|
Publicaciones - Artículos/Ensayos |
|
|
After Katrina: Compassion, politics
BY MARIFELI PEREZ-STABLE
marifeli@starpower.net
Medical teams, relief workers, soldiers, engineers, water-treatment equipment, mobile kitchens, flood and sanitation experts, 120,000 pounds of bananas, two tons of powdered milk, one million barrels of gasoline, 50 tons of canned food, cash donations: Latin America has been second to none in supporting Katrina's victims. Heartfelt compassion at the sights and sounds of the tragedy is, of course, driving the generosity of foreigners and Americans alike.
Inevitably, though, politics enters the picture. President Bush's take-charge, impassioned response to 9/11 contrasts starkly with his stumbling detachment after Katrina. Four years ago, the horrific attacks -- which we will never forget -- gave the Republican Party the opportunity to bask in the light of national security. Today, the forlorn faces of the most vulnerable among us -- which we better remember always -- could reap benefits for the Democratic Party.
Under the Bush administration, Latin America has further receded on the U.S.
horizon. The Miami Summit of the Americas (1994) conjured a grand vision of integration and free trade that failed to materialize. By the end of the decade, most Latin Americans were chafing under neoliberal reforms that put the macroeconomic house in order but did little to sustain job creation and improve living standards. Still, most also continue to believe that democracy and a market economy are the best carriers of progress. Today, however, Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro are the ones making inroads into Latin American hearts and minds.
Prior to Katrina, Washington and Latin America parted ways on Chávez and Cuba's ever-stinging thorn. After Katrina, an aura of goodwill may linger a bit over hemispheric relations. Just the opposite happened after 9/11, especially with Mexico, which had a distant reaction, and with the Iraq war, which Latin America largely opposed. Katrina's aftermath is pregnant with political possibilities. Mexico, Venezuela and Cuba are cases in point.
Most promising is Mexico, for efforts are already in progress to put the relationship back on track. Thankful words from the Bush Administration -- ''good friend and neighbor,'' ''generous support,'' ''good for our relations'' -- strike the right tone. There is, moreover, no overplaying the symbolism of a Mexican military convoy crossing the Rio Grande into Texas nor the subtle soothing that it may yet work on Mexico's bruised nationalism. We'll see whether the State Department and Mexico's foreign ministry can seize the moment.
Venezuela is a steep but not impossible climb. The administration has accepted Chávez's offer of humanitarian aid, even if it be just a public relations ploy. Unless there's a mutual commitment to improve relations, neither the offer nor the acceptance will matter a whit. Like his bearded mentor, Chávez thrives on confrontation with ''Yankee imperialism.'' At the same time, current U.S. policy is dead-ended until or if Chávez steps over the line in Colombia or elsewhere.
Latin Americans do not share the administration's concerns. Particularly when Chávez is awash with petrodollars, the U.S. alarm falls on deaf ears.
Can the State Department change tracks to find common ground with the region's democracies? Patience is a virtue which, along with proof of Chávez's shenanigans, could serve the United States well.
Cuba is hopeless and so is U.S. policy. We're trapped in an iron-clad box, and woe to anyone who thinks outside it. Witness what happened to Sen. Mel Martinez when -- in much-qualified language -- he welcomed Castro's offer of
1,586 doctors. What would have happened if the administration had called his bluff? What if the doctors had come? What if some or many had asked for political asylum? What if none did but returned home with a first-hand view of the United States? Every time the U.S. government responds to Castro in predictable ways, he wins. It's as simple as that, but we're trapped and in denial.
Katrina's aftermath offers the United States and Latin America an opportunity that should be embraced. I'm afraid, however, that the moment will largely come to naught. Latin America is plainly not a U.S. priority, which is as much the region's responsibility as the Bush administration's.
If only Latin American economies looked more like those of Central Europe, India or China, the story might well be different.
Marifeli Pérez-Stable is vice president for democratic governance at the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington, D.C.
BY MARIFELI PEREZ-STABLE
marifeli@starpower.net
Medical teams, relief workers, soldiers, engineers, water-treatment equipment, mobile kitchens, flood and sanitation experts, 120,000 pounds of bananas, two tons of powdered milk, one million barrels of gasoline, 50 tons of canned food, cash donations: Latin America has been second to none in supporting Katrina's victims. Heartfelt compassion at the sights and sounds of the tragedy is, of course, driving the generosity of foreigners and Americans alike.
Inevitably, though, politics enters the picture. President Bush's take-charge, impassioned response to 9/11 contrasts starkly with his stumbling detachment after Katrina. Four years ago, the horrific attacks -- which we will never forget -- gave the Republican Party the opportunity to bask in the light of national security. Today, the forlorn faces of the most vulnerable among us -- which we better remember always -- could reap benefits for the Democratic Party.
Under the Bush administration, Latin America has further receded on the U.S.
horizon. The Miami Summit of the Americas (1994) conjured a grand vision of integration and free trade that failed to materialize. By the end of the decade, most Latin Americans were chafing under neoliberal reforms that put the macroeconomic house in order but did little to sustain job creation and improve living standards. Still, most also continue to believe that democracy and a market economy are the best carriers of progress. Today, however, Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro are the ones making inroads into Latin American hearts and minds.
Prior to Katrina, Washington and Latin America parted ways on Chávez and Cuba's ever-stinging thorn. After Katrina, an aura of goodwill may linger a bit over hemispheric relations. Just the opposite happened after 9/11, especially with Mexico, which had a distant reaction, and with the Iraq war, which Latin America largely opposed. Katrina's aftermath is pregnant with political possibilities. Mexico, Venezuela and Cuba are cases in point.
Most promising is Mexico, for efforts are already in progress to put the relationship back on track. Thankful words from the Bush Administration -- ''good friend and neighbor,'' ''generous support,'' ''good for our relations'' -- strike the right tone. There is, moreover, no overplaying the symbolism of a Mexican military convoy crossing the Rio Grande into Texas nor the subtle soothing that it may yet work on Mexico's bruised nationalism. We'll see whether the State Department and Mexico's foreign ministry can seize the moment.
Venezuela is a steep but not impossible climb. The administration has accepted Chávez's offer of humanitarian aid, even if it be just a public relations ploy. Unless there's a mutual commitment to improve relations, neither the offer nor the acceptance will matter a whit. Like his bearded mentor, Chávez thrives on confrontation with ''Yankee imperialism.'' At the same time, current U.S. policy is dead-ended until or if Chávez steps over the line in Colombia or elsewhere.
Latin Americans do not share the administration's concerns. Particularly when Chávez is awash with petrodollars, the U.S. alarm falls on deaf ears.
Can the State Department change tracks to find common ground with the region's democracies? Patience is a virtue which, along with proof of Chávez's shenanigans, could serve the United States well.
Cuba is hopeless and so is U.S. policy. We're trapped in an iron-clad box, and woe to anyone who thinks outside it. Witness what happened to Sen. Mel Martinez when -- in much-qualified language -- he welcomed Castro's offer of
1,586 doctors. What would have happened if the administration had called his bluff? What if the doctors had come? What if some or many had asked for political asylum? What if none did but returned home with a first-hand view of the United States? Every time the U.S. government responds to Castro in predictable ways, he wins. It's as simple as that, but we're trapped and in denial.
Katrina's aftermath offers the United States and Latin America an opportunity that should be embraced. I'm afraid, however, that the moment will largely come to naught. Latin America is plainly not a U.S. priority, which is as much the region's responsibility as the Bush administration's.
If only Latin American economies looked more like those of Central Europe, India or China, the story might well be different.
Marifeli Pérez-Stable is vice president for democratic governance at the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington, D.C.