If President Barack Obama’s foreign aid budget request for 2011 is a reflection of his priorities in world affairs, it looks like the president is saying “adios” to Latin America.
The administration’s foreign aid request to Congress for next year calls for a 13 percent increase for Africa, a 7 percent increase for the Middle East and a nearly 60 percent increase for South and Central Asia, mostly for Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. By comparison, it requests a nearly 10 percent cut in aid for Latin America.
Has Latin America become irrelevant to the Obama administration? As recently as April 17, 2009, at the opening ceremony of the 34-country Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, Obama stated, “I’m here to launch a new chapter of engagement that will be sustained throughout my administration.”
Now, as I was reading the administration’s foreign aid proposal, I couldn’t help thinking — taking a line from columnist Lluis Bassets of the Spanish daily El Pais in a recent article about how the Obama administration looks at Europe — that Obama does not see Latin America as a problem, nor as a region that can help solve any problems.
Looking more closely at the proposed aid figures, most of the cuts for Latin America come from military and anti-drug assistance to Mexico, which would drop by 30 percent, and Colombia, which would drop by 11 percent.
U.S. officials say the drop is due to the fact that most of the helicopter and other heavy equipment purchases for Mexico’s Plan Merida were included in last year’s budget, and that the program will enter a new — less expensive — phase in 2011. But many analysts are skeptical.
“It’s hard to enter a different phase of a plan that has just started,” Peter Hakim, of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank in Washington told me. “I’m puzzled.”
The budget request also calls for more foreign assistance for Zambia ($395 million) and Cambodia ($74 million) than for Guatemala ($67 million), which is reeling from a severe drought.
“It’s a myopic view of the world,” says Eric Farnsworth, vice president of the Council of the Americas, a New York-based group that represents multinationals doing business in Latin America. “Guatemala is falling apart, right on the border with our strategic partner Mexico.”
Peter Romero, a former State Department head of Latin American affairs and most recently an Obama campaign advisor, told me that a nearly 10 percent cut in foreign aid to Latin America won’t make that much of a difference because most of the region does not rely heavily on aid.
“But, politically, it sends the wrong message,” Romero said. “People will say Obama is not paying attention to the region.”
And would that be a crazy assertion? I asked. Romero responded, “Unfortunately, there is no thinking, there is no initiative, there is no nothing in regards to Latin America.”
In a telephone interview, State Department Director of Policy, Planning and Coordination William McIlhenny told me that the proposed increase in aid to Asia reflects the growing strategic importance of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that the rise in proposed aid to Africa reflects the staggering food and health needs in that region.
“The numbers for Latin America have been essentially stable over the past three years,” he said. “They also reflect a shift in the aid mix: We are inverting the percentages allocated to military and humanitarian assistance.”
My opinion: The Obama administration can hardly be blamed for making marginal budget cuts here and there when it is fighting key wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and when the U.S. budget is already strained by domestic needs in the midst of the worst economic depression since the 1930s. And a small cut in Latin America’s military aid programs is no big drama.
What’s much more worrisome is the absence of any major Obama initiative to promote closer economic ties with Latin America, expanding trade and opening markets to help create new jobs from Alaska to Patagonia. One year into the Obama administration, we’re still waiting for the “new chapter of engagement” with the region to begin.
— Andres Oppenheimer is a Latin America correspondent for the Miami Herald. aoppenheimer@miamiherald.com
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
“It’s a myopic view of the world,” says Eric Farnsworth, vice president of the Council of the Americas, a New York-based group that represents multinationals doing business in Latin America. “Guatemala is falling apart, right on the border with our strategic partner Mexico.”
--------------------------------
The problems in Guatemala stem almost 100% from the meddling of multinational corporations in their internal affairs, with much assistance from the US military and CIA.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
If memory serves, that statement is almost verbatim to the one you posted on Haiti a couple weeks ago. And it's just as ridiculous.
However, we can simply apply the the Bozo Theorem, which takes any number you throw out and then divides by 10, in order to get closer to the actual number. So we knock down the hyperbolic "100%" to 10, and........ yup, sounds about right.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"If memory serves, that statement is almost verbatim to the one you posted on Haiti a couple weeks ago."
Possibly-- US government and corporate policy and actions throughout Latin America and the Caribbean have been thoroughly despicable for nearly two centuries.
"And it's just as ridiculous. "
Well, if you assert it, it has to be true.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
"Well, if you assert it, it has to be true."
Likewise. Can't you sense when you're going to 'submit' something incredibly hypocritical?
Have it your way, bozo, and support your assertion. I'm eager to read how the CIA organized the crippling drought and forced Guatemala to not educate their peoples.
