![[ANALYSIS] The US-Latin American Policy Strategy: A Dialogue From Both Perspectives](https://i0.wp.com/thenewglobalorder.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/trump-v-biden.webp?resize=840%2C200&ssl=1)
- (Analysis) THE NIGHTMARE OF PROGRESSIVE PERONISM? - January 24, 2024
- Did You Reach Your 2022 Goals? - July 24, 2023
- [ANALYSIS] The US-Latin American Policy Strategy: A Dialogue From Both Perspectives - August 13, 2022
- (Analysis) Finland Finds its Footing in NATO - March 28, 2024
- [REPORT] Table for Two?: Italy and Other Upper-Middle Powers in Modern Global Affairs - October 20, 2023
- (Analysis) The Origins of American Strategy in Latin America: Monroe to Globalization - January 31, 2023
The two presidencies which have followed the Obama administration have governed in the backdrop of an increasingly polarized nation and both have sought to differentiate themselves from his administration. For Trump, his opposition to Obama-era policies stems from a multitude of factors such as his fraught relationship with the former president as well as the populism which mobilized his base, in turn serving as the only policy framework from which he could govern without repercussions.
The policy agenda which grew out of his 2016 campaign would ultimately become the orthodoxy of the Republicans as Trump received almost unshakeable support from Republican voters around being a non-establishment candidate and he was further supported by conservative organizations who were able to pursue their policy agenda through his administration.
For Biden, the road to becoming president involved contending within a crowded field of Democratic candidates to be seen as the successor to former President Obama even though he had served as his vice president. President Biden was elected upon a platform of a return to normalcy in the conduct of the office as well as the conduct of the nation’s foreign affairs. Consequently, the election which propelled him to the nation’s highest office was divided along the method of voting due to the impact of the pandemic which has given way to election fraud conspiracies driven by former President Trump. In the shadow of internal and external issues influencing the country, both presidents have sought to engage with Latin America in their own way.
THE UNITED STATES’ PERSPECTIVE
IMMIGRATION
Though Latin America is an expansive region comprising many different cultures and languages, the United States is often predominantly concerned with Mexico due to its geographic proximity. This view is especially true with immigration as the nation is a land bridge between Latin America and the United States. In addition, Mexico also accounts for a significant state of origin for U.S. immigrants. Former President Trump began an antagonistic stance on immigration early into his candidacy when he made disparaging comments regarding Mexican immigrants. As he became president, his two most central policy points toward curbing immigration from Latin America were constructing a wall along the southern border and a controversial zero-tolerance policy toward illegal immigration which was intended to deter migrants from coming to the United States. Furthermore, Trump expanded the number of apprehensions at the border and within the U.S. by expanding the authority of immigration officials. The conclusion of his policies concerning curbing illegal immigration was the failure of the border wall to act as a deterrence for migrants and harming the reputation of the country over how the policies seemed to disregard human rights, which is a value that the U.S. has championed for decades in Latin America.
During his campaign for the presidency, Biden released his platform for immigration which appealed to voters based on how immigration has been essential to the American experience and advocated a rollback of the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
One of the first policies that he was able to undo was halting federal funding for the construction of the border wall by ending the state of national emergency proclaimed by Trump to appropriate federal funds for the project. This move was not met without opposition as the attorney generals of Texas and Missouri sued the Biden administration for halting the building of the border wall. Another policy objective that he hoped to achieve was the repeal of Trump’s asylum policies to live up to the image of the nation presented in the famous poem “The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus. However, when it came time to demonstrate the administration’s commitment to these values, they turned away Haitians at the southern border and deported them to Port-au-Prince via flights.
