Obama on Latin America
As Election Day draws near, presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama repeatedly have focused their attention
on such key foreign policy issues as the Iraq War and the global financial crisis. U.S. policy toward Latin America, on
the other hand, has been notoriously absent from figuring in recent presidential debates or stump speeches, as both
candidates seek to win over last-minute voters by reiterating their campaign platforms on domestic and foreign policy
topics of high public concern. An exception to this was Obama’s brief reference to the Colombian government’s seeming
indifference to the killing of labor leaders in that country with impunity, mentioned in the last presidential debate.
Nonetheless, Barack Obama has developed his policy agenda on U.S.-Latin American relations throughout the course of his
presidential campaign. Beginning with an appearance at the Cuban-American National Foundation in May 2008, he set forth
the proposal that the U.S. should foster a new era of hemispheric relations based upon mutual understanding and respect
for national sovereignty. Similarly, the Senate voting record of vice presidential candidate Joe Biden reveals his
position on regional matters, which over the years has seldom strayed from a standard approach to regional issues. This
is not to suggest that there was a golden age sometime in the past when pundits came forth with erudite perceptions on
how to advance enlightened U.S. regional policies fostering constructive engagement and a quest for equality and social
justice.
The Obama Platform on Latin America
America is not only a member of the hemispheric chorus, but a player as well. Barack Obama’s first serious effort at
exhibiting a position on U.S. policy toward Latin America occurred in May 2008. Following an appearance at the
Cuban-American National Foundation, a conservative Miami exile group, Obama released his 13-page “A New Partnership for
the Americas” plan, which outlines three major regional policy issues that his administration would tackle if elected to
office: (1) political freedom/democracy, (2) freedom from fear/security, and (3) freedom from want/opportunity.
Obama’s aim to foster political freedom within the hemisphere relies on the necessity of governments to address the
needs of their people “in a democratic and sustainable way.” Obama has stated that he will promote the expansion and
reform of democratic institutions, and has stressed that the U.S. must work with democratic-left governments (including
Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez). U.S.-Latin American relations under the Bush administration have languished as a result of “a
misguided foreign policy with a myopic focus in Iraq…its policy in the Americas has been negligent to our friends,”
Obama says. The U.S. must now re-establish a relationship with Latin America based on its willingness to promote
democratic development, and abandon the tradition of supporting only those regimes which directly advance the U.S.’s
narrowly defined national interests. In addition, according to the candidate, the U.S. must refrain from tying personal
relationships to foreign policy initiatives, as epitomized by President Bush’s close ties with his ideological
soul-mate, Colombia’s President Uribe. According to Obama, the strengthening of democracy will at its core address the
protection of human rights, as well as support the rejection of de facto coups and autocratic practices. The U.S. will
foster democratic institutions by strengthening democracy at home – habeas corpus will be restored, Guantanamo Bay will
be closed, and torture and indefinite detention will end. Within Latin America, strong civil societies, accountable
police forces, and organizational transparency will be promoted. Nonetheless, critics on the left of Obama’s Latin
America program contend that his proposals neglect to effectively engage some of the most challenging new developments
emerging in the hemisphere, despite the fact that Obama has attempted to break with prevailing U.S. policy toward the
region in several fundamental ways.
Obama views Cuba as a case in point for the strengthening of democratic institutions in the Americas. He will work to
free up the sending of remittances from family members in the U.S. to relatives on the island and the right to travel to
the island by Cuban-Americans. He believes that the “empower[ment] of the Cuban people” should be prioritized in order
to reduce their dependence upon the regime. Yet, Obama does not support a clear end to the U.S. embargo on Cuba, which
he believes should remain in place to act as leverage in encouraging positive democratic change on the island. This same
sense of caution reflects his thinking on Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela for which he has used somewhat harsh language to
distance his campaign from Chavez’s fierce populism. With respect to U.S.-Cuba relations, critics of Obama’s Latin
America platform cite that the Democratic candidate is lagging well behind the leading edge of revisionist thinking on
the issue now taking place in this country.
