The upcoming visit of George Bush to Latin America, from March 8 to 14, is seen by many commentators as a tardy attempt to patch up relations with a region that has been among the lowest priorities on his Administration\'s agenda and is visibly slipping through its fingers. Meanwhile, the recent change to a Democrat majority in both chambers of the US Congress is raising queries as to the possibility of its influencing policy changes towards the region.

ALAI interviewed the American analyst Roger Burbach (1), on the recent evolution of US policy towards Latin America. He commented that the recent political changes in the subcontinent, under the initiative of left-leaning governments and popular movements across the region, leading to the rise of a reformist agenda opposed to neoliberalism and US militarism, has not received the aggressive response from the US that would have been the case in the past. This is less due to a change in policy towards the region, he considers, as to the heavy involvement of the Bush government with its wars, first in Afghanistan and now in Iraq. "The Bush administration has been so occupied and obsessed in its imperial wars in those countries, that it hasn’t been able to devote the resources, which Washington historically has done when it\'s felt threatened by even reformist governments, like those of Evo Morales and now the Rafael Correa government" (in Bolivia and Ecuador, respectively).

In recent years, there has been a somewhat moderate policy line towards the region. Nonetheless, since February of this year, there are signs of a new policy shift taking place, as John Negroponte has became Deputy Secretary of State. "As we know, recently and historically, Negroponte has taken a very hard interventionist line toward what are perceived as any threats to the US system in Latin America. He helped run the \'Contra\' war in the 1980s against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua". From 2005-2007 Negroponte was Director of National Intelligence, and before that Ambassador to Iraq. "He has recently made statements indicating that he is taking a tough line against Hugo Chavez, he represents the hard line within the administration", comments the American analyst.

Burbach identifies two phases in the Bush administration policy towards the hemisphere. Initially, policy was mainly controlled by the neoconservatives, whose key figure was Otto Reich, nominated in 2002 as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, and then (when his nomination was turned down by Congress), as US Special Envoy to the Western Hemisphere. "Reich took a very hard line against Chavez, and probably was instrumental in orchestrating the US participation in the coup against Chavez in 2002", remarks the historian.

After Reich left office in the State Department, in 2003, under heavy criticism, there was a shift as Thomas Shannon took charge of hemispheric affairs, and in 2005 was confirmed as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, where he still holds office. Shannon "introduced a somewhat different line. He more or less accepted as reality the election of Evo Morales in Bolivia, as well as continued electoral victories of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. At the same time, during the last year and a half, the US has been toning down the rhetoric on Chavez, at least in the State Department", notes Burbach. He adds, however, that there have been dissenting voices on the National Security Council and from the White House, pressing for a tougher line. These sectors have been seeking to make a distinction between the "bad left" and the "good left" in Latin America: "the \'bad left\' being particularly Chavez and to some extent Morales, and of course Cuba as usual; and the \'good left\' being Brazil with Lula and Argentina with Kirchner; so they\'re trying to drive a wedge between them."

The arrival of Negroponte as Deputy Secretary of State would seem to strengthen those positions, and as second on board to Condoleezza Rice, he now has the power to override Shannon\'s perspective for Latin American policy. He controls all the regional offices, with more direct control than Rice herself, who is mainly concerned with the Middle East and the Gulf States, and knows very little about Latin America, according to the analyst, who added: "I would expect that, given his historical experience, Negroponte will soon control Latin American affairs within the State Department, and impose a much more hard-line policy than Shannon." There is speculation that, given the policy differences, Shannon may prefer to move on or resign.

Bush\'s trip: the search for new alliances

This is the context in which Bush will visit five Latin American countries and Roger Burbach considers that this view of widening the gap between the "bad left" and the "good left" is the basis for the trip. "He\'s going to Brazil and Uruguay, which represent new left governments, then he\'s going to more traditional allies like Guatemala, Mexico and Colombia. So it\'s an attempt to forge a different alliance, to try to use the traditional allies of the US, hoping to get them to work with the governments of Brazil, and to some extent Argentina and Uruguay, to get them to collaborate with the US and allow space for the more neoliberal regimes to act without being marginalized, given the massive ascent of the new left throughout Latin America. That, I think, is the strategic role of Bush\'s trip to Latin America, to try to make separate accords, to try to buy off these governments, win them away from any potential alliance and collaboration with Chavez, Morales and now Correa".

So, depending on the results of the trip, the analyst expects his country to adopt a tougher line towards Chavez, at least at the rhetorical level, though "all this has to be seen in the context of the US obsessed with the war that it\'s losing in the Gulf States." He adds, "I\'m sure there are covert activities taking place already against the Chavez regime, of many different sorts, in order to destabilize it, just as they did with the government of Salvador Allende in Chile in the 1970s. I have no doubt that the US is doing all it can to continue to produce destabilization of the country economically, and it could work through the financial system - even through the private financial systems - to try to destabilize the country\'s finances. That will be one step on which they will move more assertively under Negroponte. That\'s clearly his area of activity: he knows all the levers of the intelligence world and he knows how to manipulate them financially, economically and politically."

In the case of the Bolivian government, Burbach points out that the main point of tension with the US is not only their relations with Chavez, but also their participation in the anti-drug trafficking program. Morales has imposed his own terms for participating in the plan and has increased the quota of coca that can be cultivated legally. Washington recently renewed its financial support for the program, but only provisionally, for six months, after which it will be reviewed. "Morales has just said he won\'t make any concessions to the US plan", observes the interviewee, a fact which could lead to the US cutting off any further aid to the program. This, in turn, could have repercussions for other forms of US bilateral assistance, as well as pressures on multilateral agencies: "So I\'d expect a more aggressive thrust of US policy toward Morales. Up until now, with Shannon, the US ambassadors have taken a mild tone, have been willing to talk and not raise their voice or threaten Morales. I\'d expect that to change very quickly with Negroponte as Deputy Secretary of State."

