After ignoring Latin America for years, US President George W. Bush is desperately trying to improve hemispheric relations. But his just completed trip to Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico came too late. Years of neglect could not possibly be erased by a trip long in photo opportunities and short in substance.
In the capitals of Latin America, Bush's visit has been interpreted as a reaction to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's increasing influence and popularity in the region. Certainly, Chavez seems to have seen it that way, as he consistently heckled Bush from afar.
Before flying to Brazil, Bush said that his administration doesn't get enough credit for its Latin American policy. But, this year, the US will provide economic assistance to Latin American and the Caribbean worth US$1.8 billion, which is US$200 million less than last year. Moreover, almost half of the total comes in the form of military aid, while US$716 million will go to one country, Colombia.
In an effort to increase its low popularity in Latin America, the Bush administration recently announced an additional US$75 million for education, and US$385 million to help finance mortgages for the poor. Also, the US Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort will make port calls in a number of Latin countries.
But these aid figures are absurdly low from a historical perspective. During the 1960s -- the years of president John F. Kennedy's Alliance for Progress -- annual aid to the region exceeded US$10 billion in today's dollars.
The first sign that the Bush administration didn't take Latin America seriously came on Jan. 1, 2002, when Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva was sworn in as Brazil's president. The occasion was solemn and charged with symbolism. After all, Lula was the first trade union leader ever elected to the presidency of a Latin American country.
Numerous heads of state and dignitaries from around the world attended the ceremony. But Bush was not among them; nor was Vice President Dick Cheney, former secretary of state Colin Powell, or any other prominent member of the US Cabinet. The US delegation, instead, was headed by US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, who, despite being a member of the Cabinet, lacked the political stature for which the occasion called.
With his traditional sense of humor, Lula dismissed the slight. Other Latin American heads of state, however, were not so casual; in fact, they were deeply offended. According to them, this was a reminder that, with only a few exceptions -- Cuba and possibly Mexico -- Latin America was not a political priority for the US.
During the years that followed, the US administration's attitude towards Hispanic undocumented immigrants alienated an increasing number of Latin American voters. As a result, in country after country they have elected presidents that are openly critical of the US and its policies.
Six years after Lula's inauguration, and despite Bush's trip, Latin American politicians continue to believe that their region is being neglected. It is true, they say, that the Bush administration launched the Free Trade Area of the Americas, but hemispheric free trade looks as distant today as ever. Moreover, the handful of free-trade agreements signed with individual countries, or groups of countries, are lopsided and overwhelmingly favor US interests.
In order to regain Latin America's support -- and to dent Chavez's popularity -- the Bush administration will need much more than a short trip. Passing a comprehensive Immigration Bill that normalizes the legal status of millions of Latin American workers in the US may help. Reducing US agricultural protectionism significantly would be an equally positive measure in drawing the poison out of diplomatic relations.
Sebastian Edwards, a former chief economist for Latin America at the World Bank, is currently professor of economics at UCLA.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS