United States and its foreign policy for Latin America
in political discourse and the design of Latin American foreign policy is always the analysis of what the position against the United States. At each change of administration, particularly when a party alternation in power from the north country is speculated what the policy of that country to the region.
American Foreign Policy is the responsibility the President as commander in chief, advised by the National Security Council and supported by the State Department, the Pentagon's military-strategic policy and finally the Congress with the power to ratify or not to approve or reject agreements and budgets for for this purpose. The current President Obama Hillary Clinton appointed to the State Department would become the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to meet the international experience lacked, according to Walter Sánchez (2009), a sign of weakness to his former adversary in the primaries belonging to the political elite, with a high level of influence. Obama took the support of the Kennedy clan, part of the political elite with performance advantages over political, economic and social well-regarded U.S. but especially in Latin America for having left in the collective imagination of the Latin American regional initiative "Alliance for Progress" of former President Kennedy. Although its promises uttered in that speech of March 1961 have been entangled in the labyrinths of Congress and the Pentagon, "as noted by Walter Sanchez. Obama not only has the support of Kennedy and Clinton clans, but belongs to the same political elite, regardless of their skin color so the eye analysts might argue that is closer to the American people. No, Obama belongs to the elite, the U.S. as stated mainstram Luciano Tomassini (2009).
However, we can not be much hope in Latin America, their agenda is marked in advance and the international vision of the U.S. Obama is an isolationist country, as stated Tomassini, a continuation of messianism as Ignacio Walker said. For my part I think is about gestures isolationist economic, of not caring beyond its borders while not affecting the inside, and messianism of convenience to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and those to come. Joaquin
Fernandois (2009) notes the belief that States States can do much to Latin America, as if Latin American countries were subordinate and constant expectations to your older brother's generosity.
For the United States lost strategic importance after the end of history (Fukuyama), the end of the Cold War with the fall of the Berlin Wall, so although Cuba remains a socialist-communist system does not mean a threat. So policies aimed at the region lost ground. However there are two issues of concern to the U.S. State Department, according Fernandois, and this is drug trafficking and immigration. And at first glance one might say that these two issues affecting the two countries Latin America where the U.S. has detained specific policies and ongoing cooperation. These are Mexico and Colombia.
The foreign policy agenda of Obama, understood the contents of interests and objectives to be achieved from the management tools and other content over time, is characterized by an agenda imposed be determined by the financial crisis that threatens to do not leave soon. Even a book marked by too much by corporate interests, with the obligation to make decisions within popular, or against the interests of trade unions (rising unemployment) or against the business lobby (who are pushing for bailouts). Walter Sánchez and defined it: "The new administration will be difficult to break this iron law of oligarchy that democracies are enthroned in power." This is the link between economic and political elite where there are conflicts of interest and lack of transparency in business and public tenders. And now with the economic crisis are in the spotlight these links to detect cases of corruption and cronyism. However, recognizing that these private sector actors influence the determination of President Obama's agenda to set priorities on domestic issues and external conflicts with what Robert Russell said that " Foreign policy is the concrete and visible result of government action. " I would not exclusively, but as the actor predominate in the final decision within the decision making process, but nevertheless must be recognized to the other actors as civil society organizations and private actors in foreign policy. In fact Russell himself has stated that with the economic crisis, have created new forms of coordination between public and private sector, referring to the external debt crisis and hyperinflation of the Alfonsin government.
Joseph Ramos (2009) also coincide with "the economic crisis will become the government priority, even more than international politics, despite the problems it must face: Iraq, Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation (Iran and North Korea) and the Middle East. "
For the rest of the agenda, especially in military matters where it was hoped a new direction that differs from the previous administration, there has been no change. Ignacio Walker (2009) expected that change "from a somewhat ideological, as has been the foreign policy of President Bush, to a much more pragmatic policy, with emphasis on issues of democracy and development." This view is a bit idealistic, or is a reflection typical of Latin American political desire.
One of the factors that differed in the Barack Obama campaign John McCain was precisely the point election platform regarding the war, so the American people in electing Obama also chose to these two wars I was gradually becoming more like others than themselves. A few months after the election it seems that the only difference between Senator McCain and President Obama is that the former had sent 40 000 troops to Afghanistan and not 30 000 as did the second.
In his speech on December 1 at the Academy in West Point, Barack Obama was a realistic thought, then reconfirmed by speech in Oslo to accept Nobel Peace Prize, to justify preventive war included in the national security policy. Whereas war is itself but a distant enemy, to keep the front lines outside U.S. territory. The war in Afghanistan began following the attack of September 11, 2001, was primarily to protect the U.S. from potential attacks by Al Qaeda.
Just as many Americans think that is the cost of the war in Iraq or Afghanistan one of the reasons for the international crisis, made and published accounts in the book of Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph E. With Linda J. Stiglitz Bilmesen "War of the three billion dollars" show that the luxury of maintaining a war has prioritized by their leaders put aside matters of domestic policy and the improvement in the health system or the reduction of unemployment.