The administration has shown that it is willing to aid migrants when there exist extraordinary circumstances which provide bipartisan support or instances where it was a direct consequence of the administration’s policies. Such instances have included welcoming Ukrainian refugees to bolster the resolve of Ukraine by projecting solidarity and also have included the resettlement of Afghans who were impacted by the administration’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan. When the administration attempted to make a meaningful attempt to eliminate hurdles to applying for asylum like Title 42, the motion was struck down by a federal judge. With inconsistent messaging on immigration policy in an agenda with limited political capital to push forth the most pressing policy objectives, it is unlikely for the administration to undertake any large-scale immigration reform before the midterm elections. The future of immigration reform in the country faces an uphill battle as the issue is viewed increasingly along partisan lines and even when made a priority under Trump, it was clear that a greater degree of resources, as well as personnel, will be needed to even accomplish border security.
MALAISE IN POLICY AND THE PROSPECT TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR
Trump would ultimately capitalize on resentment toward globalization in his 2016 presidential campaign, especially within the Rust Belt which was neglected by both Democrats and by the post-recession economic recovery as the majority of jobs went to white-collar workers rather than the working class which has historically been the backbone of the region’s economy. The marriage of Trump and the Rust Belt voters would propel him to the White House and also have an impact on his foreign policy concerning Latin America as they had placed their hopes on the premise that he would be able to reverse the trends of globalization. For them, the most present manifestation of globalization was NAFTA and it was something that needed to be rectified in favor of Americans. Trump then took this into consideration to renegotiate the agreement to replace it with the United States Mexico Canada Agreement along with wanting to further solidify his image as an astute businessman. Although he positioned himself as an outsider in his campaign, he had embraced members of the Republican establishment with positions within his administration. Such is evident in keeping with the orthodoxy of conservative foreign policy with the sanctioning of leftist regimes like Venezuela and Cuba in the waning years of his presidency. In addition, he threw his support behind the former president of the Venezuelan National Assembly Juan Guaido, and Brazilian president Jair Bolsanaro to act as a bulwark against the leftist governments in the region just as the U.S. had done in the Cold War.
Policy in Latin America for the Biden administration was not a high priority for them as they sought to repair relations with America’s transatlantic partners as the second most important priority and to continue the pivot to Asia taking preeminence over other issues.
The outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian War has taken attention away from Latin America to a secondary priority of maintaining the post-war security architecture that the United States constructed to act as a rampart against communism spreading across the Atlantic. When modern powers are in the process of creating new geopolitical orders and in other circumstances they come across a security dilemma similar to a fox wishing to enter a henhouse to procure its contents. In a situation of parity, the farmer will have enough of a deterrent to protect the henhouse, but like in the security dilemma, it comes at the expense of the fox. It is when the farmer no longer provides the deterrent in which the fox is left alone with the contents of the henhouse that the fox must make a decision. It can either raid all the contents within, taking more than it can chew, or leave the contents alone in a gesture of goodwill to form an understanding with the farmer. The decision is one that faces states that forges an order to face the existing one. When the henhouse is taken in packs, history has shown that when the fox who tries to create an understanding will revert to the wishes of those it is seeking to accomplish the task with if it cannot fulfill the leadership it wishes to undertake.
Such was shown when Wilson yielded to Clemenceau the fate of Germany and how Secretary of State Warren Christopher ceded the policy of NATO expansion to post-Soviet States by doubting that Russia would fully reform. From the U.S. succumbing to the “The old political system based on force and with its tricks and rivalries” as the German delegation to the Paris Peace Conference described over 100 years ago, Russia saw such expansion as justification for its own adoption of an aggressive foreign policy within its traditional sphere of influence. Moreover, A Europe with a 21st-century economic model but the behavior of 20th-century power and a Russian Federation with the behavior of a 20th-century power ensures there will be tensions to come for years to come in the post-Soviet space as there lies the final project for integration by Brussels which they see enlargement as equal to security. Due to this crisis in regional security, the leaders of the West have called summits to address it but little of substance has been produced as their main purpose is the projection of union to their adversaries. A similar policy can be found in the Biden doctrine which can be defined as the attempted projection of leadership in multilateral institutions but in practice is more of bare maintenance than what is required in the current multipolar world order.
