Obama and the Americas
Can Obama create a new agenda for the Americas?
As the close of Obama’s second year in office approaches, a book has fallen into my hands in which a handful of prominent academics analyze and evaluate the state of the relationship between the United States and Latin America during his administration, and propose ideas and effective policies to improve the relationship in the future.
“Obama and the Americas: Hope or Deception?” is the title of the book, edited by Abraham Lowenthal, Lawrence Whitehead and Theodore J. Picone, with a prologue written by Ernesto Samper Pizano. With great precision, the editors should have done away with the question and titled it “Of Hope and Deception,” because in the best cases Obama’s policies regarding Latin America have been marked by “benevolent indifference.”
Beyond the obvious sympathy that the authors display for Obama, the fundamental purpose of the book is to keep hope alive and to propose ideas for the construction of a “New Agenda for the Americas,” which emphasizes the defense of human rights and the environment, social inclusion, peace and democratic governance. It is a multi-lateral agenda that recognizes that “all Latin American countries are distinct and that change in the region is being carried out in various ways.”
In three chapters of the book, the editors offer reference points to understand the context of the relationship between Washington and a region composed of more than 30 countries, which have among them more differences than similarities. In the remaining eight chapters, there is a rigorous analysis of the relationships during the first 18 months of Obama’s administration between the United States and each of the following: Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Honduras and Haiti. The descriptions of these relationships highlight both the good decisions and the errors carried out by Obama’s administration and by each respective country.
Because of the depth and detail of the material I couldn’t possibly attempt to adequately describe every chapter within this space. Instead, I must simply convey that this book, without a doubt, will be of interest to the readers of El Tiempo.
In the essay about the relationship between the United States and Colombia, Michael Shifter looks towards the future and proposes ideas to rethink the relationship “in light of a change in the political atmosphere in Washington and a new government … in Bogotá … creating realistic expectations over what external players can and cannot do to help Columbia in its democratic governance.”
In order to construct a new agenda, writes Shifter, it is essential to eliminate the influence of the drug trade on the relationship and recognize that the “Colombians deserve credit for reasserting the country’s authority during the past few years…The United States’ contribution has been key, especially in the judicial and security sectors.” Shifter asserts that it is necessary to redirect the United States’ aid to social development to support the process of peace and the return of combatants into society and to put special emphasis on human rights and support the Free Trade Agreement between both countries.
If policies are rationally created and developed, I haven’t a doubt that Shifter’s agenda will evade encountering dissidence. The problem, nevertheless, is that the new political realities in the United States do not portend a harmonious relationship between the executive and legislative branches.
In spite of the strength of Shifter’s arguments and the positive benefits the new agenda could bring to both countries, in these moments of political uncertainty it is impossible to predict what American foreign policy will look like with regard to Colombia and the rest of Latin America in the next two years.
As the close of Obama’s second year in office approaches, a book has fallen into my hands in which a handful of prominent academics analyze and evaluate the state of the relationship between the United States and Latin America during his administration, and propose ideas and effective policies to improve the relationship in the future.
“Obama and the Americas: Hope or Deception?” is the title of the book, edited by Abraham Lowenthal, Lawrence Whitehead and Theodore J. Picone, with a prologue written by Ernesto Samper Pizano. With great precision, the editors should have done away with the question and titled it “Of Hope and Deception,” because in the best cases Obama’s policies regarding Latin America have been marked by “benevolent indifference.”
Beyond the obvious sympathy that the authors display for Obama, the fundamental purpose of the book is to keep hope alive and to propose ideas for the construction of a “New Agenda for the Americas,” which emphasizes the defense of human rights and the environment, social inclusion, peace and democratic governance. It is a multi-lateral agenda that recognizes that “all Latin American countries are distinct and that change in the region is being carried out in various ways.”
In three chapters of the book, the editors offer reference points to understand the context of the relationship between Washington and a region composed of more than 30 countries, which have among them more differences than similarities. In the remaining eight chapters, there is a rigorous analysis of the relationships during the first 18 months of Obama’s administration between the United States and each of the following: Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Honduras and Haiti. The descriptions of these relationships highlight both the good decisions and the errors carried out by Obama’s administration and by each respective country.
Because of the depth and detail of the material I couldn’t possibly attempt to adequately describe every chapter within this space. Instead, I must simply convey that this book, without a doubt, will be of interest to the readers of El Tiempo.
In the essay about the relationship between the United States and Colombia, Michael Shifter looks towards the future and proposes ideas to rethink the relationship “in light of a change in the political atmosphere in Washington and a new government … in Bogotá … creating realistic expectations over what external players can and cannot do to help Columbia in its democratic governance.”
In order to construct a new agenda, writes Shifter, it is essential to eliminate the influence of the drug trade on the relationship and recognize that the “Colombians deserve credit for reasserting the country’s authority during the past few years…The United States’ contribution has been key, especially in the judicial and security sectors.” Shifter asserts that it is necessary to redirect the United States’ aid to social development to support the process of peace and the return of combatants into society and to put special emphasis on human rights and support the Free Trade Agreement between both countries.
If policies are rationally created and developed, I haven’t a doubt that Shifter’s agenda will evade encountering dissidence. The problem, nevertheless, is that the new political realities in the United States do not portend a harmonious relationship between the executive and legislative branches.
In spite of the strength of Shifter’s arguments and the positive benefits the new agenda could bring to both countries, in these moments of political uncertainty it is impossible to predict what American foreign policy will look like with regard to Colombia and the rest of Latin America in the next two years.
Previous article![]( "The Flirtations of Hillary, 63, with the 2012 Presidential Elections: The Clintons’ Fantasy")
