Latin America Debated in the US Presidential Debates

Latin America has been notable only its absent from the US Presidential debates.

In the first two debates between Barack Obama and John McCain and the VP debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin Latin America was mentioned fleetingly, Hugo Chávez denounced as a demagogue and Palin accusing Obama of wanting to have sit down in direct talks with the ‘Castro Brothers’. Nothing very substantial at all.

To everyone’s relief the 3rd debate proved a whole lot more invigorating and most noteworthy, for this blog, a couple of important issues relating to Latin America were discussed - dependency on Venezuelan oil, NAFTA, FTAs with Peru and Colombia.

Here is a transcript excerpt from the debate:

SCHIEFFER: All right. Can we reduce our dependence on foreign oil and by how much in the first term, in four years?

MCCAIN: I think we can, for all intents and purposes, eliminate our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and Venezuelan oil. Canadian oil is fine. By the way, when Senator Obama said he would unilaterally renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Canadians said, "Yes, and we'll sell our oil to China." You don't tell countries you're going to unilaterally renegotiate agreements with them.

[…]

OBAMA: I think that in ten years, we can reduce our dependence so that we no longer have to import oil from the Middle East or Venezuela. I think that's about a realistic timeframe. Now I just want to make one last point because Senator McCain mentioned NAFTA and the issue of trade and that actually bears on this issue. I believe in free trade. But I also believe that for far too long, certainly during the course of the Bush administration with the support of Senator McCain, the attitude has been that any trade agreement is a good trade agreement. And NAFTA doesn't have -- did not have enforceable labor agreements and environmental agreements.

[…]

MCCAIN: Now, on the subject of free trade agreements. I am a free trader. And I need -- we need to have education and training programs for displaced workers that work, going to our community colleges. But let me give you another example of a free trade agreement that Senator Obama opposes. Right now, because of previous agreements, some made by President Clinton, the goods and products that we send to Colombia, which is our largest agricultural importer of our products, is -- there's a billion dollars that we -- our businesses have paid so far in order to get our goods in there. Because of previous agreements, their goods and products come into our country for free. So Senator Obama, who has never traveled south of our border, opposes the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The same country that's helping us try to stop the flow of drugs into our country that's killing young Americans. And also the country that just freed three Americans that will help us create jobs in America because they will be a market for our goods and products without having to pay -- without us having to pay the billions of dollars -- the billion dollars and more that we've already paid.Free trade with Colombia is something that's a no-brainer. But maybe you ought to travel down there and visit them and maybe you could understand it a lot better.

OBAMA: Let me respond. Actually, I understand it pretty well. The history in Colombia right now is that labor leaders have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis and there have not been prosecutions. And what I have said, because the free trade -- the trade agreement itself does have labor and environmental protections, but we have to stand for human rights and we have to make sure that violence isn't being perpetrated against workers who are just trying to organize for their rights, which is why, for example, I supported the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement which was a well-structured agreement. But I think that the important point is we've got to have a president who understands the benefits of free trade but also is going to enforce unfair trade agreements and is going to stand up to other countries.

And here's a video excerpt from the debate that highlights Obama's and McCain's differences regarding a possible FTA with Colombia:

Good News, Bad News - from the ‘Havana-Caracas Axis’

Not long after Bush, Rumfelds et. al., creation of the so-called ‘Axis of Evil’ it became commonplace to come up with a whole host of other minor axes that were concocting various threats to US power. The ‘Havana – Caracas’ Axis is a case in point. An axis that joined the scheming socialist plans of Castro and Chavez, into some form of simmering Caribbean cocktail of menace. For more on this do read this paper, The Cuba-Venezuela Alliance: “Emancipatory neo-Bolivarismo or Totalitarian Expansion?




