The US and Latin America: Towards a new relationship

Recent political developments in Latin America have sparked discussions over the hands-off approach that the Bush administration has taken towards the region. Whether forced by priorities in other regions of the world, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in particular, or by a well-thought new strategy towards the region, it is clear that the role of the US in this region has been less noticeable during these last years.


This, critics argue, has allowed left-wing political parties with no political backing from Washington to emerge and retain power. Currently, the two most important economies in the Southern Cone, Brazil and Argentina, present left-wing presidents, while in Mexico and Chile, the left-wing candidates are favourites in the forthcoming elections. In Venezuela, the main oil exporter to the US, Hugo Chávez is gaining strength. Finally, Evo Morales, an indigenous left-wing candidate, won the elections in Bolivia promoting nationalization of the oil and gas sources and defending coca plantation.

Does this mean that the US has failed to ensure the success of political allies in the continent? This is probable. However, this is not necessarily bad, neither for the US or the region. More importantly, this is what most of the Latin American countries have wanted. During the last decade, there were very few Latin American countries that did not complain about US interference in their domestic politics.

For this reason, this hands-off approach could easily benefit both. On the one hand, and for the first time in decades, Latin American countries will have it difficult to blame the US for political failures in their own countries. On the other, the US could be seen as a partner (although unequal) rather than a political influence in these countries. One remarkable case is Colombia, where US military aid has been critical to fight internal conflict and at the same time requested by the government. In this case, the US has become a key ally of the government.

At the same time, the political division between the left and the right in Latin America is no clear cut. Differences between Chávez and Morales in Venezuela and Bolivia and Lula and Lagos in Brazil and Chile are very significant. While some of the government changes must be understood as discontinuities (such as Mr. Morales in Bolivia) some of the others should be understood as normal changes in the political system. This is key for the US to acknowledge.

However, the hands-off approach should be accompanied by a well-defined strategy. In this respect, the problem is on the US side. This strategy should be based on building partnerships where this is possible. On the political side, the US should aimed at becoming a facilitator of democratic processes by working through incentives and capacity building. On the economic side, free trade is both a necessity and a key facilitator of the democratic process. As the major trading partner in the region, the US continues to exert tremendous influence in every country. In this respect, the Free Trade Area of the Americas has not progressed as fast as expected, but there is not only the US to blame. Brazil and lately Venezuela have objected to its terms. Nonetheless, the discussions are expected to continue and most certainly will end in success.

However, while the US is an essential element for political and economic development in the region, most of the problems in Latin American countries are domestic. Inefficient bureaucracies and political systems are key aspects that hamper the development of strong democratic systems. The US can become a key partner in improving both, using free trade as a cornerstone. But ultimately, the responsibility is on Latin American countries.