Bush is leaving, what is coming?
By Michael Shifter
Perú Económico, February 22, 2008
As the options facing voters next November begin to narrow, Latin Americans and those who follow the region are increasingly asking the inevitable question: How will the new administration change US policy towards Latin America?
If recent history is any guide, the answer is very little. From George H. W. Bush (1989-1993) to Bill Clinton (1993-2001) to George W. Bush (2001-2008), the pattern over the past two decades has been one of continuity rather than change. For example, Clinton adopted the NAFTA agreement negotiated by his predecessor just as the younger Bush has championed the Plan Colombia effort developed under Clinton. So whichever senator takes over next January, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama on the Democratic side or the presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, it is unrealistic to expect a dramatic shift in Washington’s approach to the region.
Does Latin America Matter?
The clearest evidence for the continuity thesis is that the candidates have barely mentioned Latin America in the campaign. To be sure, there have been a few references to the region in the debates, including trade (particularly the agreement with Peru) and immigration. Moreover, the region has gotten more attention as the candidates compete for the increasingly important Latino vote in Texas and elsewhere.
But more than was expected even a few months ago, growing concern about the shaky US economy and the pressing need for health care reform have kept the candidates focused largely on domestic issues. To the extent that the campaign has dealt with foreign policy, the emphasis has, not surprisingly, been on Iraq. Whatever the candidates’ intentions, cleaning up that disaster is likely to consume the next administration for some time. With volatile situations looming in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea and China, Latin America seems likely to remain an afterthought.
Nonetheless, it is useful to try to anticipate how the candidates might respond to regional challenges that will almost certainly be facing them when they take power. Although it is tempting and logical to approach this exercise issue by issue – trade, immigration, drugs, security, democracy, and others – the George W. Bush presidency in particular has taught us that other areas of US foreign policy and intangible nuances of tone and style are more likely to determine the feasibility of a productive regional partnership.
Indeed, the biggest challenge for the next US administration in formulating its Latin American policy is to understand that while the last eight years of Bush's presidency have sown mistrust in the region, it is neither possible nor desirable to return to the mindset and approach that characterized Washington in 2000. Since then, Latin America and the United States have changed in dramatic and fundamental ways. For better or worse, globalization has reduced the relative influence of the US in the region and expanded both economic and political options for Latin American governments, especially those of the larger South American countries.
A Question of Personality
As a relative political newcomer with less political baggage than the other two potential White House occupants, Obama may be in a somewhat better position to grasp the implications of these transformations. The powerful rhetoric of Obama, who has become the frontrunner on the Democratic side, at times seems to reflect an understanding of these major shifts. But even a Clinton or McCain presidency would necessarily be forced to make adjustments when confronted by a region that refuses to accept the “backyard” label, or risk a further deterioration of the US-Latin American relationship.
Given his many years within the policy establishment, the candidate who perhaps would have the hardest time making the adjustment would be McCain. Yet, paradoxically, he is the one who is most sympathetic on the issues of greatest concern to most Latin American governments. The senator from Arizona, for example, is a staunch advocate of free trade, including the agreement with Peru as well as the more controversial and problematic accord pending with Colombia. He believes NAFTA, the free trade agreement signed by the US, Mexico and Canada in 1993, has been enormously beneficial on balance.
In sharp contrast, Obama and Clinton talk about reviewing the unpopular NAFTA accord, though precisely what that would entail is not clear. This stance reflects a recent shift in US public opinion, a change that is particularly marked within the Democratic Party (after all, Bill Clinton embraced the tenets of free trade, after all). Both are against the Colombia agreement, citing violence against union officials and high rates of judicial impunity. They supported the Peru accord, which was modified to incorporate labor and environmental provisions. Of course, Obama and Clinton only expressed approval after it was clear that, in contrast to the Colombia deal, they would not pay a political cost with labor unions, a core constituency of the party.
