Central American Integration System Summit Sows Uncertainty

U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to Central America left behind the bitter taste of uncertainty. He left a mark on Costa Rica’s internal affairs and, during the Central American Integration System Summit, notified the other presidents of the region in passing that there was no room for their countries in Washington’s crammed schedule. So what did the hundreds of people overambitiously displaced toward what his aides call the far jungles of Central America reply?

During his stay in San Jose, Obama did not respond to multiple questions asked by Central Americans and left the presidents present at the Central American Integration Summit waiting for new lines of action. Speeches about the old days and promises made by his predecessors are still buried under the weight of imperial power. Obama responded with a definitive “no” to his Panamanian counterpart, Ricardo Martinelli, who asked for gas to be sent for a new store on the banks of the Panama Canal.

Martinelli, a supermarket magnate, meddled with the lawyer of the most powerful financiers in the world. Obama insisted on resurrecting the regional open market proposal put forward by Clinton 15 years ago. He completely forgot that he signed an asymmetric “free trade” agreement with the states in the region. Could he have been thinking about the Chinese driving force or the current problems in the failure of the eurozone?

In addition, Obama did not respond to the question of several of his colleagues about the policies that the U.S. is applying against Venezuela. The majority of Latin American countries want to improve their relations with the country of fallen leader Hugo Chavez. Only Nicaragua is a member of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA) and Petrocaribe. However, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras want to share in the advantages that Venezuela offers in the form of oil at low prices. In reality, the prices are very favorable in comparison to those that the New York Stock Exchange offers, which fixes the price of Houston’s oil.

The U.S. has stood alone, isolated from the world in its obtuse position of not recognizing the results of the presidential elections of April 14. Obama’s position contrasts with the conservative Spanish government that Mariano Rajoy leads, which has already recognized Nicolás Maduro as the new Venezuelan president. In addition, J. Miguel Insulza, secretary general of the Organization of American States, had to go back and accept Maduro’s electoral win.

Obama’s logic recalls the politics of U.S. President John F. Kennedy in 1961, when he locked his country in a position that wound up breaking with the Cuban Revolution and Fidel Castro. In the case of Venezuela, the recent elections offered Obama the possibility of working with the rest of the countries in the region to strive toward a hemispheric political agreement. But in San Jose, instead of advancing in a direction that could produce favorable results, he maintained his position opposing Venezuela and, indirectly, the rest of the continent as well. He fanned the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which includes four Latin American countries: Mexico, Colombia, Peru and Chile, in such a way as to challenge ALBA, the Southern Common Market and the Union of South American Nations.

U.S. analyst Mark Weisbrot commented:

“The Obama administration … does not accept that the region has changed. Their goal is to get rid of all of the left-of-center governments.” He added that Brazil “must be vigilant.”

Brazil has already asked Obama to keep its distance from Venezuela. Both Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff and former President Lula da Silva had strong words in defense of the integrity of Chavez’s country.

Without a doubt, Washington’s politics aim to destabilize the region. The question will be: What immediate or short-term objective could respond to a strategy like this? The U.S. mafia — with control over global drug trafficking and the anti-Cuban “lobby” — is comfortable with the unexpected approach of the White House. Republicans, who still yearn for the days when “hawks” were directing U.S. foreign policy, look positively on a possible war against a South American country. It cannot be forgotten that the U.S. has sent battleships to Venezuela’s Caribbean coasts on occasion in the past.

Obama could be thinking of a great strategy along the lines of the free trade Trans-Pacific Partnership. Latin America and its enormous riches are still of enormous importance to the U.S. The U.S. has to balance Latin American countries and Venezuela appears an obstacle. President Maduro is seen today as Chavez’s apprentice, an inimitable leader who led a continent thirsty for social justice. But the recent electoral triumph achieved what is essential: Maduro is the successor and will continue Chavez’s policies.

What is important in this new scenario to understanding the circle that governs alongside Obama is that the movement Chavez started has found its way and will continue advancing and fighting, despite the absence of its founder. Therein resides the threat to U.S. hegemony. As a consequence, Obama played a card of uncertainty at the Central American Integration System Summit.