Criminality
According to Obama, U.S.-Latin American security policy should focus on the issues of transnational gangs, violence,
drugs, and organized crime. Gang activity has proliferated throughout the Central American countries of Honduras, El
Salvador, and Guatemala, and into Mexico, and its impact has spilled over into U.S. civil society. The Democratic
presidential candidate says he will step up U.S. security efforts in Central America to stem the flow of gang-related
crime and narcotrafficking, as well as formulate regional strategic cooperation on personal security issues. The
professionalizing of the police and judicial branches of these countries should be emphasized, corruption targeted for
abatement, and a hemispheric pact on security issues signed. In breaking with more traditional views of U.S.-Latin
American policy, which tend to view drug and arms trafficking, illegal immigration, and gang activity as agenda items
which must be addressed by the U.S.’s southern neighbors, Obama realizes the need to create a “comprehensive strategy on
regional crime that addresses the U.S.’s contribution to the problem.”
In dealing with security measures, Obama highlights the crucial roles of Mexico and Colombia in promoting regional
cooperation. Mexico plays a central role in the production and shipment of drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, and
methamphetamines; Obama supports the continuation and expansion of the newly implemented Merida Initiative in order to
roll back rampant violence, corruption, and drug and arms trafficking throughout the region. He believes that security
cooperation should extend beyond U.S.-Central American relations to include further security measures developed in the
rest of Latin America. He has committed himself to combat the Mexican drug cartels, and establish relations with other
Latin American countries to decrease both the supply and demand for drugs. Additionally, he supports the continuance of
U.S. aid to Colombia to fight narcotrafficking and strengthen civilian institutions. He also has defended Colombia’s
recent incursion into a FARC guerrilla camp based in Ecuador, stating that Colombia has a “right to strike terrorists
who seek safe-haven across its borders.” Commentators argue that Obama has ignored the human rights violations
countenanced by the Uribe government as well as its highly qualified and quasi-democratic regime, which include scandals
involving both his own political party and right-wing death squads that still operate in the country.
Barack Obama’s stance on economic development in the Western Hemisphere centers on an increase in U.S. foreign aid,
vocational training, micro-finance, and community development-which is little better than a conservative development
plan. He will attempt to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, will work to decrease the prevalence of HIV/AIDS,
tuberculosis, and malaria, and increase global education. He will cancel the debts of Paraguay, Guyana, St. Lucia,
Bolivia, Haiti, and Honduras, as well as those of other countries around the world which have been designated as
“heavily-indebted poor countries.” Obama will seek to reform the IMF and World Bank, and establish fair trade that
promotes labor and environmental standards. In addition, the WTO will be encouraged to enforce mutually advantageous
trade agreements. Obama opposed CAFTA and a U.S.-Colombia FTA, and will seek to amend the provisions of NAFTA to
increase its benefits for American workers.
The Democratic candidate believes that the U.S. immigration system must be reformed by creating tighter border security
and ensuring a just path to citizenship which “reaffirm[s] our heritage as a nation of immigrants.” He seeks to work
with Latin America on addressing climate change and energy security, taking particular note of expanding the partnership
with Brazil to share technology, develop markets for biofuels, and create greener methods of energy consumption. Other
important measures that the Obama administration must deal with include the preservation of the Amazon rainforest and
the fight against deforestation through economic incentives.
What about Joe Biden?
Several of Barack Obama’s proposals consistently agree with those long entertained by Joe Biden. Like Obama, Biden
disagrees with the detainment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. He believes that the rules of NAFTA must be reformed, and
has opposed the FTA with Central America. Biden asserts that free trade agreements must include provisions for labor
rights and environmental standards, echoing Obama’s arguments for fair trade. Washington Post staffer Marcela Sanchez’s
recent article reports Biden’s concern over the rampant inequality faced throughout Latin American society, an issue
also addressed by Obama in his “A New Partnership for the Americas” plan. According to Sanchez, Biden maintains that he
“has fought to address the root cause of the…instability that has plagued the region, particularly in recent years:
social inequality.”
