World
Petroleumworld
Bookstore
Institutional
links
OPEC
Petroleumworld
Business Partners
Blogspots
recomended
Le Blog des
Energies Nouvelles
  |
|
Petroleumworld`s
Opinion Forum:
viewpoints on issues in energy, geopolitics and civilization
Sunday's
FeatureHas the United States policy changed?
Obama's policy in Latin America and the Caribbean: Business as usual?
By Anthony T Bryan
Disappointing, mixed results, big gestures little substance, broken promises, are some of the terms used currently by leading academics and journalists to describe the progress, or lack of it, of President Obama's intentions announced at the Summit of the Americas in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago in April 2009, to engage the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean in a partnership of equals. At the Summit, the intentions of the Obama administration appeared fairly specific: to improve the atmosphere of inter-American relations which had deteriorated during the administration of George W Bush, to positively restructure relations with Cuba, to move quickly on US. Immigration reform and to pursue a consultative approach with regional actors and a common regional agenda with rising powers like Mexico and Brazil. According to Latin American polls, Obama himself is extremely popular in the region, and the image of the US has improved. But unfortunately, the year since the Summit has demonstrated that closing the distance between the Obama administration's change in tone and the actions required to change policy toward Latin American and the Caribbean, is easier said than done.
A Reality Check:
There have been some modest changes in US policy toward Cuba. Restrictions were lifted on family travel and remittances, US telecom companies are now allowed to negotiate deals with Cuba, and the US did not object to an OAS resolution that creates a mechanism for Cuba to return to that body under certain conditions if it chooses. New bilateral contacts between both governments including the twice annual immigration talks that had taken place since 1994, discussions over a postal service agreement, and possible collaboration on counternarcotics and regional security issues are some of the other initiatives for change. But it is doubtful that Obama's efforts to build a new relationship with Cuba can go much further. Because of the Helms-Burton law the executive branch does not have the power to lift the embargo. Only the Congress can do so. The administration's option is to unilaterally lift parts of the embargo, such as travel restrictions, without a vote from Congress.It can also remove Cuba from the list of the State Department's State Sponsors of Terrorism–but this is unlikely until Cuba improves its human rights record or shows evidence of democratic political change. Although the US public, including a majority of Cuban-Americans in South Florida, supports even more change toward Cuba than Obama has delivered so far the administration has stepped back, exhaled, and taken the position of its predecessors of waiting for Cuba to change. Progress on serious immigration reform, especially in a US election year, also seems unlikely. Obama's public commitment to seek a way for illegal immigrants that have worked in the US years to eventually regularize their status, or the formulation of a temporary worker a program adjusted to the demands of immigration for the labor market are initiatives that will have to wait.
A recent controversial law in Arizona (and also under consideration by other states) that gives local authorities the power to detain persons on the suspicion that they may be illegal immigrants further complicates the issue of local versus federal jurisdiction over immigration matters. Reluctance by the Obama administration to move forward is also apparent in the area of trade. While the White House has signaled its willingness to approve pending free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama, two of the best friends of the United States in the region, concrete steps have been postponed. There is talk of greater trade co-operation with Brazil, but subsidies to US cotton producers have been maintained and the high tariffs on Brazilian ethanol imports have not been reduced. The anticipated consultative approach by the US with regional actors suffered a setback with the former's ambiguous response to the June 28, 2009 coup against President Manuel Zelaya in Honduras. Initially the administration like all regional countries forcefully condemned the coup and called for Zelaya's restoration.
After months of stalled negotiations, Washington helped broker a solution in which previously scheduled elections for a new president would be recognised. The compromise left Washington sharply at odds with some other Latin American governments which argued that elections could not go forward under a de facto government. The Honduras crisis was an opportunity for the Obama administration to repudiate the history of US support for coups in the past. In the end doubts remain about whether US policy has in fact changed! A security agreement in August 2009 between the United States and Colombia, allowing US troops to use seven military bases in Colombia was openly denounced by a number of South American countries including, Brazil, Chile and Venezuela. The bases agreement had been under negotiations several months before Obama took office, but there is suspicion by some regional governments that US efforts to support Colombia in its battle against drug traffickers, guerillas, and terrorists (under the 10 year old Plan Colombia) would now be expanded to counter threats from neighbouring countries.
One year after Obama put forward his agenda for consideration by his regional peers, common goals have been sidetracked also by the sensitive matter of Iran's involvement in the region. Venezuelan President Chávez's predictable anti-US alliance with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is less of a concern than is Brazil's unexpected cooperative posture toward Tehran's nuclear programme. Brazil, as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, will have some influence in the adoption of any tougher sanctions against Iran. Whether Brazil can be persuaded to go along with US policy remains to be seen. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's warning to Latin America last December — that “if people want to flirt with Iran, they should take a look at what the consequences might well be for them”— is unlikely to help. It was an admonition that angered many in the region and seems at odds with the spirit of the new Obama administration.
Moving Forward
Progress on all of Obama's agenda has been difficult. None of his key initiatives toward the region has escaped the dominant influence of domestic politics or bureaucratic inertia in the US. Also today most Latin American countries are also listening to the sounds of different drummers. China, Iran, India and Russia are some of the new players offering a challenge to Washington's traditional game plan in the region. Brazil has an enhanced status on the global stage and in the G-20 is more likely to assert its influence within the BRIC group (Brazil, Russia, India and China) than with the US, Canada or other regional powers such as Mexico or Argentina. The waning influence of the OAS (Organisation of American States) in the face of new regional organisations such as ALBA (Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas) and the newly formed (February 2010) Community of Latin American and Caribbean Nations, which exclude the United States and Canada, has not gone unnoticed in Washington.The temptation for US policy makers to stay on the periphery of hemispheric affairs would be strong. But withdrawal is not an option. Business realities dictate otherwise. The US exports as much to Latin America as it does to the European Union. Moreover, common security concerns such as criminality and drug trafficking, as well as border issues (with Mexico), disaster response (Haiti), global warming, health and a variety of economic and social issues command hemispheric attention. As Obama tries to build a positive relationship those in Latin America should encourage closer co-operation with the US on areas where they can work together. It is not business as usual, but more often than not in an agenda for change the devil is in the details.
Anthony T Bryan, professor emeritus University of Miami is also a senior associate of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, DC. Petroleumworld not necessarily share these views.
Petroleumworld News 07/25/10
Internet web links to http://www.petroleumworld.com are appreciatedPetroleumworld welcomes your feedback and comments,
share your thoughts on this article, your feedback is important to us!We invite all our readers to share with us
their views and comments about this article.Write to editor@petroleumworld.com
By using this link, you agree to allow E&P
to publish your comments on our letters page.Copyright© 1999-2009 the respective author or news agency. All rights reserved.We welcome the use of Petroleumworld™ stories by anyone provided it mentions Petroleumworld.com as the source. Other stories you have to get authorization by its authors.
Send this story to a friend Any question or suggestions,
please write to: editor@petroleumworld.comBest Viewed with IE 5.01+
Windows NT 4.0, '95, '98 and ME +/ 800x600 pixels