Joseph Nye in his analysis of foreign policy Obama mentioned the definition of a "smart power" as a combination of soft and hard power. " From this criterion, we can count on the skill of diplomacy in some cases and the application of realistic principles see others as the desirability of national interests.
So believe Obama's call to build a new alliance for the Americas, from the bottom up, as mentioned by the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Ignacio Walker is more than an idealistic, naive. Although I agree with him that the subject of Cuba "is emblematic put a new emphasis on a change to the region" but not by changes in the United States to Cuba, but by changes occurring in the same island.
At the time Barack Obama was assumed to be dominated by leftist governments like that of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in Argentina, Michelle Bachelet in Chile, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Lula Da Silva in Brazil, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Alvaro Colom Guatemala, Rene Preval in Haiti, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Martin Torrijos in Panama Fernando Lugo in Paraguay, Leonel Fernandez Reyna in the Dominican Republic, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Vázquez in Uruguay. Since then there were some name changes, but the only color that political change was Chile with the assumption of Sebastián Piñera.
Felipe Calderon and Mexico and Colombia with outgoing President Alvaro Uribe or his successor, President-elect Juan Manuel Santos, who are center-right governments, we can see that has nothing to do ideological affinity with the government to change the United States its foreign policy toward these countries. It is, according to Joseph Ramos, "Mexico as a neighbor so that remains to be seen whether or not to approve more liberal laws on immigration "but we have seen the financial crisis also ate this agenda as they have been hardened in immigration matters instead of softening as he promised during campaign season because of the scarcity of jobs and vision conservative who says that immigration harms native workers. J. Ramos says about Obama, "as a moderate person, not purely ideological agenda, and eager to integrate the best of the different ideological positions" so I think like him and Joseph Nye as a pragmatist and who does not give priority to the Latin American region the agenda of government. Because they have not done Administrations in others. Hernan Felipe Errazuriz, Chile's former Ambassador to the United States, mentions two Latin American countries with moderate interest for America: Mexico and Brazil. Perhaps because of the importance of the South American giant has taken in recent years on the international stage and that the hegemon does not want to lose tread.
called neo-populist governments seeking separation or neo-socialist United States, although the current President is more ideological than the previous close. Make that distinction since the speech and often do not lead to action. The case of Brazil, I agree with Fernandois that poses to the United States a competitive challenge and collaborative. Differentiation, it does so from the political and economic autonomy, reflected in state policy with a strong diplomatic tradition by Itamaraty, consistent over time beyond governments to spend in office. Monica Hirst mentions in his description of Brazilian foreign policy of the three lines of action in the years of transition to democracy was the revision of the terms of relations with the U.S. and then added that "a hierarchy was adopted of issues on the international agenda Brazilian meant the definition of some interest and objectives are not negotiable on the external front, although this definition collided against the interests and goals of the hegemonic power. "
include positioning strategy against the United States is a key component of the international economy. "The external debt crisis is reflected in increased external vulnerability and reduced bargaining power, making the country more vulnerable to pressure from industrialized countries at the multilateral and bilateral cooperation in the sense of opening the economy to foreign-trade-and investment and reduction in the economy "This vision is not borrowing to Brazil unless vulnerable actor in the relationship he did when in 2008 went from being a debtor to donor in the International Monetary Fund.
In fact, the position of Brazil in front at the time coinciding with Argentina facilitated the integration process. "Driving by the Foreign Ministries of both countries (Argentina and Brazil) of cutting foreign policies independent from the hegemonic power." This during the 80 because Argentina in the 90's ran a policy of carnal relations with the United States. Brazil however continues to maintain a posture
Jose Morande, Director of the Institute of International Studies refers to "the approaches and challenging behaviors that governments like Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua have carried out on policies and international role of the Bush administration, which for my part I think the Obama administration will not earn more than the indifference of this in an apparent reconciliation dialogue.
It may conclude that since most of the authors mentioned, priority in Latin America in the foreign policy of the United States is low, even with the current situation of financial crisis and terrorism. The threats and challenges that mark their agenda in Latin America are immigration and drug trafficking with a continued cooperation Mexico and Colombia. Finally you can identify the change of relationship that Brazil has had with the United States as an emerging power, and seen as an actor who can change the regional board and its link with the country's north. Cuba unfortunately we have to keep waiting for the Cubans, while demonstrating openness to dialogue may resonate in Washington.
Bibliography:
- Roundtable on the new U.S. Government, International Studies 162, January-April 2009, pp 127-159.
- RUSSELL, Roberto "Foreign policy and decision-making in Latin America" \u200b\u200band "The process of decision making in Argentina's foreign policy 1976-1989" in R. Russell, ed. Decisions and foreign policy in Latin America "Grupo Editor Latinoamericano, Buenos Aires (1990) 12-59 and 255-274.
- HIRST, M and Soares de Lima, MR "Crisis and decision making in the Brazilian foreign policy" in Russell, R. op. cit.
