President Obama is ignoring Latin America. Granted, he has been quite busy dealing with problems at home: The financial crisis recovery and health care reform certainly did not go over smoothly, and the midterm elections dealt him a tough blow.
In terms of foreign policy, the United States has its focus elsewhere. The stakes are great in the Middle East with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and worries over a nuclear Iran. A booming India directs American attention to South Asia, and a looming China, growing ever stronger, directs American attention to the Far East. Europe is always an important part of the American agenda. Latin America is therefore left out. With all these more pressing regions abroad, the United States is neglecting its own "backyard."
While Washington sleeps in the Americas, incredible changes are occurring in the South. The latest World Economic Outlook, published by the International Monetary Fund, reveals that Latin America is recovering from the global economic crisis much more rapidly than expected, with a 5.7 percent growth rate for 2010. Substantial growth in Chile, Brazil, Peru and Colombia is changing the economic makeup of the Southern Cone and the Andean Region.
On the other hand, Hugo Chávez's socialist "Bolivarian Revolution" in Venezuela boasts strong support in many Latin American countries, and Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador are struggling with their neo−populist super−presidents. All the while, the Obama administration's Latin American policy features the lowest level of engagement in a century.
There are several possible explanations for why Obama is ignoring Latin America. First, as noted above, Obama is spread thin dealing with domestic problems and more pressing regions of the world. Second, after the Cold War era, growing socialism seems like a laughable threat to the United States compared to extremism abroad. Third, with a sordid history of meddling and intervention in Latin America in the past, the United States in many ways feels it is damned if it does and damned if it does not.
I propose a fourth option for why the United States is playing dead. Throughout the past century, the United States has promoted a rhetoric of electoral democracy in Latin America — a type featuring free and fair elections — while failing to promote liberal democracy, with permanent constitutions, individual rights and freedoms, respect for civil society, separation of powers, checks and balances and established institutions that are above individual leaders.
The United States has witnessed and aided a rise in regimes that mix elections with authoritarianism, or what Fareed Zakaria calls "illiberal democracies." The quagmire the United States faces today is that after years of promoting democracy with free elections, some Latin American countries have elected leaders that are hostile to the United States and anti−liberal democracy in their own countries. The United States would like to condemn illiberal democracies but fears sounding hypocritical or backtracking on its narrow, pro−election foreign policy.
This is not to say that U.S. foreign policy is the sole impetus behind the adoption of illiberal democracies in Latin America. Many other factors have increased the support for neo−populist leaders, such as the unification and politicization of indigenous groups. Additionally, the so−called failure of neo−liberalism and the Washington Consensus — a series of policy recommendations designed to open markets — led to the rejection of what many Latin Americans defined as "free−market fundamentalism" and an over−simplistic approach of "stabilize, privatize and liberalize." However, despite other factors, U.S. foreign policy has undoubtedly contributed to the growth of illiberal democracies.
It is important that the United States face reality in Latin America for three reasons: If it does not, first, it will lose the chance to capitalize on Obama's popularity in the region, which is overwhelmingly high compared to that of former President George Bush's; second, it will continue to see the election of neo−populist leaders hostile to America; and third, other countries, such as China, Iran and Russia, will increase their involvement and influence in the region.
Nonetheless, the United States cannot return to a policy of stomping around carelessly in Latin America. It must proceed with extreme caution in promoting liberal democracy so as not to encourage the grassroots support for the region's demagogic leaders that propelled them into office.
I propose a delicate but strategic approach. First, the United States should increase support for pro−liberal−democracy non−governmental organizations, especially student and youth organizations. When the neo−populist leaders fall, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia are going to need liberal, capable young people to become the countries' future leaders.
Second, the United States should exercise pressure through multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations and the Organization of American States, on states degrading liberal institutions by censoring press, hampering civil society, manipulating their constitutions and over−expanding the role of the executive.
The United States should also be more vocal in its support for its liberal, democratic allies. For example, when Hugo Chávez meddles in presidential elections in Colombia or supports the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia within Venezuela's borders, the United States should stand by its ally Colombia, preferably through a demonstration of support via international institutions.
Third, the United States should establish free−trade agreements with its allies. Obama has stalled the approval of free-trade agreements with key partners Colombia and Panama that have been pending since 2006. Stronger free trade agreements expand alliances, trade and cooperation. All of the above measures will help support liberal democracy in Latin America without fueling the fire for the "Bolivarian Revolution."
President Obama has pushed aside Latin America for too long. It is time for the United States to see the benefits of re−engaging Latin America and acknowledge the dangers of its present course of action. It is time for the United States to wake up.
--
Correction and clarification: An earlier version of this article misspelled the name of the country Colombia. In addition, the description in the eighth paragraph of the Washington Consensus has been edited for clarity.
