President Bush has headed south, quite a bit south, in fact, to attend the Summit of the Americas, an event sponsored by the Organization of the American States. The Summit process was a revitalization of inter-American dialogue, with the first Summitt held in Miami in 1994 and came in the wake of the end of the Cold War, the signing of NAFTA and the expansion of democratic governance in Latin America. All of these events have made inter-American dialogue into a more feasible activity.
This week’s Summit is likely to be discussed in terms of anti-Bush protests (e.g., Argentina braces for anti-Bush protests (Reuters) and Bush Faces Tough Time in South America (NYT) or Bush v. Hugo Chavez (e.g., Chavez, Maradona, protests await Bush summit visit (Reuters).
It is true that Chavez will be an obstructionist, as at least part of his political strategy is to be seen as the thorn in the side of the US and the protector not only of the Venezuelan people, but of the entirety of Latin America, from the imperialist clutches of the Yankees. He also is seeking to set himself up as the US’ main hemispheric nemesis once Fidel passes on. And while Chavez does present a real obstacle to a Free Trade Area of the America (FTAA), the real stumbling block is Brazil, which is not interested in losing its regional political and economic hegemony. Brazil, for all its poverty and maldistribution of wealth is the second largest, in absolute terms, economy in the hemisphere. Further, there are key trade issues, such as US tariffs on steel and orange juice, as well as US farm subsidies, that the Brazilians see as major obstacles to a trade.
In addition to Brazil and Chavez, the Bush administration deserves some blame for the lack of movement on FTAA. Yes, the administration negotiated CAFTA and has taken more of a piecemeal approach to free trade in the hemisphere, but it is also true that the Bush administration after an initial positive first set of steps, has largely ignored Latin America since 9/11. Certainly the re-focus on the region that Bush came to office promising never took place.
Still, this is an important event that bears watching and is more than just a Chavez side-show or a story about protests.
Here’s the NYT write-up: Bush Faces a Fight at Free Trade Talks in Argentina.
And WaPo’s: Bush Arrives for Hemispheric Summit, Planning to Pitch Free Trade
Sphere: Related Content
November 4th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
[...] l be their own doing and they’ll get to live with the results. For more balance see Steven.
Posted by Robert Prather | Permalink | |
You can find this entry in: Foreign Policy , Inte [...]
November 4th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
Wouldn’t be more accurate to call Bush the obstructionist given the fact that Chavez is part of a pretty substantial coalition which has reservations on FTAA (which, by the way has been effectively dead since the Miami meetings that fell apart two years ago)?
Bush’s “blame for the lack of movement on the FTAA” stems more from the fact that the agreement is wildly unpopular in South America than from Bush “ignoring Latin America.” It is also quite unpopular in the US–think back to theatrics that Hastert and DeLay had to resort to to get CAFTA to barely pass last summer.
To say that it is a “free trade” agreement is extremely misleading given the fact that Bush won’t reduce subsidies for US agriculture.
Bush doesn’t have any real credibility as a negotiating partner given the fact that he has a stron record of ignoring aspects of multilateral agreements that he doesn’t like.
Why in the world would SOuth AMerica treat him with any degree of seriousness?
November 5th, 2005 at 7:40 am
Bush, is interested in one thing. “Control”.
And he does not care how he gains that control,
just as his grandfather, http://watch.pair.com/reich.html
This is the rise of the “fourth reich”.
More recently, the U.S. government’s response to a frightened and enraged U.S. citizenry over the September 11 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center has been eerily reminiscent of Hitler’s strategy’ that is (1) geared to exacerbate the reaction of fear and hostility and (2) to put on a fast track three initiatives which bear an uneasy resemblance to the Nazi takeover of Germany. The irony is that the rapidity and recklessness with which the U.S. government would abrogate the Bill of Rights places the Bush administration and Congress in the same camp with the enemies of freedom they purport to oppose.
Sincerely,
Lee
A life time, American,
Freedom Loving, U.S.citizen