Obama’s South American Honeymoon has Ended

There are loves that last only a little while. Just a couple of months earlier, Latin American presidents were celebrating the inauguration of the new administration under the leadership of Barack Obama. This celebration was perceived as the beginning of a new era in the hemisphere’s relations. Now, however, the honeymoon has ended.

Brazil, spirited by its economic growth and the recent report in The Economist on its front page under the title “Brazil Takes Off,” is radicalizing its foreign policy. The last clash between the United States and Brazil is the dispute regarding the elections of 29 November in Honduras.

Obama was acclaimed at the Fifth Summit of the Americas held in Trinidad and Tobago and praised when the U.S. joined the vote that lifted Cuba’s suspension from the Organization of American States. However, the election in Honduras, Brazil’s open support for the Iranian regime and the debate concerning American troops in Colombia have ended the love affair.

Brazil will not recognize the outcome of the elections in Honduras; the U.S. will. Both have some valid reasons: Brazil says that recognizing an election convened by a de facto government will establish a bad precedent and will encourage coup d’états in other countries. The United States reminded us that the elections in Honduras were planned before the coup d’état and that almost all current Latin American democracies were born by elections convened by dictatorships.

Other critics are remarking on the fact that Brazil is pleading for economic sanctions for Honduras, which has celebrated multiparty elections; at the same time, it is demanding Cuba’s economic sanctions to be lifted, a country that has not had multiparty elections in more than five decades. Regarding Iran, Lula gave President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an official reception at a time when the world is condemning the Iranian Nuclear Program and Ahmadinejad’s dubious electoral victory.

The Department of State is not anticipating a confrontation between Brazil and the U.S., but was disappointed by the Brazilian vote in regard to the Iranian Nuclear Program at the U.N. Even China, India and Russia were in support of the U.S., whereas Brazil abstained. Also, Brazil abstained from voting in regard to Iran’s conviction in matters of human rights.

What is behind the radicalization of Brazilian foreign policy? Some Brazilian analysts say that economic success has gotten to Lula’s head. Others are remarking that it is part of Brazil’s campaign to obtain a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. However, the most probable explanation is Brazil’s internal policy. For October’s 2010 presidential elections, Lula’s candidate, Dilma Roussef, is behind Sao Paolo’s governor, Jose Serra, in the polls. Both of them are central-left candidates and Lula wants to assure that Roussef will not be surpassed by the leftist, so he is trying to represent Serra with limited “progressive” credentials.

My opinion: Obama will prevail over Lula when it comes to the Honduran crisis. The 27 nations that are part of the European Union will support the U.S.’s stance of recognizing the elections. Behind Porfirio Lobo’s assumption it is most likely that the Honduran crisis will soon disappear from the headlines and more Latin American countries will recognize the new administration.

Everything is indicating that Washington and South America will not return to the love affair of a couple of months ago. Obama was applauded for differentiating himself from George Bush’s political arrogance, but he lacks an active and efficient policy toward Latin America. If Obama doesn’t start paying more attention to the region, it will be difficult to revive the romance.

“The relations between the White House in regard to Latin America seem to get colder due to the stances taken by the region’s various countries in regard to the case of Honduras and the Iranian regime.”