From the photographs of Hillary Clinton partying up at a
Cartagena disco during last weekend's Sixth Summit of the Americas, it appears
she was the only U.S. official who enjoyed herself while in Colombia. (We'll
leave out the members of the president's security detail who were sent home for
allegedly consorting with prostitutes.)
Indeed, despite
being commended for "listening
politely," President Obama had to have been
frustrated with being endlessly harangued by his counterparts over historical
and ideological grievances that predated his birth. It was, as the president
said, like entering a "time
warp."
Rather than
figuring out how to cooperate with our southern neighbors in meeting the
challenges of the 21st century global economy, the president was
instead forced to sit and listen as others complained about why Stalinist Cuba
wasn't invited to a summit of otherwise popularly elected governments or how
come the United Kingdom won't honor Argentina's specious claim to the Falkland
Islands after more than two centuries?
It's a wonder
nobody demanded that President Obama cede back to Mexico a huge chunk of the
American Southwest.
Of course, one of
the hallmarks of Latin American populism is nursing historical grudges; it's
easier than having to solve real problems. But, still, the disconnect between
the agendas of the United States and our neighbors to the south continues to
widen. And, in this, those administration officials tasked with managing the
Latin America portfolio are not blameless.
Three years of
U.S. neglect -- combined with a period of economic prosperity built mostly on
Chinese demand for agricultural commodities and raw materials -- have convinced
many governments in the region that cooperation with the United States is not
as important as it used to be. An expression of that new-found attitude is
talking about issues they want to talk about, and in which the United States
has no interest discussing.
It is perfectly
natural that Latin American governments are branching out and establishing new
economic relationships or boosting trade amongst themselves. But spurning
closer cooperation with the United States -- whose economy still comprises
almost seventy percent of regional GDP -- is in no one's long-term interest.
It may be that
the region is enjoying good times economically, but Chinese demand isn't always
going to be there, and it is hardly a foundation on which to build lasting
prosperity. Moreover, confronting the U.S. over historical grievances may boost
some sort of elitist self-esteem, but it is hardly relevant to the majority of
the region's citizens who live on less than two dollars a day.
Enhancing
long-term development is better met through closer regional cooperation in
trade integration, promoting energy security, strengthening democratic
institutions, and tackling drug corruption and violence. And, of course, it
cannot just be a one-way street. The ground is shifting under U.S.-Latin
America relations, with the days of demand and compliance a distant memory.
In an
increasingly turbulent world, there is much to say for developing stronger
relationships within our own hemisphere. By doing so, we will also necessarily
crowd out those who would rather wallow in the past than look to a prosperous
and mutually beneficial future.
With this most
recent summit so dominated by issues no U.S. president can find any benefit in
discussing, some have speculated that this may very well be the last such
summit in which the U.S. will likely participate. That would be unfortunate.
Better that the Sixth Summit of the Americas be remembered as the nadir of
U.S.-Latin America relations, with the only way to go but up.
Read More