On immigration reform, Obama and Biden seek to increase border security as well as enact provisions to absorb
undocumented workers and their families presently living in the U.S. Similarly, both voted to create a 700-mile long
fence along the U.S.-Mexico border under the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Biden and Obama agree that the U.S. should ease
up on restrictions limiting remittances and travel to Cuba for Cuban-Americans, as well as promote the development of
small business on the island, without actually lifting the embargo. Both Biden and Obama are supporters of continued aid
to Colombia, under the terms of Plan Colombia.
Analysis of the Democratic Platform: A Brighter Future for U.S.- Latin American Relations?
Public reactions to the Latin American component of the Democratic platform have been mixed. On one side, supporters of
Obama have asserted that his stance on Latin America represents a fundamental break with the rigidity of past U.S.
policies toward the region, a move which will cause the U.S. to view Latin America less as a junior partner with only
localized military security issues and more as a sovereign highly pluralized neighbor that insists on autonomy. The
Democrats emphasize that in the age of globalization, the U.S. cannot afford to nurture failed policies that treat Latin
America solely as a strategic playing field for parochial U.S. regional interests narrowly defined. In the words of The
Huffington Post’s Laura Carlsen, “U.S. relations with Latin America can no longer be seen as a regional foreign policy
box.” President Bush has abandoned Latin America to concentrate on the promotion of U.S. national interests in the
Middle East. An example of this is the lack of sufficient quality time allocated to allow for the full flowing of
substantive development in relations between the U.S. and Latin America, which has created a power vacuum that has been
filled by strong, often intensely ideological figures such as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Bolivia’s Evo Morales, both
populist politicians who have sought greater innovation and experimentation for Latin America as a function of the
region’s reaction to George Bush’s unpopular presidency. To Obama’s Latin Americanist supporters, now is the time to
communicate to the hemisphere that the U.S. must foster greater and more freely given political, economic, and security
cooperation in a policy based on equality, respect, and mutuality.
Obama’s “A New Partnership for the Americas” plan reflects Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” speech, delivered in
the wake of World War II and meant to provide a world vision based on political and religious freedom, freedom from
want, and freedom from fear. Roosevelt’s presidency was responsible for the formulation of the Good Neighbor Policy; by
constructing his Latin American platform upon FDR’s legacy in the region, Obama has shown a willingness to foster a more
cooperative and perhaps a more creative era for hemispheric relations. The Good Neighbor Policy grappled with issues of
national sovereignty and development, renounced military intervention, and gave Latin America ample space to establish
its own reforms free of heavy-handed U.S. interference accompanied by brazen diktats. Supporters of Obama’s pledge
toward Latin America foresee that Obama’s initiatives and spirit could begin to reverse the U.S.’s reputation as the
“colossus of the north,” ushering in an updated version of the Good Neighbor Policy that could carry U.S.-Latin American
relations to a new level of sustainability and hemispheric autonomy, if he decided to do so.
Others are not so sure that an Obama administration would be willing or able to form a comprehensive, functional
strategy with respect to U.S.-Latin American relations that will not be held hostage by some of the extremist ideologies
found to be at work in Miami and exile centers in the U.S. and elsewhere. Obama chose Joe Biden as his running mate due
to his foreign policy expertise. Despite the fact that Biden has played a key role in the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, he only has traveled to Latin America on four occasions. As for Obama, he never has even been to Latin
America. Biden states that NAFTA should be renegotiated and opposed FTAs with Chile, Peru, and Central America on the
grounds that they failed to incorporate proper environmental and labor standards. Nevertheless, his critics fairly or
unfairly argue that Biden is just pandering to the sectarian interests of U.S. labor unions. While Biden was campaigning
for his presidential bid in 2006, he called Mexico an “erstwhile democracy” and a “corrupt system” that can be blamed
for fostering illegal immigration and wielding a chaotic role in narcotrafficking. Biden’s statement, while containing
more than a grain of truth, largely ignores the fact that the U.S. contributes to the illegal immigration and drug
trafficking phenomena through the exploitation of grossly underpaid migrant workers needed for “cheap labor” enterprises
in the U.S. and the insatiable domestic demand for illegal narcotics.