The problem with Guatemala is the same as it is with so much of Latin America: massive government corruption over the decades and a "have vs. have-not" caste system that rivals the days of American plantation owners and slaves. I've been to Panama, Honduras, and Costa Rica on mission trips. I have little doubt that Guatemala is any different in regards to the abject poverty and lack of education that blankets those countries, nor in regards to the corruption, rampant in the circles of those in power or that hold the wealth, which perpetually subjugates their indigenous peoples. But those problems aren't the fault of Del Monte or the CIA, sorry bozo. The problem is and has always been internal.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"The problem with Guatemala is the same as it is with so much of Latin America: massive government corruption over the decades and a “have vs. have-not” caste system that rivals the days of American plantation owners and slaves."
No disagreement there. But it was both official and unofficial US governmental (and corporate-- they are really one and the same) policy for decades to support and even initiate all of the above.
If you are unaware of that, then you really know nothing of the history of the region.
And apparently you are ignorant of the CIA/United Fruit-sponsored coup of President Arbenz of Guatemala in 1954-- apparently, they refined their techniques slightly in the coup against Zelaya in Honduras last year.
http://blog.buzzflash.com/contributor...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_...
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
"Blame America first," that's the bozo way.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
"But it was both official and unofficial US governmental (and corporate— they are really one and the same) policy for decades to support and even initiate all of the above."
Yeah, thanks for merely re-phrasing your initial assertion, now can you support it?
"If you are unaware of that, then you really know nothing of the history of the region"
Excellent support. I believe that is a textbook demonstration of the logical fallacy 'begging the question': make an assertion and conclude that it's true on its face.
Yes, bozo, I know the CIA has been involved down there in the past. That's not the argument, but thanks for the link. Quit jumping the shark with your hyperbole and you won't have to backpedal and misdirect.
ivalueamerica (anonymous) says…
I strongly believe that stability in Latin America is crucial to the USA and aid helps maintain that..however...Latin America has weathered the financial crisis much better than has Africa or the mid-east and so this makes perfect sense to me.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Was my initial statement of "100%" somewhat hyperbolic. I suppose so. But while all of those factors you listed as the causes of the problems in that region are perfectly valid, what is incontrovertible fact is that US policy in the region, largely in support of the economic interests of companies like United Fruit, were designed specifically to maintain those conditions in those countries, and they have been wildly successful.
So perhaps a better way to phrase it is that companies like United Fruit and their oligarchic allies in the regions, with considerable assistance from the US government, are 100% responsible for nearly all the problems in the region.
OK, now you can continue to attack me for not supporting my statements, (while not supplying any support for your statements.) But, of course, your main purpose is for attacking me and my statements is because somehow that satisfies your need to pump yourself up-- not because you have anything useful to contribute to the discussion.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
"what is incontrovertible fact is that US policy in the region, largely in support of the economic interests of companies like United Fruit, were designed specifically to maintain those conditions in those countries, and they have been wildly successful."
Incontrovertible fact............. and no support? Still? And you start by saying "Gee, maybe I was hyperbolic. Let me re-phrase....", and then you repeat the same garbage?
"OK, now you can continue to attack me for not supporting my statements, "
Attack you? Feelin' victim-y today, are we? Don't make outlandish statements that are myopic at best and then pretend I'm picking on you.
"not because you have anything useful to contribute to the discussion."
Sorry, bozo, but I frequently come after you because you post exactly this kind of nonsense. You consistently make broad generalizations, outrageous assertions, and grossly inflate numbers. Quit playin' the fool and I won't call you on it.
"not because you have anything useful to contribute to the discussion."
That's rich. You start the string with a patently false assertion -- and that's 'useful to contribute'? I'm more than willing to discuss that which I've seen and experienced first hand in Latin America, bozo. But speculating on your vaporous conspiracy theory doesn't sound productive. Yes, the CIA has been involved w/ Guatemala since the mid-twentieth century, and yes there are corporations down there that employ thousands. Now either prove that those two entities conspired to subjugate an entire nation and are 100% responsible for Guatemala's lot in life or give it up. It can't be done 'cuz it ain't remotely true. And whatever effect they have had on that poor nation, I'm confident it's a hell of alot closer to 10% than your blanket accusal.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Sorry, bozo, but I frequently come after you because you post exactly this kind of nonsense."
Nonsense? By what measure? Your assertion? Talk about laughable.
"And whatever effect they have had on that poor nation, I'm confident it's a hell of alot closer to 10% than your blanket accusal."
So, show me proof of your 10%. If you can't, I call it as proof that this isn't about "proof," but your need to pump yourself up.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
"Nonsense? By what measure?"
Well, your own., for one. Even you said you were hyperbolic. Other measures? Common sense comes to mind, logic, personal experience as I've been to the region. How 'bout the "incontrovertible fact" that YOU have repeatedly refused to provide any support AND the "incontrovertible fact" that there's none to be found that support a NONsensical claim that the CIA and multi-national corporations are 100% responsible for Guatemala's current state?
Slappin' you down pumps me up as much as the satisfaction I get from breathing. Whoops. Take that for granted, don't I? So, no, not so much.