The most exemplar practice of this doctrine lies in the Summit of the Americas where the administration excluded leftist governments from attendance. After the end of the Cold War, the existential threat to security that leftist governments were replaced by a foreign policy that shifted to enforcement of property rights which had to be respected for favorable treatment from the United States. While sanctions have become the primary instrument for the enforcement of the neoliberal order, they still accomplish the same policy objectives set in a time when the USSR existed. Many Latin American nations have rejected neoliberalism through elections that have placed leftist candidates in halls of power. As the U.S, has been busy pursuing a policy that is predicated upon conditions that do not exist anymore, China has been making inroads throughout the world through investment. China has taken up the mantle as the champion of developing and middle-income states just as the Soviets did in the 20th century.
However, there are certainly flaws in both the Western model as well as the Chinese model of development. Here lies the promise of the region to provide an alternative and help the Americas forge a new order for the 21st century. This may seem like a strange statement but it had a hand in crafting the last geoeconomic system through the influence of the Chicago Boys. The potential to be a laboratory for different models of economic growth is shown in El Salvador, where the government has made a substantial investment in non-regulated currency. The region is one of a diverse array of governments and seeking only to have one form is one that weakens the security of the United States. This perspective is one that can be found among European analysts, but the region faces a far lower bar to clear in this regard because there exists a different geopolitical reality than the European Union.
No South American project relies upon liberalism for legitimacy and security. One of the few hurdles foreign policy practitioners within the U.S. need to clear to meaningfully engage with the region is eliminating the vestiges of the Cold War policy that have weakened relations with the neighbors within our hemisphere. By having a policy rooted in non-interference, the United States can limit the influence of China by championing economic models developed in tandem with our Latin American partners which can also serve the interests of an anxious Europe through a newfound understanding between Washington and the region. The Global South is slowly becoming more distant from the West due to historic grievances and their own economic interests being harmed by their archaic rivalries. Only by embracing a region that very much has the economic potential to become a more assertive presence in global affairs, can the international system become more inclusive to states that are not great powers.
For much of modern history, historians have witnessed civilizational conflicts which have shaped our collective destiny such as Carthage and Rome. With it being a norm in contemporary international affairs, some of our closest partners are more enamored with the academic debate of a Sino-American rivalry that they have entertained the idea of pursuing a policy that divides us and weakens our collective security. By providing the region a greater stake in global affairs, the story of this century does not have to be told as a battle of two poles, but instead as an expansion of self-determination bolstered by their potential economic and security contributions to a revised international system that is equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century through a new hemispheric order.
THE LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE
The campaign was a showdown between two different models of international approaches to the region: while Donald Trump exploded the anti-left movement, Joe Biden brought hope for more integration, opportunities, and fewer sanctions with a more comprehensive view.
However, with two years in office, the Democratic President has done almost nothing to integrate the region, nor to exercise the “broader approach” that Democrats promised in the campaign. This “new” model was translated into small changes from the Trumpist line.
IMMIGRATION
Despite the promises of attacking the illegal immigration issue by looking at the bigger picture, Biden continued with the policy of blocking the migrant caravans coming from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, also known as the northern triangle. Even though there was a relief package announced by Kamala Harris to improve the living conditions in these countries, life has not improved and the flow of migrants never stopped. Throwing money at the problem does not appear to be an integral approach.
SANCTIONS
[The U.S.] should have a relationship based on development and progress, not punishment.
This was a powerful statement by Julissa Reynoso, former U.S. ambassador to Uruguay. Still, the reality is that the government has not changed the dynamic of sanctions against governments that don’t agree with Washington.
The latest example of this disagreement between Latin American countries was the regional summit to be hosted by the United States in early June, where the Mexican president, with the support of his pairs from Argentina and Bolivia, proposed a boycott of the international meeting due to the absence of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. The Honduran President Xiomara Castro de Zelaya said on Twitter,
“If not all nations are present, it’s not a Summit of the Americas.”