However, things aren’t as simplistic as this. Instead of a single narrative that highlights the increasing reality of this ‘Havana-Caracas Axis’ it seems that in recent months two slightly diverging narratives are taking place. One that exemplifies that spate of positive reforms undertaken by Raul Castro in Cuba. The other where Hugo Chavez remains demonized as the leader-in-chief of the ‘Bad Left’ taking the continent down a dark and well-trodden path towards inevitable failure. Read Obama’s recent view on Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela

No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum. His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past. But the United States is so alienated from the rest of the Americas that this stale vision has gone unchallenged, and has even made inroads from Bolivia to Nicaragua (Remarks of Senator Obama: Renewing U.S. leadership in the Americas 23/05/08)

Every week now it seems as if yet another piece of Chavez legislation is branded about by the world press to exemplify his anti-democratic, anti-freedom credentials and entrench the ‘Bad Left’ narrative that Chavez personifies. This week for example it was all about,

a new intelligence law brought in by Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has caused concern among rights groups who say it threatens civil liberties (BBC News 07/06/2008)

On the flip side, a week doesn’t seem to go by without a tale ofet more Cuban reforms that vary from allowing ordinary Cubans access to mobile phones to the implementation of gradual free-market policies. This week, news coming out of Havana highlights the change in attitude toward gay rights,

with reforms that could give Cuba the most liberal gay rights in Latin America, says the BBC's Michael Voss in Havana (BBC News 07/06/2008)

This cobbled together with the reaching out of Presidential hopeful, Obama, towards the Cuban regime, indicates a narrative that emphasizes how Fidel’s little brother Raul is far more likely to bring Cuba back into the international fold, and how bit by bit he is transforming the country for the better.

Fidel Responds to Obama

Naturally it didn’t take long for Fidel Castro to respond to Barack Obama’s recent policy outlines on Cuba (see previous posts: ‘Todos Somos Americanos’ or ‘Barack Obama on Cuba’). Unfortunately, or not, the response didn’t come in the form of his typical 2-hour long diatribes in front of the Cuban masses, but rather a measured critique in the form of his column – “Reflections by Comrade Fidel” – in the Daily Granma, the official newspaper of the Cuban Communist Party.

The title of the article, “The Empires’ Hypocritical Politics” leaves no room for misinterpretation of Fidel’s views on the US. However whilst such views have been on ‘repeat’ the last 50 years or so, it was interesting to read the few words of praise that fell Obama’s way. Here are a few excerpts:

• I listened to his speech, as I did McCain’s and Bush’s. I feel no resentment towards him, for he is not responsible for the crimes perpetrated against Cuba and humanity. Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries an enormous favor.


• This [is a] man who is doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency.


• I am not questioning Obama’s great intelligence, his debate skills or his work ethic. He is a talented orator and is ahead of his rivals in the electoral race. I feel sympathy for his wife and little girls, who accompany him and give him encouragement every Tuesday.

But of course they were the numerous responses to the varying criticisms Obama himself made of Cuba. Too many for me to note here, however I did find it interesting how Castro highlights other areas in the Americas where injustice is being carried out – environmental crises, the food crisis - and questions how Obama, despite all his good words and intentions would tackle them. He then goes on to give his own interpretation on the current stand-off and how despite this, Cuba has achieved so much with so little. He finally seems to keep open the idea of cooperation with the US by stating, “We have never subordinated cooperation with other countries to ideological requirements.”

Both Obama’s and Castro’s opinions are interesting, though I doubt it really tells us anything fundamental about what an Obama presidency might mean for US-Cuban relations. So many actors and interest groups have their fingers in the pie that it’s almost impossible to work out now whether all these groups’ interests will all align themselves favourably, come the next few years, to bring to an end this long-standing conflict.

To read his full column click here.

Personally I wish he would syndicate his columns to newspapers here. Whether or not you agree with the things he writes, his eloquent writing and oratory style is still as unique and insightful as you’ll here from any political leader.

Todos Somos Americanos

“Ich bin ein Berliner”, was how John F. Kennedy in 1963, during the height of the Cold War, sought to reaffirm US support towards democratic West Germany shortly after the construction of the Berlin Wall.

