“What we are doing hasn’t worked very well and in fact, if you look at the gains, particularly in Latin American, that Iran is making and China is making, it is quite disturbing … They are building very strong economic and political connections with a lot these leaders. I don’t think that is in our interests … I have to say that I don’t think – in today’s world that is a multipolar world where we are competing for attention and relationships with at least the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians – that it is in our interests to turn our backs on countries in our own hemisphere.”
Words shared by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a town hall meeting in Washington last Friday. She went on to criticize the Bush administration’s failed attempts to isolate anti-US leaders in the region. To compensate, she said, this administration must engage with Latin American leaders – especially with ones we don’t like, like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Bolivia’s Evo Morales – if the US wishes to remain a relevant power in the region.
Now, while I don’t think the above sound byte indicates anything as drastic as a New Cold War over the ideological future of Latin America, I do find the logic “quite disturbing.” A few thoughts:
I fully understand that it is precisely Secretary Clinton’s job to push her country’s political and economic agenda abroad, but I don’t think that makes foreign countries doing the same thing “disturbing.” We don’t hear much from the State Department when China, Russia and Iran make political and economic inroads in their respective neighboring countries. Although it was unsaid by Clinton (and feel free voice disagreement below), I think what is implied here is the chestnut about Latin America traditionally being in the US’s “sphere of influence.” The murky trio: China, Russia and Iran are suddenly on America’s doorstep, and we haven’t approved it.
First off, let me try to add a quick non-State Department perspective. There is no quicker way to raise the ire of someone in Latin America than to describe the region as “America’s backyard.” The paternalism implied by this Monroe Doctrine/Roosevelt Corollary-derived phrase really does not go over well. On top of this, despite the US’s enormous influence in region through decades of political and economic intervention, Latin America today is not the United States’ backyard anymore than Africa is the backyard of Europe. President Barack Obama kind of recognized this with his talk of a “new era” in relations between US and Latin America at the Summit of Americas last month, saying “there are no senior of junior partners in the Americas.”
If, then, the US follows Clinton’s calls for the US to re-engage with certain countries in Latin America (a great idea, as far as I’m concerned), it should NOT be in some kind of belief that doing so will prevent these countries from pursuing diplomatic, economic and, yes, military ties with China and other countries of the world. US negligence in Latin America during the Bush years did push countries toward China, but China was coming anyway. And its presence, however “disturbing,” is here to stay (and grow). The State Department returning to Caracas yelling “hi, remember us?” is not going to change that fact.
Clinton is right to point out that the US is “competing for attention and relationships” in Latin America, but this competition is not a zero-sum game. Just as fully developed nations across the planet seek to diversify their economic and diplomatic channels, Latin American countries are after the same thing.
Second point. I won’t pretend that I’m privy to anywhere near the intelligence info that Ms. Clinton is, but I feel confident enough to take issue with her line about “they are building very strong economic and political connections with a lot these leaders. I don’t think that is in our interests.”
Economically, yes, China’s rise in Latin America creates competition for US interests there. Yes, US companies must be fitter to survive in Latin America than before China arrived on the scene. Is competition a bad thing? Aren’t fostering adaptability and wealth creation (both in China and Latin America) ultimately positives for the US, in a global economy?
Politically, I think China’s presence in Latin America fundamentally differs from countries like Iran, who I peg as likely having a true anti-US agenda in Latin America. For all the “socialist solidarity” rhetoric between Beijing and Caracas (generally emanating from Caracas), the word “oil” appears in every news article I’ve read about China and Venezuela. China’s surging economic prominence in the region means a stronger political presence by default, I don’t see Hu Jintao staying up late into the night dreaming up ways to undermine the US’s presence in Latin America.
Image: CNN