Reprinted from Caribbean Net News
caribbeannetnews.com
Madeleine Albright, the former US Secretary of State in President Bill Clinton’s Democratic administration posed a pertinent question to President George W Bush on Thursday 5th January.
According to the New York Times, Ms Albright, asked the President whether his foreign policy team with the Iraq war “taking up all their energy” hadn’t let US relations with Latin America suffer by “benign neglect”.
The reference to Latin America is relevant to the Caribbean because the two areas are linked both by international organisations and the US State Department.
In reality, Latin America and the English-speaking Caribbean are very different. They are different in size of territory and population, in culture, in language, in history and even in their foreign policy objectives in the global community.
But, the truth is that Ms Albright is right, the Bush administration has neglected both Latin American and the Caribbean at a high political level.
In trying to get some movement in the international trade negotiations at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the US has had to engage Brazil particularly, because it has emerged as a leader in negotiations on behalf of several developing countries.
But, the engagement with Brazil, in the WTO context, does not amount to the kind of serious interaction with Latin America and the Caribbean that was envisaged when President Bush announced his ‘third border initiative’ soon after taking up his first term in office.
At the Summit of the Americas held last November, President Bush tried to get agreement to proceed with the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) to include all the countries (except Cuba by US desire) of the Western Hemisphere. He failed to persuade many of the larger Latin American states to do so. For the most part, they regard the FTAA as being little more than an effort to secure greater US influence over their economies at the expense of local ownership and employment.
In the meantime, throughout the two Bush Administrations, Latin American countries have been moving to the left.
The boisterous and vocal Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is the best known of the Latin American leaders who view the US government with deep suspicion.
But, the leadership in Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and now Bolivia under President-elect Evo Morales also reveals a profound animosity toward the Bush administration and its policies.
And, it seems that another left-leaning leader, Ollanta Humala, may emerge in Peru in Presidential elections later this year.
All of these leaders have a closer relationship with Cuba’s Fidel Castro than has been the case in the past – a fact which, instead of promoting US engagement with them, has elicited only US mistrust.
Significantly, two of the bigger Latin American countries – Argentina and Brazil – have decided to pay off debt to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), leaving themselves free of the controls of the Organisation and its board which is dominated by Western industrialised nations, particularly the US.
Many countries in Latin America are also busily establishing new markets for their products, including oil and gas, in China, India and the European Union (EU).
None of this augurs well for US-Latin American relations which have deteriorated under the Bush administration.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell was too involved with the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq to pay attention to Latin American and the Caribbean, and his successor, Condoleeza Rice, was always going to be more focussed on the big international issues especially the Middle-East.
Latin American and Caribbean policy seemed to be left to successive Under-Secretaries of State – first, Otto Reich who was obsessed with Cuba, then Roger Noriega who extended animosity beyond Cuba to Venezuela, and now Tom Shannon who served on the National Security Council under Ms Rice, and who, unlike his predecessors, should have a wider perspective of the Region. Among his qualifications, Mr Shannon holds a PhD from Oxford University; this British experience should give him a better understanding of the former British colonies in Caribbean.
But, so far, the same lack of meaningful US high level engagement that is evident in relations with Latin American countries is equally true of the Caribbean.
While there have been encounters between Secretaries of state Powell and Rice with Caribbean Foreign Ministers, these have been brief and obligatory with little real discussion of the issues that bother the sub-region.
In the meantime, President Chavez of Venezuela is trying to extend his influence and ideas into the Caribbean mainly through his Petro-Caribe agreement under which Venezuela would sell oil to Caribbean countries at market price but with part of the cost being treated as a loan.
Some governments have jumped at his offer so as to defer payment for part of the oil to a later date, a development that has caused a rift among Caribbean countries and alarmed the IMF.
Trinidad and Tobago previously provided oil supplies to the countries which have jumped on the Petro-Caribe bandwagon, and the IMF is concerned at the prospect of increased debt by these countries which will now owe Venezuela huge sums of money.
It is easy to blame the US administration for the present state of poor relations between the US and Latin America and the Caribbean. For, it is a truism that any US government is a Belle of the Ball, and there is no shortage of suitors who would line up for a dance, particularly if it is a tango. In this connection, the US simply had to make its dance card available to attract willing partners.
The US has not done so, choosing instead to isolate itself from some of its closest neighbours and generating their resentment rather than their support.
But, in terms of the Caribbean, blame does not lie with the US alone.
The Caribbean is not Latin America. The sub-region of small countries with few resources, no military might, and little economic clout needs the US far more than does Latin America.
In the WTO negotiations, in the IMF and in the World Bank, Caribbean countries – especially those of the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) – need special and different treatment in the application of the rules of these organisations. They need financial grants, better access to soft loans, and access to markets for their limited products on preferential terms.
These very desires by the Caribbean have been opposed by some Latin American countries.
To achieve their ambitions, Caribbean countries need a sympathetic US government and Congress that fully understands the plight that Caribbean countries now face as they struggle to earn enough from their goods and services to stem the tide of increasing unemployment and poverty, while they battle with the effects of global warming, HIV/Aids and international demands for increased security against drug trafficking and terrorism.
If the US takes up their cause in the international community, the Caribbean would have a far greater chance of success.
But, such sympathy and understanding in Washington will only come if the Caribbean region works tirelessly to secure it.
The Caribbean needs a new and constructive engagement with Washington that is based on mutual advantage. That mutual advantage could include working with the US to promote better relations across Latin America as a whole – and the US needs this if tension in the Hemisphere is to be eased and a good neighbourly relationship established all round.
In any event, the US and the Caribbean are at the Western Hemisphere’s Ball. It takes two to tango. Both Tom Shannon and Caribbean Foreign Ministers should open the floor in their mutual interest.
(responses to: ronaldsanders29@hotmail.com)
Previous Page Print This Page.
Copyright© 2007 Caribbean Net News at www.caribbeannetnews.com All Rights Reserved
License is granted for free print and distribution.