It is vital to distinguish between the shifting positions of the three candidates in the context of the fast-moving, competitive political campaign, and what they will do once in office. For example, many believe that, once in the presidency, Clinton or Obama (who are remarkably similar on most policy questions) would probably find a way to approve the Colombia trade agreement as President. Faced with the task of governing, the wider foreign policy implications of shelving or rejecting a negotiated treaty would weigh more heavily. Similarly, McCain has long criticized ethanol subsidies but has been more ambivalent on the issue while vying for the Republican nomination.
McCain has also backtracked somewhat on immigration, an issue of major concern to Latino voters and to many Latin American governments. Alone among the Republican presidential candidates this year, McCain favored a comprehensive immigration reform, combining border enforcement with a guest worker program and a path towards citizenship for the estimated 12 million undocumented workers in the country. He displayed considerable political courage by leading this effort in the Senate against the prevailing sentiment within his party.
Yet, while popular in the region, this has created friction between McCain and the more conservative majority of the Republican Party who embraces a hard-line approach. Hoping to burnish his conservative credentials and unite the party, McCain has recently given top priority to enforcement over other measures. Still, in view of the many predictions of anti-immigrant hysteria, it should be encouraging to Latin America that the Republican candidate with the most liberal migration posture was able to secure the nomination.
On the Democratic side, the differences between Clinton and Obama on the immigration issue are trivial. Like McCain, they both hold a relatively liberal view and support a more comprehensive reform but voted to build the “wall” on the US-Mexico border that has caused such resentment on its southern side. To date, Clinton has fared better among Latino voters than Obama has, particularly in California and Nevada, but the Texas primary in early March will be a test for both. Obama’s father was an immigrant from Kenya, after all, while many Latinos view Clinton favorably because of their fond memories of her husband’s record as president in the 1990s.
Sensitive Issues
How would the three possible future US presidents deal with the challenge posed by Hugo Chavez? The Bush administration’s policy has been notable for its confusion and incoherence. In January 2009, Chavez will lose his ideal foil and the next administration will have a chance to fashion a more consistent and sophisticated approach. McCain has had harsh words for Chavez and would likely pursue a more confrontational strategy, though it’s unclear what options would be available.
Many hope Clinton and particularly Obama would be capable of reducing US-Venezuela tensions in the short term. But with Chavez’s close alliance with Iran and recent threats to cut off oil exports to the US, it appears differences run too deep for just a change in the US administration to wipe away. Of course, Obama has emphasized his willingness to “talk” to the unfriendly governments in Venezuela and Iran without preconditions, so a more vigorous and effective diplomatic effort is at least a possibility.
Obama has also said that he would be prepared to talk with the regime in Cuba, a sensitive issue and probably the biggest source of irritation in US-Latin American relations over the past 40 years. Obama reflects a generational shift and would probably be more inclined to seek a rapprochement than Clinton, who has called Obama’s proposal naïve, and certainly more than McCain, who enjoys the enthusiastic support of the hardliners in Miami’s exile community. The eventual passing of Fidel Castro would change everyone’s calculations and force an immediate reconsideration of Cuba policy in Washington – one that will doubtlessly be watched closely across the globe, especially in the Spanish-speaking world. In fact, the death of such a symbolic and enduring figure in the months before the November election could quickly make Latin America a central campaign issue. On the other hand, the resignation of Castro from the presidency of Cuba has already taken place with relatively little impact on the campaign, so it is possible that even his death would cause just a fleeting ripple.
Latin Americans who have been understandably critical of the double standards emanating from Washington on human rights in recent years will be relieved that the three remaining candidates oppose the practice of torture, a delicate issue in the context of the global war on terrorism. McCain, of course, speaks from personal experience – he was a prisoner of war and subject to torture in Vietnam for more than five years. But he has recently backpedaled on this question in another effort to gain the support of more conservative members of his party.
These challenges will be daunting for the next president, as limited resources and political constraints make it unrealistic to expect grandiose schemes or costly new initiatives. But regardless of who wins, the good news is an unpopular administration will have passed and even modest adjustments in emphasis could significantly improve regional cooperation. More important than any single policy, the next president has the opportunity to show that he or she understands the transformations in the hemisphere and can respond constructively, without falling into bullying or apathy.