 |
|
|
 Editorials | Opinions | October 2007 
Does the US Really Care About Mexico and Latin America?
 Patrick Corcoran - MexiData.info
go to original
It’s a safe bet that in four years time, as President Romney or Clinton winds down his or her first term in office, we’ll have heard around 10 million complaints lamenting the lack of attention paid to Latin America.
Such is always the case, and it is partly a sign of health. Latin America is not pumping out nihilistic terrorists, nor does any Latin American nation have enough nuclear material to blow up the world several times over lying around unguarded.
So, understandably, Washington’s attention drifts to more pressing concerns.
But, for reasons listed below, the region is likely to grow more important in the next presidency. I am waiting to hear how today’s presidential candidates would differ from George W. Bush, and how they respond to three vital sets of questions.
1) Fidel Castro seems to be at death’s door. What lessons do you draw from the Cuban trade embargo? Would you consider relaxing travel restrictions and encourage a warming of relations if Raul initially takes over for his brother? Why or why not? What is your plan to contribute to a modernizing and democratizing Cuba?
2) Anti-American potential dictators have been elected in Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua and, of course, Venezuela. What is the United States’ role in preventing the erosion of democracy in those countries? How can we recover the moral authority we lost when we failed to denounce the 2002 coup against Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez? What would your reaction be to Chavez or another leader being declared presidents-for-life? How can the United States match Chavez’s rhetorical commitment to the region’s poor?
3) How can the United States help Mexico in the war on drugs? What should be the nature of a counter-narcotics aid package? How can the United States help Mexico create development and growth rates that will stem immigration?
Up to now I’ve read some thoughtful plans about Cuba (those of Chris Dodd and Barack Obama stand out), but that’s where the innovation ends. The Republicans offer boilerplate formulations in favor of trade and against Chavez. The Democrats have been reliably opposed to both Chavez and free trade alike. The Dems had a golden opportunity to demonstrate a more nuanced understanding of the region’s challenges in the September debate on Univision, but instead the event devolved into an embarrassing pander-fest.
Bold plans for Latin America are not going to be the deciding factor in who wins the nomination, so the lack of interest is understandable. But now more than at any time since the end of the Cold War, shifts in the Latin American tectonic plates demand greater consideration, and so far it doesn’t seem to be forthcoming.
The idea that the United States pays attention to Latin America at the cost of more urgent matters elsewhere is only partially true. John F. Kennedy wasn’t taking his eye off the Russians when he launched the Alliance for Progress. Indeed, he clearly had our enemies in mind when he got the ambitious plan off the ground. Of course, the importance of Latin America’s role in the global struggle was a little more obvious in the 1960s than it is today, and that provided much of the impetus for Kennedy’s program. But anyone who thinks that today’s great geopolitical struggles cease to be as grave in Latin America need only witness Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s growing coziness with Evo Morales and Chavez.
Instead of trading insults with Chavez (a losing proposition), the next president should launch a farsighted program aimed at fostering long-term goodwill, a more modest Alliance for Progress.
A Mexican infrastructure fund would be a good place to start. Every side of the immigration debate recognizes the importance of a stronger Mexican economy to a decrease in immigration rates. A massive infrastructure project would create jobs in Mexico as well as lay the logistical groundwork for greater growth, especially in the south.
If the debate were framed in terms of lowering illegal immigration, lawmakers with foreign aid phobia (many of whom are also anti-immigration) would be more likely to sign on. There are a million reasons why this can’t happen (Iraq, lack of political will in the United States, lack of interest in Mexico, Iraq), but I want a presidential candidate to tell me why it can.
Patrick Corcoran, a MexiData.info columnist, is a writer who resides in Torreón, Coahuila. He can be reached at corcoran25@hotmail.com. |
| |
|
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us