Fast forward to 2008 and Presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, in a keynote speech on his proposed policies towards Latin America evoked a similar notion of solidarity (and use of a foreign language catchphrase…) by declaring: “¡Todos Somos Americanos!” (We are all Americans!)

Thankfully the situation vis-à-vis US-Latin American relations is hardly as problematic as US-USSR relations when Kennedy went to Berlin. However, Latin America has not only been a neglected continent under George Bush’s administration, but one in which a sense of US superiority and arrogance towards the region has left anti-Americanism throughout Latin America at its probably highest levels in a long time. This has facilitated, some would argue, the rise of certain leaders in the region who have gone out of their way to demonize the US, bypass any attempt to construct meaningful bilateral relations with the US, and consequently undermine US leadership in the region.

These were the issues that Barack Obama sought to address in his keynote speech, “Renewing US Leadership in the Americas” which he gave last week to the Cuban American National Foundation in Miami

If you have 30 minutes to kill here’s the speech in its entirety. Here also is a link to the transcript of the speech (Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Renewing U.S. Leadership in the Americas). Here is a link to the official Barack Obama plan for Latin America (A New Partnership for the Americas)



Naturally the first half of the speech focuses on Cuba - he was giving the speech to an audience of Cuban-Americans. Cuba has been one of the most contentious policy issues in the Americas, and a policy area in which Obama has chosen a distinctively alternative path from that of John McCain. Whereas McCain has vowed to maintain the hard-line stand on Cuba, Obama has vowed to ease travel restriction and money remittances to the island and whilst not stating it explicitly, he has opened the door for future high-level talks with the Cuban government. That said his language was tough, resolute and unyielding in its criticism of the Castro dictatorship. Cuban-American votes are important as any demographic group for his Presidential campaign and thus any evidence of his willingness to engage with Cuba has to be countered by an ability to show that he will forcefully stand-up and demand change from the Castro regime. It’s a hard conundrum to fix, and undoubtedly one that will depend as much on the Castro brothers’ perception of Obama as Cuban-Americans willingness to back down and negotiate with Cuba.

More tough words were aimed at Chavez and those who may choose to take their countries down a similar path (i.e. Morales and Ortega). The rebuilding of relationships with Chavez depends, again, on how Chavez and the likes choose to view Obama. Chavez’s qualms are supposedly solely with George Bush, not with the US, so it remains to be seen how Chavez would respond to a leader who wishes to reassert US leadership in the region.

In general the speech was an obvious hark back to “Good Neighbour” policies of the 1930s and 40s or the Alliance for Progress programme of the early 1960s. Both Democratic Party initiatives that focused the importance on a stable and friendly Latin America, and a cordial relationship based on solidarity and an equal standing amongst all partners. Hence the slogan to underline Obama’s speech: “¡Todos Somos Americanos!”

Latin American politicians may benefit politically from their imbuing anti-American rhetoric, but no Latin American country can gain economically or politically from maintaining such an unwavering anti-American attitude. The realities of the American economic and political might, the historical and cultural ties that continue to link North and South are just too strong to wish away. Most Latin American politicians know this only too well and will undoubtedly be hoping that an Obama presidency will allow them the leverage, amongst their own electorates, to promote healthy relations with the US.

With all this said and done I do still find it hard to believe that US foreign policy toward Latin America is unlikely to be at the top of eitherPresidential candidate’s foreign policy priorities. The issues of Cuba, Haiti, Mexican immigrants, and Colombian narcotics will undoubtedly remain the main areas of engagement with Latin America.

So how willing is the US ready to convert good words into good deeds and help cast off the chains of poverty? These were pledges John F. Kennedy made almost 50 years ago in his Alliance for Progress, but which today still remain elusive in US relations toward Latin America. Will Obama really be able to fulfil the goals which so many US Presidents have promised but failed to live up to?

More Reforms in Cuba

It really does seem as if Fidel Castro's Cuban Revolution is more likely to go out with a whimper rather than a bang. Since Raul Castro officially took over as President he has set in motion a number of reforms that may in future may lead Cuba down a path that seemed almost impossible when under the helm of Fidel.

