After Carnival, it is back to work and back to the bad old days for US-Latin American relations

Oh dear, it all looked so hopeful three months ago after Barack Obama’s victory in the presidential elections, even one month ago during his inauguration. We were promised a new dawn of US-Latin American relations that would undo a century-old period of open interference in the internal affairs of its neighbours. This was inaugurated by the US intervention in the 1898 Cuban war of independence from Spain and continued with direct US interventions and support for some of the most murderous, fascist regimes of the Twentieth Century.

Back in December, president Lula of Brazil even promised to use his weight in the international stage to mediate between the US and the increasing number of Latin American countries that have found a common voice and are making it heard. Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, amongst others, want normal, respectful relations between sovereign countries, not patron-servant relations. That is why they are not keeping quiet about a Cuban embargo in place since the 1960s, the disastrous effects of US-led free market policies since the 1970s, about the US-sponsored wars in Central America in the 1980s and about continued interference in the internal politics of countries like Bolivia, where the US ambassador traditionally used to approve or disapprove of presidential candidates.

Unfortunately, the initial signs emerging from the US State Department do not bode well for the future of these relations. Following Hillary Clinton’s unveiling of ‘direct diplomacy’, yesterday’s report to Congress on Latin American human rights is less than balanced. Indeed, the Bolivian vice-minister of coordination with Social Movements has called it a ‘gross oversimplification of the national reality that is politically motivated’.

So, according to this document, whereas Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia receive a reprimand for human rights abuses, countries like Colombia – where being a trade unionist is tantamount to a death sentence – and Peru – where antiterrorist legislation is applied to social protesters – receive a ‘pass’ rate.

This blindness to the strength of feeling in Latin America about the social progress being promoted by ALBA-inspired literacy campaigns in Venezuela or Bolivia, or the medical care provided by Cuba in the region, denotes that things might not have changed so much in US foreign policy. Indeed, off the cuff remarks by Clinton and Obama about Hugo Chávez, characterising him as ‘despotic’ and ‘a dictator’, not only affect relations with Venezuela but with the rest of Latin America. The same goes for the perennial problem of relations with Cuba that could easily be solved with a minimum of political will.

These are the big tests of US relations with Latin America. Will the new administration be up to the challenge or will it provide more continuity? Do initial signs from the US mark the beginning of a new era of carrot and stick policies of the 21st Century? Let’s hope not.