Obama: Re-Conquering the Backyard

“It’s time for a new alliance of the Americas. After eight years of the failed policies of the past, we need new leadership for the future.”

— Barack Obama

The challenges of U.S. foreign policy begin with recapturing world leadership — re-working Madeleine Albright’s doctrine of dissuasive diplomacy, which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is developing with a bit more charm. This supposes that the U.S. must re-establish its presence in multi-national organizations, much maligned by the Bush foreign policy, reconstruct relations with Europe, and serve as a deterrent factor in the Middle East, the region where the new Secretary of State appears to be concentrating all of her energy.

The new president, who certainly has good intentions, has inherited an agenda full of the costs of the senseless and useless wars unleashed by Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the growing power of countries like Iran and North Korea, who threaten to destabilize a fragile world order, stuck together with chewing gum.

In the near East, the recent fall of one of Washington’s once-favored regional dictators, Hosni Mubarak, and the ever expanding popular uprisings against long-standing petroleum producing dictatorships, are reminders of a critical situation which may spiral out of control, provoking a bloody invasion by NATO on the massive oil fields of Libya in particular. The latent undeclared war between the U.S. ally par excellence, Israel, and the Iran-Syria-Hamas alliance, is the cherry in this explosive cocktail.

Obama’s speech on the re-establishment of national unity in the United States is the platform on which he has structured his foreign policy of a “non-aggressive” international order, and recuperation of traditional allies (inaugural address, January 20, 2009.) Obama began his term under the flag of “Obamamania” (German Gorraiz, Revista Colarebo 2010), a sociological phenomenon which converted an inexperienced candidate of unknown political ideology into a popular icon, stirring the winds of change, and returning hope and optimism to an American society in crisis.

Nonetheless, the difficult context in which the new president must operate contains too many problems for Latinos to ever become a serious priority in his foreign policy. He must confront difficulties on the home front from Republican attacks on some of his public policies, while at the same time addressing a fiscal deficit of $1.3 trillion dollars in 2010 — equal to 8.9 percent of the U.S. GDP — along with a significant fall in tax revenue, a rise in unemployment benefit costs, and an economic recovery that is slower than expected.

The Republicans, with their new fascist wing, the so-called tea party, have a greater capacity in the Senate as well as the House to impede the administration’s initiatives and block the policy changes that the White House has put into place — for example, in relation to Cuba, immigration and health care reform. Now they are in a position to set the agenda and influence the political debate. As majority party, the Republicans will set the agenda and calendar in Congress.

The Republican leaders, among them the new committee chairs, will have greater visibility and media access. Their position with respect to Latin America, especially what is going on in the southern cone, is well known.

“Although the expectations are enormously high there is a limit to how quickly things can change, given, already, that the new president is saddled immediately with whatever the state of the global financial crisis is, still two major military operations overseas, [and] a great deal of other priorities at home that are demanding attention,” said Stephen Flanagan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in 2009. With this state of affairs, I believe that any benefits for Latin America will be minor, and always determined by a foreign policy of self-interest and hegemony, with which Washington defends its national security.

The high priority themes which are evident in Latin American policy, rather than a concern for the development of our people, are: the fight against so-called “narco-terrorism,” a politically convenient concept which, as interpreted by the Pentagon, contains a subtle dose of revisionist counterinsurgency; the expansion and development of the market for American exports; immigration and financial support for the so-called friendly regimes, which share and profess support for that particular sense of American democracy that is imposed on foreign lands with blood and fire.

However, many Latin American leaders (and their people) are trying distance themselves somewhat, developing their own worldviews, and working to obtain a more permanent autonomy. It is not so much that the region is becoming more anti-American as it is an emerging sense of disillusion with what the U.S. represents.

“We will be steadfast in strengthening those old alliances that have served us so well, including those who will serve by your side in Afghanistan and around the globe. As influence extends to more countries and capitals, we also have to build new partnerships, and shape stronger international standards and institutions…. The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times — countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing wounds.” (Obama, May 2010)

We have some large-scale problems in common, such as drug trafficking, the growing financial power of money-launderers and the corruption that corrodes our institutions. But Latin America has other serious problems as well. Our continent has the most uneven distribution of wealth in the world. Poverty and inequality are fertile ground for violence and crime, and foment migration. Although this is primarily our own responsibility, the United States could do much more to help. U.S. development aid to the region, according to figures from the Agency for International Development, was barely $1 billion in 2007 to 2008. The goals of the millennium have been frustrated by the onslaught of an exploitative economic system, headed by the United States, which keeps the noose around our neck.

Latin Americans know that many attempts to fight poverty and improve education, public safety and health in their countries succumb to special interest, corruption and weak institutions, unable to duly protect the fundamental rights of their citizens. Although this seems to be improving in some countries, at the same time, the influence that the United States seeks in order to impose its political rules of the road is being pushed aside.

As we have said on many occasions, there is no doubt that issues of public safety and violence control the political agenda in Latin America, as well as the national security agenda in the U.S. Cooperation in this sphere, as defined by Obama and the Pentagon, focuses on controlling the flow of immigration and the accelerated expansion of drug trafficking, as well as practices such as illicit arms trafficking. In addition to Mexico, three countries, united by shared borders stand out: Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. They stand out as places where crises of government and of state have reached their maximum expression in a situation of uncontrolled crime — especially organized crime — which has clearly penetrated the highest spheres of political decision-making, while justice is captive to spurious interests, far removed from the concerns of citizens.

President Obama is coming to Latin America again, with several foreign policy strikes against him, in contrast to his conciliatory rhetoric. The embargo on Cuba continues; the coup in Honduras was legitimized; the ambassador to Venezuela provoked a quarrel with the Chavez government; seven military bases have been constructed in Colombia; troops have been sent to Costa Rica and Haiti; and finally, a dispute with Argentina was provoked by the failed attempt of the U.S. military to secretly ship arms, encrypted communications equipment and drugs into that country.

I agree with the prevailing opinion in Latin America that Obama’s intentions have little importance. U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America is planned and executed by the Pentagon, which is separate from the White House, and has a budget twice as large as Mrs. Clinton’s budget for diplomacy. The President of the United States is certainly an honorable man, but let’s not forget that there are other powers that define the imperialist, militarist essence in the world, and under no circumstances are they prepared to weaken themselves.