Simple market principals are creeping up here and there. Most recently such measures as the ability for state workers to own their homes and pass them on to their children and wage limits being removed so as to allow more incentives.

Not so long ago the bans on purchasing electrical goods such as DVD players, mobile phones and microwave ovens were lifted. Not that I can see how the ability to purchase a microwave oven in the past could have in anyway undermined the Cuban Revolution and brought into danger.

Officially this step-by-step relaxing of the strict social economy is seen as a way to improve Cuban Socialism and by no means as an opening of the floodgates to full-flung ferocity of capitalism.

Despite these reforms supposedly being initiated by Fidel himself, Fidel has criticised what he terms people who worship selfishness. Referring to a report on wealth disparities in Romania - a former Communist country - he warns of the dangers of easy access to consumer goods.

Cuba's aid programme in Bolivia

With regard to Cuba, it seems that no matter whatever the debate of the day may be about, its defenders always seems to respond by highlighting the country's phenomenal health and education indicators. As much as those achievements must be applauded, it can at times become tiresome to hear proponents of Castro's regime use those achievements as a way to deflect any form of reasoned criticism. And whatever noble ideals the Cuban Revolution may have based on it would definitely be fair to say that they have over the decades off the rails, with or without US continued embargo and antoganism

That said with the rise of the Castro-Chavez Bolivarain axis (axis of evil or axis of hope?), the creation of ALBA as an alternative cooperation organisation, Cuba has again found a way to promote its astonsihing health and education policies. And stories like this - Cuba's aid programme in Bolivia -, about how Cuban doctors, bankrolled by Venezualan oil profits are doing wonders for the poor of Bolivia, only reaffirms that whilst so many may wish to see the end of the Castro regime, acts of solidarity amongst Latin American countries may be dearly missed.

What Would Obama do for Latin America?

Unfortunately I've been so caught up in the US primary season of late, that my daily browsing of Latin American news topics online has been undone by reading countless Obama vs. Clinton news stories. Hopefully the good people of Texas and Ohio will now put us out our misery and make sure that the dynastic politics of the Bush/Clinton rule of the White House can finally come to an end. Whilst I don't think I'm still any clearer as to whether Obama really will bring about the change that he and his supporters go on about (and am I the only one to think that his "Yes We Can" theme tune riff is a rip off our very own Bob The Builder "Can we fix it? Yes We Can!" theme song?).



Could Obama really fix the mess the US finds itself it?? Well with regard to US-Latin American relations one can only hope that he really does learn from the George Bush's mistakes. There are those that have lamented US disregard toward Latin America in favour of the Middle East and the more pressing issues of terrorism and fighting wars here and there. But perhaps with the US taking its eye off Latin America has given Latin American governments the breathing space they've needed to etch out their own way. Perhaps it is no coincidence that it had been George Bush that the 'New Left' governments have risen to power and been so successful in promoting Latin American autonomy. That said Latin America can not detach itself from the US, it has never been able to and it never will, so therefore any US administration that chooses to reconstitute their foreign policy priorities by focusing on Latin Americas rather than other far-flung corners of the world can only be a good thing for Latin America. Well that is if the Administration in power at the time is one that treats Latin America as an equal partner rahter than some subregion full of wild, unruly Latinos as many Presidents have done before (think Nixon & Reagan).



So returning to the possible idea of an Obama presidency how would he treat Latin America? There is some mileage in the criticisms posted by his opponents that his campaign is more about rhetoric than actual policy, so it still isn't clear to me what he might do in office. Here is a US article a did come across that points out how a democratic presidency would be far more beneficial for Latin America than say a Republican one. Though with regard to trade matters this may not be the case. Obama: Pluses, minuses on Latin America issues. Question is how would he solve a problem like Chavez and Castro, or perhaps more interestingly what would they do without resource to their persistent anti-Bush rhetoric.