Obama supports the extension of the Merida Initiative to create a more comprehensive regional security bloc within the
Western Hemisphere. The Merida Initiative was proposed by President Bush as the keystone of his U.S.-Central America
security plan, and is focused on the provision of military and police aid to Mexico (with much smaller amounts to
Central American countries) to fight organized crime and drug cartels. It is a complete truism that the military and
legal structures in Mexico and Central America have suffered from a history of corruption and human rights abuses, and
critics of current U.S. policy argue that increasing military aid to the region only increases the capacity of local
authorities to abuse power of an already deeply flawed law enforcement system. The Merida Initiative is in many ways
similar to Plan Colombia, which provides military and police aid to fight narcotrafficking and organized crime there.
In Colombia, human rights and labor violations have been committed by the military and paramilitary groups on a massive
scale; the vast majority of the aid granted to Colombia by the U.S. is utilized for military purposes, and only a small
fraction of Plan Colombia’s funds are allocated to the protection of human rights. Biden has voiced his support of Plan
Colombia, and Obama seeks to continue the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, stating that “we need to continue efforts to
support Colombia in a way that also advances our interests and is true to our values.”
It remains unclear, however, whether Senator Biden is even aware of the vast corruption of the Uribe presidency, the
continued human rights violations that the present regime sanctions, and the autocratic tendencies chronically exhibited
by Uribe, who is hardly a democratic figure. This is why last night’s reference to Colombia by Obama was so important.
In 2007, he also had sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stating that the U.S. must balance its
military aid to Colombia with social and economic reforms. Nevertheless, four recent letters (two to Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, one to then-Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, and one to President Uribe himself) regarding
human rights abuses in Colombia lacked his endorsement.
Obama has stated that he will open dialogue with democratic-left regimes to instill the notion throughout the Western
Hemisphere that the U.S. will operate without an ideological litmus test, nor will it only engage with Latin America
only when Washington considers U.S. national interests at play. Critics argue that Obama’s policy proposals toward Latin
America are at times muddled – at the same time that Obama supports unqualified dialogue with leftist hemispheric
governments, he defends Colombia’s raid on a guerrilla camp in Ecuador to track down members of FARC. Such an act on
Bogota’s behalf has been viewed by a number of Latin American left-leaning regimes as well as some OAS members as a
violation of international law and Ecuadorian national sovereignty. But Obama has insisted that Bogota has a right to go
beyond its national borders to weed out terrorists who seek refuge in order to attack Colombia. Likewise, Obama promotes
an extension of the Merida Initiative, but fails to mention that Colombia and Mexico–new prime recipients of U.S funds,
are the two principal conservative governments in Latin America and are the only ones likely to be interested in such an
initiative. While Obama may support discourse with democratic-left regimes, it is unclear whether he will be able to
reach consensus in negotiating policy initiatives with Latin America’s more left-leaning governments, through a
willingness to make meaningful concessions. Obama presents an invitation to create a new partnership with Latin America,
but cites Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico as examples of countries with which the U.S. will forge new economic, political,
and security ties. There is barely enough here for regional leaders to even take note of. Obama may not be so quick to
partner with such candidates as Venezuela, Ecuador, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia in strengthening U.S.-Latin American
relations, whatever his new open door policy may seem to be.
Final Conclusions
While the complete nature of Obama’s Latin American platform remains to be seen, there is no doubt that Obama’s stance
on hemispheric affairs will differ from that of the Bush White House, but not so much from Clinton’s regional policy
which was barely discernable from Reagan-era area policy. At the same time, the Democratic nominee does not appear to be
particularly sure-footed on regional affairs, and could disappoint avid U.S. Latin Americanists now associated with the
Democratic Party. Drawing on the ideologies of FDR’s “Four Freedoms,” Obama could represent a break with the failed
policies of the past. Obama has underscored the idea that the U.S. should be prepared to enter into dialogue with every
nation in the region, be it friend or foe. Through it all, he has maintained his posture that the U.S. should speak to
regional leaders without preconditions, despite outspoken criticism from right-leaning U.S.-based Cuban and Venezuelan
exile groups. Yet, at other times he appears to hedge on this position.
