Obama and Latin America, part two
March 23This is the second article in a two-part series about President Barack Obama and Latin America. My previous viewpoint introduced how the Obama administration faces the arduous and thankless task of resolving enormous national challenges, such as juggling two wars, fixing the sputtering economy, seeking alternative energy sources and revamping the health-care system. However, cultivating a healthier relationship with Latin America is of paramount importance for President Barack Obama if he wishes to transform the United States from a country that acts before thinking, according to many around the world, into one that thinks before acting. At the Democratic National Convention in August, Bill Clinton said, "People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." Obama would be wise to take heed of such sage advice in the manner by which he strengthens United States-Latin America ties. One of the most long-standing examples of power exercised by the United States is its unilateral embargo of Cuba, issued in 1962. The embargo is nearing its 50th year in existence and has failed in its objective to completely isolate Cuba from the rest of the world. While no economic colossus, Cuba still has superb education and health care systems, as well as an advanced intelligence service, to the surprise of many. The European Union has normalized relations with Cuba, and it is time for the United States — the largest exporter of food to Cuba — to get on board. The traditional stance championing the embargo is a myopic one, stemming from Cold War-era zero-sum games that no longer apply in today's more open world. Making good on his campaign promises, Obama has lifted the Bush-imposed restrictions on family travel and remittances, but refused to repeal the embargo. Whether this was only shrewd political maneuvering at the time — advocating enough change to placate some while declining to overturn the overall status quo — remains to be seen. The Cuba lobby, while still strong, is supported by those mostly in the older generation. They will soon be overshadowed by the younger generation that wishes to distance itself from the hardliners. Pushing for change, younger Cubans and Cuban-Americans hear Obama's own mantra of "Change" as a rallying cry and will only get louder as time progresses. If Obama were to end the embargo, it is highly likely that the restoration of political freedoms and civil liberties in Cuba would be expedited, as Cubans would get a taste of the kind of open society that we live in. Still, the United States should take an auxiliary role in the transition process, giving way to a multilateral effort. Allowing countries like Mexico, Brazil and Spain to take charge of the issue demonstrates that the United States is far from a meddling, hegemonic busybody. It also gives these countries, especially Mexico and Brazil, more weight in their own region. They would be happy to be seen as leaders of such an important hemispheric change, and Hugo Chavez would have little to say about U.S. imperial ambitions. Such a multilateral operation also increases the likelihood that Cuba's political prisoners — those incarcerated for simply speaking their mind about the government — would be set free. The opening of Cuba could potentially help Obama's energy problems. It is estimated that Cuba can produce two to three billion gallons of ethanol per year, and access to the U.S. market could do wonders in developing a United States-Cuba partnership. The United States would gain from the alternative energy source, and Cuba would gain by receiving help in rebuilding its economy. The United States and Brazil have already made headway in ethanol production in Central America and the Caribbean, and Cuba could be their next project. Economically speaking, the United States and Brazilian markets would be much more attractive to Cuba than that of Venezuela, which seeks to expand its reach in the region through its own similar ventures and would be severely weakened by Cuba's opening. Still, much of U.S. trade with Latin America ($555 billion per year) already promotes countries' comparative advantage in industries such as textiles and raw materials. The United States even grants trade preferences to Bolivia and Ecuador, led by presidents known for anti-American sentiment, respectively exemplified by Evo Morales' expulsion of the U.S. ambassador to Bolivia and Rafael Correa's decision not to renew the lease of a military base in Ecuador that the United States uses for anti-drug surveillance flights. Also, at a time when much of Latin America is turning to China for trade and investment opportunities, often due to perceived lack of interest on the part of the United States, Obama would do well to make intraregional trade a priority, demonstrating his commitment to Latin America. Obama's first pick for U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), declined the post because he believed that trade would not be a top government priority. Let us hope that the new USTR, former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk (D), effectively touts the benefits of trade at a time when the United States and countries around the world seem to look to implement more protectionist measures amid the global financial crisis. It is within this context that the pending Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Colombia must be addressed. Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress argue that the principal factor working against the FTA's passage is the high murder rate of Colombian labor leaders. The reasons for delaying passage are not economic — 90 percent of Colombian products already enter the United States duty-free — but political. Make no mistake, the situation in Colombia is grim. Labor leaders are still targeted by right-wing paramilitary groups as supporters of Marxist guerrillas, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), deemed a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union. The scandal involving government officials' illegal connections with the paramilitaries has hit the country hard, and cocaine production has barely declined, despite U.S. financial and technical aid since 2000. However, since Álvaro Uribe became president in 2002, Colombian national security has rapidly and dramatically improved. Murders and kidnappings have decreased substantially, and the FARC, which has already seen thousands of its members willingly demobilize, is on the run, hiding in the jungle and devoid of strong leadership. Furthermore, the FTA's economic incentives, along with new U.S. money geared toward establishing civil mechanisms (rather than previous military ones) to fight drug production and trafficking, such as a special police force trained in anti-narcotics, would aid the war against drugs. The high impunity rate of Colombians accused of extrajudicial murder is worrisome, but the recently created special prosecutor's office will need time and resources to bring to justice those who have defied it. Colombia is the United States' strongest ally in the region, and failure to pass the FTA sends a dangerous message to our allies that the United States cannot be counted on. In the battle for the hearts and minds of Latin America's approximately 570 million people, the United States can ill-afford to let them down in such a way. Obama's electoral victory was unquestionably a watershed moment in American history. Approaching the Fifth Summit of the Americas, held in mid-April in Trinidad and Tobago, it is now up to him whether he wishes to be the catalyst for an equally seminal shift in United States-Latin America relations. This time, it's not only change we can believe in; it's change we need.
