Latin America is no longer the United States’ backyard, as hemispheric affairs have pivoted towards cooperation and away from interventionism. Now that hispanic population accounts for the largest ethnic minority within the US, the upcoming POTUS has a lot to think about with regards to foreign policy. Increasing security concerns in the Middle East and Russia have sent Latin America down the pecking order of US priorities. However, the US continues to have a strong impact in Latin America’s policies and development.
Up till now, future foreign policy can promise nothing other than uncertainty.
The Hispanic vote will play a key role in determining which political party gets to 1600 Penn. According to an article by the Pew Research Center published this October, Clinton had 58 percent preference among Hispanic voters while Trump had 19 percent, the rest going to Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. In this upcoming election, Latino and Hispanic populations will account for 12 percent of all eligible voters, although a survey also done by Pew shows only 77 percent were absolutely certain they were going to vote.
It is important to analyze the different policies each candidate has for the region and within this agenda, four are to be highlighted: Immigration, US relations with Cuba, trade and cooperation, and the spread of US values across the region.
Immigration
Trump embraces what Republicans have been longing for, strict policies. His rhetoric and plan-of-action include building a wall and tighter border control, such as tripling the number of Immigration and Border Control Officers. The funding for these two projects, according to the GOP candidate’s proposal, would come from outsourcing the cost of the wall to Mexico and from eliminating tax credit payments to illegal immigrants.
Trump holds that illegal immigrants are to be deported during his term, meaning roughly 11 million people, while also augmenting the penalties for those who overstay their visa time. According to Trump, birthright citizenship should be eliminated and children whose parents are illegal immigrants should not attain this status. Experts argue the need of a constitutional amendment while others analyze the possibility of passing a law that defines the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment.
On her campaign website, Hillary Clinton says the US is a nation formed by immigrants and as such should embrace and treat them with dignity. Defending and continuing Obama’s executive actions such as DAPA and DACA, her idea is to protect immigrant families through reforms. Ending the “three- and ten-years bar” is one of the key points. When an immigrant overstays illegally in the US between 180 days to a year but leaves the country voluntarily, they are barred from returning for three years. If the stay is longer than a year, a bar of 10 years is imposed.
The former Secretary of State has voiced the need to help people who are working and contributing to the economy. She promotes access to affordable healthcare for all immigrants, expanding waivers to ease the naturalization costs, encouraging English learning programs, and creating the Office of Immigrant Affairs to assure the correct integration of immigrants to the community. However, the costs of implementing these policies would add to the country’s debt, a main topic of discussion during the current elections.
US – Cuba Relations
December 2014 marked a new path for the relations between the US and Cuba, when President Obama announced a new course of action between both countries. After 50 years of broken relations, negotiations started and embassies were opened in both countries by July of last year. Although diplomatic relations are progressing towards normality, the economic embargo imposed by the US is still in force.
Throughout the process, the Obama administration received much criticism, not only from the GOP but from Cuban immigrants living in the United States. Critics demanded stronger leverage of the poor economic situation of Cuba to implement reforms.
Initially, Trump was in favor of opening a diplomatic dialogue and even insisted on normalizing relations completely, thus lifting the embargo. His position since has shifted, and in an interview last month stated the US should have struck a better deal with Cuba to benefit political and religious freedom. The improvement of these two would be Trump’s demands to keep negotiations on the table.
On the other hand, the Clinton campaign has stated that “The Cuba embargo needs to go, once and for all”. Even though Clinton favored the embargo during her 2008 campaign, her position has shifted radically. In her view, the US was not achieving any goals with this economic sanction and at the same time was holding back policy advancements in Latin America.
In an attempt to sympathize with the region, Clinton may keep normalizing relations with Cuba. She has even threatened Congress to use executive actions to make it easier for Americans to travel to the Island.
For decades, governments have criticized the US for imposing the embargo on Cuba. This Wednesday, the US abstained for the first time instead of casting its usual “no” vote during the discussion of a resolution condemning the Cuban embargo, which is presented yearly at the UN’s General Assembly.
Trade and Cooperation
American sentiment aligns with the latest skeptic wave against economic liberalism. The North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada, which was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, has been heavily criticized for its long term effects on the American economy.
The agreement waives tariffs and trade preferences between the three countries, increasing cooperation and unity. Some experts argue that NAFTA benefits American consumers by introducing cheaper products, although since tariffs are eliminated, it does not produce much revenue for the government. However, as industries move to Mexico because of cheaper labor, one million US jobs have been lost.
Trump supports the renegotiation of this agreement, claiming the actual terms affect US citizens and give Mexicans the upper hand. When industries move to Mexico, they build surplus and increase their profit margin by decreasing the costs of production, thus Trump has categorized NAFTA as a “complete disaster” for American employment.
The GOP candidate is not the only one arguing for the renegotiation NAFTA. In her latest remarks, Clinton expressed her disapproval on the terms that rule the agreement, standing against one of the biggest legacies from her husband’s presidency. Clinton thinks NAFTA has benefited the wealthy and has costed jobs for the working people.
