America’s Withdrawal and Return – Influence Slip-Sliding Away

  First Summit – 1994

America’s Isolationism

 Summit Today –  Summit Today – Uninvited and Tentative Attendees

“The diminishing influence of the United States in Latin America is a byproduct of toxic polarization”

Manuel Orozco, an expert at the Inter-American Dialogue think tank

Going back as far as the “Monroe Doctrine” of 1823 to the series of anti-Castro efforts in the 1960s to clandestine efforts in the latter part of 20th century to unseat leftist regimes in Latin America – often supporting brutal dictators – to the American government’s consistently blind eye to the massive smuggling of American made weapons to narco-cartels that have seriously destabilized Mexico and several nations in Central and South America, the United States has treated nations south of our border with mixture of distain, a region subject to our whims and domination with an occasional efforts towards friendship and rapprochement. We’ve certainly taken advantage of cheap, subsistence labor on farms and mines and pushed big American companies down the throats of nations seeking a greater control of their lands.

There was a moment, since passed, when maybe, just maybe our relationship with Latin American nations could turn around. As Tracy Wilkinson, writing for the June 6th Los Angeles Times notes, “It was the early 1990s, and the Western world seemed full of promise. The Soviet Union had collapsed, and the Cold War that had gripped and shaped global politics for decades was over.

“So were many of the wars in Central America and some of the most intractable and brutal military dictatorships in South America, from Argentina and Chile to Brazil… Then-President Clinton seized on the moment and the Summit of the Americas was born, with the inaugural event held in Miami in 1994. All of the countries of the Western Hemisphere except Cuba joined to debate trade, prosperity, immigration and democracy. And every one of the governments involved had been democratically elected, a sign of major progress.”

But the world has changed. Mired in a post-9/11/01 series of roiling global conflicts, facing its own rising tide of political extremism, polarization, wavering between policies of engagement followed by a toxic shunning of international cooperation, riding high on a mantra of “America First” isolationism, the United States all but abandoned the playing field of global influence. We became the country of “no.” A rising and very wealthy China took almost no time to step in and take our place, particularly in Latin America.

“In 1994, the United States was the only game in town, with an economy much larger than any other country in the hemisphere. China was not the player it is today, and many countries still had diplomatic relations with Taiwan, not Beijing… But today, China has grown exponentially and has made deep inroads into Latin America through its $4.3-trillion Belt and Road infrastructure and import-export initiative, of particular appeal to governments that don’t want to be challenged on democratic practices or human rights.

“‘The U.S. is giving this constant message to Latin American countries: Don’t do business with China. It’s bad for you,’ [said Cynthia Arnson, a longtime Latin America specialist and distinguished fellow at the Wilson Center research institute]. ‘But what the U.S. has to offer is still not clear. ... The United States needs to show it’s putting skin in the game.’

“She noted that while China is pouring money into the region, several overtures from Latin American nations about free-trade agreements with the U.S. have gone unanswered. Trade is an increasingly polarizing domestic political issue, further complicating any steps by Biden… A hallmark of the 1994 summit was a proposal for the Free Trade Area of the Americas, an ambitious plan to eliminate trade barriers throughout the region. However, it fell apart a few years later when officials could not agree on final terms.” LA Times. With that history in mind, a Biden Administration approach to rekindling our international presence was to resurrect the Summit (beginning on June 6th).

But lingering elements of Trump-era isolationism, Biden’s seeming futile efforts to embrace his virulent opponents in the populist GOP – his still holding on to failed vestiges of Trump foreign policy – have resulted in a Summit that has provoked many Latin American nations to see US efforts as more divisive than cooperative. Simply put, Biden purposely excluded leftist dictators from the invitation list, which in turn led even mainstream nations (like Mexico) to find that Summit becoming a negative “American” political event, a wishy-washy play to the American political scene rather than a genuine effort to reengage with the rest of the Americas.

Dictators and cartel-bought politicians dominate a sizeable portion of governments south of the border. “[Mack McLarty, Clinton’s special representative to the Summit of the Americas] said he holds out hope that President Biden’s administration can ‘set up a bridge’ to reengage with other countries in the region. But many believe the window that opened nearly 30 years ago has for the most part closed. Progress from what was seen as a watershed moment in 1994 was unraveling before the decade was out.

“The most glaring evidence of regression has come in the form of decisions or threats from several leaders to boycott the event, a position unheard of in 1994 and in most summits that have occurred since, taking place every three or four years. That problem has thrown the White House’s preparations for the summit into a chaotic scramble, creating bad optics for a president who has prided himself on his familiarity with Latin America…

“As many of the region’s governments turn away from democracy and an emphasis on the rule of law, they feel freer to disengage from the U.S., where democratic principles have also been struggling. Mexico’s president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has said he won’t attend after the Biden administration announced it would not invite Cuba, Venezuela or Nicaragua. Bolivia followed Mexico’s lead, and several Central American countries [suggested they too would boycott].” LA Times.

Indeed, as representatives gathered in Los Angeles, as Biden addressed the summit stressing unity of democracies in the Americas, failure was in the air… American hypocrisy at rejecting Latin American autocracies while coddling up to the Saudi autocracy was just one strong negative sentiment, one clearly represented by Argentine President Alberto Fernández, speaking on June 9th: “We definitely would have wished for a different Summit of the Americas. The silence of those who are absent is calling to us.” If there is ever another Summit, there was a solid chorus of member nations demanding no future exclusions.

Although there has been bipartisan support for our support of Ukraine, there is little else in American policies that seems able to bring bipartisan unity, particularly immediately preceding our midterm elections. Perhaps, as many foreign policy experts have suggested, the resurrection of the Summit of the Americas should never have happened.

I’m Peter Dekom, and the Biden administration’s efforts to embrace the concerns of the populist MAGA opposition appears to be a weak “bridge to nowhere.”