a resounding telling of the lack of interest and the separation between the regions that is only furthered by Obama’s lack of travel experience to Latin America. His first visit to the region will be in April for the Fifth Summit of the Americas where many hope for a sign of the path he will take amongst the bureaucratic formalities such events demand.