Another trade agreement facing protectionist policies is the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Signed this year by President Obama, the TPP is an agreement between 12 countries, including Mexico, Chile, Peru, and the possible addition of Panama next year. This treaty requires ratification from Congress and amidst the elections, both parties are prioritizing the topic.
The trade bloc holds responsibility for almost 40 percent of the world’s trade and accounts for almost 800 million people. This agreement has found various sources of opposition because of the perceived effect on domestic labor. It eliminates trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas, and regulates diverse economic areas such as production, labor, environment, and intellectual property.
Trump started to voice his opposition in the election’s early stages. Peter Navarro, one of Trump’s trade advisors, said “any deal must increase the GDP growth rate, reduce the trade deficit and strengthen the manufacturing base”. Trump argues that jobs in the US would be significantly affected with the entrance of cheaper products and industries would leave the country aiming for lower wages and labor regulations. Trump’s campaign has promised the immediate withdraw of the US from the TPP.
Meanwhile, the Democrat candidate started her campaign favoring the TPP. During her time as Secretary of State, she supported and lead the negotiations to sign the deal and encouraged the fast-track signature of new trade agreements. Pressure started to condense during the first debates of the Democratic Party, when Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley voiced their disapproval of TPP. Because of poll numbers, her opinion has shifted. Presently, she opposes the trade agreement, claiming it hurts the American economy, its wages, and jobs.
US Cooperation and Values Across the Region
In an article for The Miami Herald, Andres Oppenheimer discusses the idea that the GOP candidate prefers allies instead of promoting intrinsic American values such as democracy and freedom. Oppenheimer argues that Trump will want to spread the number of allies in the region, regardless of their domestic policies, political ideologies, or state of civil society. “Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo (Trump, 2016)”.
However, the fact that Trump opposes normalizing relations with Cuba due to the lack of political and religious freedom undermines Oppenheimer’s statement. Still, there is no clear list of qualifications that Latin American countries should fit to sympathize with Trump. This could raise tensions among the US and Latin America, as well as tensions in between countries within the region.
Clinton’s political career, before and during her time as Secretary of State, has a deep track record in Latin America. She supported political oppositions in Honduras and Paraguay. In 2009, she helped legitimize the overthrowing of Manuel Zelaya and his government. That same year in Paraguay, an impeachment trial was carried out to remove Fernando Lugo from the Presidency. While most countries in the region declared this to be a coup d’etat, the Secretary of State helped recognize the new government.
The role Clinton and her husband have had in Haiti throughout the last decade is also questionable. After the earthquake in 2010, the Clintons favored donor companies of their Foundation by facilitating them deals to construct apparel factories in Haiti. A report conducted by Worker Rights Consortium stated that these were not complying with minimum wage laws. Former OAS ambassador to Haiti Ricardo Seitenfus published an article in which he suggests that Clinton’s meetings with Haitian executives were key to decide on Michel Martelly as the country’s leader after the political crisis.
Events like these have fueled left-wing governments in Latin America, which condemn interventionist policies such as those taken by Clinton in the past. However, according to this 2013 article from the Americas Quarterly, anti-American sentiment post 1990s has dissipated and the perception of the United States in Latin America has a strong tie to the economic performance of the region. This prioritizes the necessity for extensive economic cooperation as the most effective way to better integrate the US within the region.
Source: Latinobarometro Survey, 1995-2010
Conclusion
The upcoming President will have to deal with an underperforming region, where most countries are economically stagnant and also experiencing substantial political changes.
Argentina, Peru, and Brazil have just gone through major executive changes, and future elections in Venezuela and Ecuador only add up to the existing uncertainty. While socialists promote a diverging trend, newly elected governments are looking to the US for support to deal with drug trafficking, organized crime, and lower foreign investment.
The question, then, is whose foreign policy could aid Latin America the most? Even though Clinton’s rhetoric is better suited, the region dislikes her interventionist policies, which may revive anti-imperialist sentiments across the region as occurred in the 70s. On the other hand, Trump perceives the region as a potential threat to American jobs and security. Cooperation could be expected for his “allies”, without necessarily promoting specific political or economic regimes.
Nevertheless, both candidates are subject to legislative and judicial powers. Even though the President directs foreign policy, the legislative body must approve, and it is still unclear whether it will be controlled by the GOP or the Democrats. Much of the success or failure of the policies are to be decided by the next Congress.
While uncertainty is mostly expected in the next administration’s policy towards Latin America, it is clear that the region’s relevance in the American agenda will decrease. As the Middle East, ISIL, Russia and Asian economies take priority, the next president will concentrate efforts on dealing with these rather than focusing on a region whose importance has partially faded. As both the US and Latin America face political and economic uncertainty, delineating the future foreign policy towards the region will deeply depend on openness to trade, immigration, bilateral relations, and rhetoric.