Obama’s selection of Joe Biden as his running mate raises many questions as to the ultimate pertinacity of Obama’s
policy initiatives toward the region. Professor Greg Weeks, an innovative analyst based at the University of North
Carolina has characterized Biden as “Mr. Status Quo” with respect to U.S. policy toward Latin America, and as such he
may present a challenge to the implementation of the liberal reforms Obama has promised as the Democratic candidate for
the presidency. At the same time, Biden and Obama have agreed on a variety of key issues with respect to the area. As
Biden’s foreign policy experience lies primarily within the realm of Middle Eastern affairs, he may prove responsive to
approaching Washington’s dealings with Latin America in a new and more imaginative approach.
Yet, it must also be remembered that U.S. authorities traditionally have sought to promote this country’s own national
interests as projected onto Latin America, and not necessarily those of intrinsic interest to Latin America. In this
respect, take the issue of Honduran President Zelaya’s extremely bold statement of a long overdue position on drug
legislation after having met up with the U.S. philanthropist George Soros. Though Obama asserts that he will encourage a
new era of U.S.-Latin American cooperation built on respect for sovereign governments, nevertheless, he will be forced
to contend with competing influences in Washington which favor the maintenance of the U.S.’s current stance within the
region, particularly in dealing with Cuba and Venezuela, and a prejudice in favor of orthodox development strategies.
Obama’s choice of Greg Craig as a foreign policy adviser may prove to be a valuable asset to his administration’s policy
potential in formulating a more rational and innovative approach toward Latin America. Craig has voiced support for a
multilateral approach toward dealing with the region, as well as stressed the need to encourage free elections and the
recognition of democratic governments. Craig also has sought to promote fair trade standards that consider the heavy
social costs of free market economics, and he favors hemispheric ties over bilateral agreements. He would have the Obama
government concentrate on education, health care, poverty, and other social justice issues as major U.S. policy concerns
within Latin America, instead of focusing mainly on traditional concerns such as trade opportunities, narrowly defined
security interests, and northward drug flows. According to COHA Research Associates Michael Katz and Chris Sweeney,
Craig can provide the vision that “Washington needs in order to mend the divide between the U.S. and the new left in
Latin America” (see COHA’s “Obama Adviser Greg Craig: A Man of Merit,” August 19, 2008).
Dan Restrepo, an Obama senior adviser on Western Hemispheric affairs, has argued that the U.S. must work toward a
“partnership with countries throughout the Americas so that democracy, opportunity, and security” are broadcast
everywhere in the region. Like adviser Greg Craig, he asserts that the U.S. must encourage fair trade agreements
throughout the region. Like Obama, he opposes the ratification of a U.S.-Colombia FTA, citing human rights abuses and
violence committed against labor leaders as factors which must be considered in the negotiation of free trade deals.
Greater opportunity for Latin America should come through “bottom-up” strategies of economic and social improvement.
If Obama is elected, the strengths and weaknesses of his policies toward Latin America will rely upon his ability to
remain committed to a broad-range approach to the region in spite of conflicting interest groups and pressures. Whether
he will move to the conservative or liberal side of his platform depends on his capability to work against tendencies
resisting change among Washington policymakers. The policy position of the extreme right will remain clustered around
Senator McCain’s Latin American adviser, the aptly designated Otto Reich; simultaneously, Obama will be forced to deal
with moderate Clinton Democrats who favor free trade policies and a relatively hard line approach towards Castro’s Cuba
and Chavez’s Venezuela.
Obama’s promises to induce reform with respect to the U.S.’s stance on Latin America provide hope for regional
cooperation, and offer a chance to turn the tide on the U.S.’s hitherto flawed position in its relationship with the
countries south of its border. Historically, presidential candidates often make promises just to get into office, and
then fail to honor them. Given that Latin American issues are rarely critical to U.S. presidential campaigns, Obama’s
proposals may prove to be empty, or they may in fact offer the possibility of a real change in hemispheric relations.
Colombia offers an excellent opportunity for Obama to distinguish between President Uribe’s faux democracy and the real
thing. In this instance it becomes symbolic of what could prove to be a real distinction behind Obama’s regional policy.
ENDS