The battle for Latin America

Eduardo del Buey
Foto: Ap
La Jornada Maya

Martes 13 de febrero, 2018

The announced departure last month of U.S. Career Ambassador Thomas Shannon from the State Department underscores once again the levels to which U.S. diplomacy has fallen since Donald Trump became President. A wide swathe of the senior-most positions at State remain unfilled a year after Trump’s inauguration, as well as some 40 percent of U.S. ambassadorships abroad, including in key countries like South Korea.

Shannon was the finest U.S. diplomat that I have ever known and a key voice of reason at senior levels of the State Department. Nowhere will Shannon’s departure be felt more keenly than in Latin America, the U.S.’s backyard and traditional zone of influence. He has been the U.S. point person on Latin America for the past twenty years, served as Ambassador to Brazil, as well as White House Counsellor for Latin America during the George W. Bush administration. He has been the key U.S. player with respect to Venezuela, dealing personally with the increasingly dictatorial Hugo Chavez and, after his death, his ideological and political successor Nicolas Maduro.

The Trump administration marginalized Latin America both during and since the election campaign. Attacks on undocumented “Latinos”, threats to build the wall along the Mexican border, and claims that Mexicans are “rapists” and “murderers” have offended Latin audiences. Trump´s decision to downgrade relations with Cuba appears to many in the region to be a return to the Cold War. One might argue that Cuba remains a dictatorship despite enjoying diplomatic relations with the United States, but so are China, Russia, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, and Egypt. Indeed, the United States provides Egypt with over $1 billion per year.

This month, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited a number of Latin American countries in an attempt to shore up relations. I say “attempt” because prior to his departure, he spoke of his visit at the University of Texas. He warned that "Latin America does not need new imperial powers that seek only to benefit their own people", referring to China and Russia. He also spoke about the continuing validity of the Monroe Doctrine — anathema for Latin Americans given the numerous interventions by the U.S. south of its border, some with tragic results.

Russia has been busy of late selling weapons systems to Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua. “Russia has been paying great attention to strengthening its positions on the arms market in Latin American countries,” said Alexander Denisov, head of the Marketing Activity Department at Russia’s arms exporter Rosoboronexport.

After meeting with Bolivian President Evo Morales recently, Russian President Vladimir Putin told Morales, who is no great friend or admirer of the United States, that “there is interest in the fields of energy, engineering and certain high-tech sectors. We are prepared to work together with you in military technology cooperation as well”. Russia and Bolivia signed a defense cooperation agreement in August, 2017.

Not surprisingly, Russia’s arms sales come with few human rights or democratic development strings attached. And the Russians appear willing to license manufacturing of weapons and weapon systems in Latin America, not only providing sophisticated weaponry, but also contributing to enhanced technology transfers as well as job creation.

China has also been very active in the region of late. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi spoke in January to a meeting between China and the Confederation of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in Santiago, Chile. While he did not invite Latin America and the Caribbean to formally join the Chinese “Belt and Road” initiative, he called the region a “natural extension” and “indispensable participant” in this plan.

Total trade between China and Latin America stood at $200 billion per year in 2014 (vs some $800 billion in Latin American exports to the United States). In 2017, Latin American exports to China increased by 30 percent, according to the Inter-American development Bank (IDB). Latin America is a natural source for the raw materials Chinese industries require, not to mention oil and natural gas required to feed the Chinese energy market.

Chinese trade with and investment in Latin America are unencumbered by concerns for respect for human rights and democratic processes, corruption, or worries about drug shipments and money laundering. Moreover, China’s support for the Paris Agreement on Climate Change meshes well with Latin American concerns about environmental degradation. Indeed, Chinese technology can be a boon for governments trying to clean up their environmental challenges, and it might even come with state-sponsored concessionary financing in most cases.

China’s worldwide ambition is to create a modern transportation infrastructure to feed Chinese industry with raw materials, and to create new and expanding export markets for Chinese products. As well, the Chinese see the “soft” diplomacy of economic and financial investment as the best way to secure support for its global leadership aspirations. One must recall that a large number of Chinese clients of Latin American exporters are state-owned companies that cooperate fully with their masters in government and the military to meet national objectives. U.S. and European multinational companies look at the bottom line and shareholder profits, instead of their government’s geopolitical objectives.

Thus far, China has not driven too much of a wedge between Latin American clients and the United States. But, this can change as the U.S. continues to isolate itself and abrogate its leadership position.

This could leave the current U.S. administration in a very difficult position.

A visceral focus on “zero sum” trade principles leaves the Chinese market looking like an increasingly attractive alternative. While the Chinese market is closed for many products, it welcomes resources from soy to oil. As Latin American governments and business leaders watch the Trump administration’s tactics in renegotiating NAFTA and its antipathy towards their part of the world, they may likely see China as being more amenable to their interests.

In his Texas speech, Secretary Tillerson noted that “we do not seek short-term deals with lopsided returns. We seek partners with shared values. With the United States, you have a multidimensional partner." He went on to pledge U.S. support for expanding democratic governance, free markets, and fighting against drug cartels and corruption.

However, Latin Americans may ask “what do we get in return”? Tillerson´s invocation of the Monroe Doctrine during the speech was ill-advised, since it was the the policy framework that contributed to the lack of good governance from which the region continues to suffer, as well as the corruption that continues to plague the region to the present.

While societies in the region must take control of their governments and demand an end to the corruption endemic in the system, the United States must understand that hectoring will achieve little, since Latin Americans cringe at the thought of U.S. intervention of any kind. The fine hand of trained and sensitive diplomats is required to steer the course between convincing Latin American audiences and confronting them.

The Chinese may see this as a good opportunity to strike beneficial deals in the region. While shifts in alliances are not the sole fault of the United States, one sees little diplomatic activity that could improve its position in the region.

Ambassador Shannon was keenly aware of the complex matrix of challenges facing the United States in the region, and he is gone.

Absent strong and focused leadership from the White House and the State Department, we may be looking at a tectonic shift in Latin America’s world view. The United States needs a pro-active foreign policy capable of advancing its interests in the region while taking into account the realities Latin American governments face.

This requires diplomats trained in negotiating from state to state. While President Trump may have mastered “The Art of the Deal”, he has shown little sign to date of mastering the art of diplomatic negotiations.

As he seeks a replacement for Ambassador Shannon, one hopes that he will learn the power of effective diplomacy in dealing with Latin America and the urgent need for this type of expertise.

[b][email protected][/b]