Message of Richardson

It is not crazy to think that the governor of New Mexico has aspirations of being the Secretary of State if Obama wins.

One of the big dilemmas that those charged with establishing the politics of the United States towards Latin America have historically been faced with is if it will be necessary to limit the topics of the agenda in order to re-establish eroded trust or if it will be more suitable to design a great project of hemispheric cooperation.

At the beginning of the month, the New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, speaking before the Organization of American States, revealed a plan of coming closer to Latin America that proposes solutions to specific topics and includes the elaboration of a continental project.

Richardson suggests that the United States close the prison in Guantanamo Cuba, as proof of its respect for human rights and affiliate itself with the International Criminal Court to evidence its adherence to treaties of international law.

He also advocates for the strengthening of political, economic, and environmental ties with the whole region but especially with Argentina, Brazil, and Chile and proposed to privilege diplomatic normalcy with the regime of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

Cuba seemed to him a separate story. He criticized the restrictions on visits of relatives and on the sending of remissions – restrictions recently reinforced by the administration of George W. Bush – and he proposed to lift the trade embargo in exchange for the liberation of political prisoners and advances in the re-establishment of democratic freedoms.

He emphasized the necessity of an integral immigration reform that would strengthen the border, punish those who employ undocumented workers and legalize the 12 million who are already here.

“But we do not need a wall,” he said. “If the United States wants to end illegal immigration, it needs to promote fair development for Latin America.”

How? By means of a new Alliance for Progress that incorporates humanist ideals proposed by John F. Kennedy, that does not seek unilateral economic expansion of the United States’ market with accords that impose the consensus of Washington and divide countries into friends and enemies, relieves the debts of poor countries and puts an end to poverty.

If we consider the speech that he made a week after having expressed his support to the presidential pre-candidacy of Barack Obama, his experience in international relations in Congress, in the Cabinet of Bill Clinton and in his well earned fame as successful negotiator with the dictators of Iraq, Sudan and North Korea, it would not be crazy to think that he is seeking the post of Secretary of State if Obama won the presidency.

Obama and Richarson agree completely with regards to what to do with Guantanamo and in their criticism of the current politics towards Venezuela and Cuba. Both propose more diplomacy with Chavez and to lift the restrictions on trips to Cuba and the remissions of relatives who live in the United States.

They also correspond on their vision of how to proceed in immigration reform and both masterly use the trade-union language to distinguish between the “free” and “just” trade that they propose, as in their criticism from the left of the proposals of the so called Consensus of Washington.

The big problem for both, however, is that even if Obama were to win the nomination and the presidency, and the Democrats win comfortable majorities in both houses of Congress, the urgent problems that the next president will inherit in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East, North Korea, and Iran do not promise rapid solutions. And the pitiable state of the national economy will prevent any president to think of a plan of large scope for Latin America, which demands economic resources that the country does not have at its disposition.