Christopher Dodd, appointed by Joe Biden as a special adviser to the Summit of the Americas, met with Alberto Fernández, President of Argentina in Buenos Aires. With the aim of finding out if the Head of State was going to attend the event, at the meeting the president criticized the absence of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua at the Summit, since they were not invited by the organizers – putting into question the very presence of Argentina in the meeting.
Even the ultra-right President, Jair Bolsonaro, in spite of bitterly accepting the invitation, did not hide his criticism of Biden’s policies in the region:
“With Trump, everything was going very well. We had a lot of combined things to do here, in Brazil. Among other things, exploiting oil adding value for Brazil, with Biden, there was simply a freeze.”
On the G20 summit held in October 2021 in Rome, he wrote:
“I found him in the G20, but he passed in front of me as if I didn’t exist. It was his treatment with everyone. I don’t know if it’s the age”
The only common ground in the region, in the alt-right governments, and in the leftist administrations, is that the hope Biden meant for the region, was a mere illusion.
THE CHINESE THREAT AND LACK OF DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
As Washington provides no alternative for development, or trade deals to tempt the Latin American nations to stay under the U.S orbit. As if it was a move from the Cold War era, the Chinese Communist Party is providing more markets for the Latin American nations to export. Recently, the third economy of Latin America, Argentina, joined the trade agreement known as the “Silk Road”.
This alliance was seen by many as a threat to the American hegemony in the region, Matt Gaetz, representative of the state of Florida to the US Congress and an ally of former President Donald Trump, expressed his concerns by affirming:
While the Biden Admin, the media, and many in Congress beat the drums of war for Ukraine, there is a far more significant threat to our nation.
Again, the Biden administration fails to promote development by not offering alternative sources of finance for the Latin American economies. The sloth of the Democratic governor is pushing Latin America to the Chinese arms with almost 22 countries of the region joining the treaty, including countries that remain in the political sphere of influence of the US as Uruguay or Chile. The agreement also includes anti-American nations such as Venezuela or Cuba.
This is a high stake issue for US security, due to the fact that this is the first time in American history where a foreign power is able to influence the countries that traditionally belong to their sphere without the use of military strategy (as the Russians used to in the missile crisis via Cuba) but with economic incentives that include real financing for infrastructure and the possibility of being included in a new international division of labor.
The threat to US security does not rely on China’s economic influence in America’s “Front Yard”, it relies on the lack of creativity of the Democratic and the Republican establishment to approach the Latin American issues with opportunities that include real development and incorporation of the thousands of Latin Americans that live in poverty. The Bush administration, with all its flaws, proposed in 2006 in Mar del Plata, Argentina, the last US commercial agreement in the scale and access to international aid. That occurred 16 years ago.
The end of this relationship is uncertain, again. President Biden summoned an American Summit in L.A, with little to offer but his political muscle by excluding Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba. Other than tempting the region with economic opportunities, the summit resulted in few initiatives.
If the Biden administration does not offer the Latin American nations economic packages to develop that surpass the Chinese investments, the US economic hegemony will get weaker, and in the long term, its security.
- Will rising fuel costs serve as an impetus for a rapprochement of illiberal Latin American regimes?
- Will Latin America fit into America’s desire to source more critical infrastructure away from China?
- Will increased domestic polarization get in the way of a coherent policy for Latin America?
Suggested Readings
2020 FIU Cuba Poll: How Cubans in Miami View U.S. Policies Toward Cuba
The Great Chilean Recovery: Assigning Responsibility For The Chilean Miracle(s)
Biden’s ‘Summit of the Americas’ showcases failed Cold War worldview
Pingback: (Analysis) The Origins of American Strategy in Latin America: Monroe to Globalization - The New Global Order