US interests under "threat"

Considering that regimes that Burbach refers to as "neo-reformist"- such as those of Ignacio Lula de Silva and Néstor Kirchner - they are seen as less of a threat to US interests than the more radical governments. Even so, he is convinced Washington finds some of their policies unsettling, and not only the neoconservatives: "I think what the Right and the neoconservatives consider the norm and the ideal in Latin America were the whole series of regimes and governments that came to power, following the dictatorships, with neoliberal policies and pseudo-democracies: formal democracies with policies that Bill Robinson calls "polyarchy"(2), with minimalization of the role of the State."

In fact, observes the economic historian, "all the new left governments, though they may not break with the debt loans, do reject most of the neoliberal policies, starting with the trade agreements. They also believe in a stronger role for the State in economic affairs. They say the development of the Asian countries in the post-World War II period (such as Korea and Taiwan) was not due to free trade but to strong state intervention. In effect what\'s been resurrected is what is called \'neostructuralism\', in the line of Raul Prebisch\'s school, that\'s being revived by the governments from Argentina to Peru. Even though they may not be able to break with the financial control and the debt burden, they are nonetheless introducing a whole new array of economic policies at variance with what is considered neoliberalism." So for Washington, "to a certain extent this is considered a threat. And by breaking with privatizations, the role of multinationals will be more limited, which is seen by the dominant sectors in Washington (and they may also have some allies among the Democrats), as a policy which is not auspicious, because it tries to put some limits on the role of multinational corporations. For example the bilateral deals between PDVSA, the Venezuelan state petroleum company, and Petroecuador, Ecuador’s state firm, are anathema to Washington, and even a Democrat government would raise questions about them because they affect US corporate interests."

In this sense, Burbach identifies a new economic policy emerging in Latin America: "It\'s not socialist in the classical sense of the word, but it involves a greater role for the State and in many countries it views the State as having redistributive economic power, which is a break with neoliberalism and a top-down model of development." In the world context, it is being seen as an example. Latin America, "for the first time in history, is really presenting an alternative on the world stage to typical neoliberal politics. It is seen as a sign of hope in a world which is increasingly gripped by wars and massive US interventions."

As for possible pressures on the Bush government, from the Democratic majority in Congress, to modify its policy towards Latin America, Burbach expects little more than mild protest. Certainly, "with the Democrats taking control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, there are new voices particularly in the Senate, such as the Foreign Relations Committee and the Subcommittee on Hemispheric Affairs, which articulate a different policy from that which Bush has been following. Christopher Dodd is one example, who focuses a lot on Latin America, and he is saying that the Bush Administration has made mistakes by not collaborating with the reformist policies of many of the Latin American governments, and that there should be an opening towards Cuba, for example."

Moreover, the Democrats are raising some questions, particularly on Cuban policy. "Before the change in Congress in January, a delegation of Republican and Democrat Congress-people went to Cuba. There are Republicans who represent farm states, who want to be able to expand their agricultural exports. And there are Democrats who would clearly be supportive of the Shannon line of negotiating differences, trying to talk to the Latin American governments, not adopting a tough rhetorical position." Nonetheless, Latin America "is not a major area of policy concern for the Democrats. They\'re not staking any of their political capital there and I don\'t see them coming out with a formal alternative to Bush policies there, - beyond sniping and criticizing the policies he does undertake -, because the war in Iraq and the potential war with Iran are so obsessing all sectors of both parties, that they aren\'t really able to focus on a coherent policy, to challenge or limit the aggressive policy of the present administration towards Latin America." As for the Bush administration itself, it "only accepts its own internal council and mainly from the neocons, on Latin America as well as the Middle East."

US-Mexico: a common vision

From the Bush administration\'s perspective, Burbach believes that the only sign of hope during the past year has been the fraudulent election of Felipe Calderon in Mexico. "Calderon is basically a hardcore neoliberal advocate, particularly popular with the White House. He does and says everything the administration wants him to say and he would be used, by the hardliners, in the State Department and the White House, as the front to challenge and try to move aggressively against the left-wing governments, in particular Chavez. And simultaneously, Calderon is surprisingly doing what the US administration wants it to do in the anti-drug war. There\'s been a heavy crack-down in Tijuana, raids in Mexico City in the barrios linked to the drug trade."

As for immigration policy, the analyst notes a coincidence between Bush and Calderon on most aspects. "They both want to establish a bracero program, allowing a certain numbers of Mexicans to go into the US. The policy Bush himself is proposing is for a certain number of workers to be allowed to come into the US and then return to their country after a period of years, combined with an amnesty program where workers in the US would be able to go home and have priority to apply to go back under the system." All the same, "the question is whether Bush can deliver on a new immigration policy towards Latin America - even with the Democratic control of Congress -, with a Republican Party that is radically opposed to his immigration policy."

The one subject of dispute between the two presidents is the border wall. "In order to try to appease the right wing within the Republican Party, Bush has adopted this great electronic and physical wall, and he\'s putting billions of dollars into it. He is determined to go on with that. That\'s the one area of disagreement. But it seems Calderon is willing to go along with it if he gets his new bracero program; if he gets some regularization of Mexican and Latin American migration to the US," though there is no guarantee for now that that will happen.

[1] Roger Burbach has a doctorate in Latin American Economic History. He is director of the Center for the Study of the Americas (CENSA) based in Berkeley, California. He has written extensively on Latin America and US policy, including: “The Pinochet Affair: State Terrorism and Global Justice.” He is also the co-author with Jim Tarbell of “Imperial Overstretch: George W. Bush and the Hubris of Empire.”