Donald J. Trump and President Enrique Peña Nieto held a joint press conference in Mexico City. Source: The New York Times
The tables are turning for US-Latin American relations. The election of President Donald Trump and ebbing of the pink tide in Latin America marks a reversal of contemporary relations. Latin American governments are more committed to global engagement and trade, while the American government has adopted a protectionist anti-trade rhetoric reminiscent of Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI) policies that were embraced by Latin American governments in between the 1950s and the 1980s.
As the Latin American region shifts toward more US-friendly policies, the Trump administration risks jeopardizing the new cycle of positive US-Latin American relations marked by the Obama administration’s rapprochement with Cuba, strengthened ties with Argentina, and the proposal of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) with Chile, Mexico, and Peru.
Deteriorating Relations with Mexico, Regional Implications
President Trump’s overt aggression towards Mexico with social media statements, economic
protectionism, and the promise of building a wall along the US-Mexico border may very well unite Latin American governments against the Trump administration. President Trump has undermined US-Mexican relations by proposing a “major border tax” and a border wall that will allegedly be forcibly financed by Mexico. Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto already cancelled a state visit in response to President Trump’s order to build the border wall.
Argentine President Mauricio Macri and Brazilian President Michel Temer have vowed to increase trade between the Mercosur trade bloc, which includes Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico -- meanwhile Trump threatens over $583.6 billion of annual trade with Mexico.
During the 2012 Sixth Summit of the Americas in Colombia, Latin American governments evoked strong opposition to continued US hostility towards Cuba with the threat of boycotting and effectively cancelling the Seventh Summit of the Americas if Cuban officials were not invited. Trump could arouse similar regional contestation if the US constructed a wall, especially because it may resemble a symbol of hostility, similar to the economic embargo imposed on Cuba in 1958. The Trump administration should consider Pan-American solidarity for Mexico if he continues to uphold his Mexico campaign promises and tweets.
Venezuela: The Need for a Balanced Approach
U.S. diplomatic relations with Venezuela have been at a historically low point. Both countries have not had ambassadors in each other’s capital since 2010. In 2015, President Obama signed an executive order to impose targeted sanctions on Venezuelan officials that undermined democratic institutions, human rights, and promoted the persecution of political opponents.
President Trump’s Secretary of the Treasury Department, Steven Mnuchin, announced sanctions targeting Venezuela’s newly appointed Vice President, Tareck El Aissami, for his alleged involvement in international drug trafficking this month. The White House’s top diplomat, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, was CEO of ExxonMobil during two major disputes between the oil company and both the Chavez and Maduro governments. In 2007 President Chavez nationalized billions of dollars of ExxonMobil assets and in 2015 President Maduro claimed that ExxonMobil was working to “destabilize Venezuela” because of operations that ExxonMobil performed off of the coast of Guyana in disputed waters with Venezuela.
Protests Erupt in Venezuela - A protester walks past a line of riot police in Caracas on February 12, 2014. Source: CNN
The Venezuelan government, led by President Nicolas Maduro, has accused the United States of conspiring against Venezuelan sovereignty, a rhetorical policy initiated by late president Hugo Chavez in 1999. President Maduro recently accused the United States of plotting to overthrow his government. The animosity between both the US and Venezuelan governments will likely continue under the Trump administration. With regards to US foreign policy regarding Venezuela, Andrew Selee* from the Wilson Center urged the Trump administration to use multilateral pressure on the Venezuelan government instead of adopting a unilateral strategy. He warned that the United States would find itself isolated in its diplomatic efforts if it presses the Maduro government unilaterally. Jose Miguel Vivanco*, from the Human Rights Watch, cautioned that it would be hard for the Trump administration to create a multilateral regional alliance vis-a-vis Venezuela because he is “perceived as toxic” by Latin Americans. With respect to the dire situation in Venezuela, the Trump administration must support regional multilateral pressure rather than lead an aggressive unilateral approach.
*Both Selee and Vivanco shared their regional outlook during The Trump Administration and Latin America conference at the Elliott School of International Affairs.
Importance of Multilateral Institutions: Threat of Continued US Exclusion
US- Latin American relations have changed over the course of the 21st century. Multilateral institutions, such as CELAC, UNASUR, ALBA, and other institutions, have challenged US hegemony in the region by excluding US membership and by competing with the Washington-based Organization of American States (OAS) as a forum for hemispheric political discussion. Congressional Republicans have threatened to defund the OAS, while China has increased engagement through official and unofficial platforms with Latin American states. In 2015, the People’s Republic of China held its first forum with CELAC, where it pledged to invest $250 billion in Latin America by 2025. In 2016, PRC representatives pledged to increase its economic support to UNASUR.
The PRC has filled the investment vacuum left by the United States in Latin America, and threatens to continue to exert its economic influence, which would further undermine US influence in the region. The Trump administration should support the continued existence of the OAS and acknowledge the political positions of other multilateral institutions, such as CELAC and UNASUR. If the Trump administration withdraws US presence in regional forums, the US may risk further exclusion from Latin American political discussions.
Latin American and Caribbean leaders with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the first China-CELAC meeting in January 2015. Source: Brazilian Foreign Ministry
Conclusion
The Trump administration has an opportunity to engage with the Latin American region. The cosmic alignment of newly elected pro-business and US-friendly governments with the election of the Trump administration could create a symbiotic relationship between the hemispheric states. The Trump administration, however, risks uniting regional leaders against US aggression towards Mexico. The construction of a border wall, the creation of a border tax, and the expulsion of undocumented Latin American immigrants would oblige regional leaders to denounce US hostility.
The Venezuelan crisis also presents a challenge for US diplomacy, where policymakers need to strike a balance between non-intervention and the defense of human rights, democratic institutions, and international law. The Trump administration should engage with Latin America at a time when the PRC is challenging the vacuum left by the fall in US investment and regional leadership. New political conditions in Latin America present a cyclical opportunity for political alignment between the United States and Latin America, however, US diplomats and policymakers should consider the repercussions of further deteriorated US-Mexican relations and regional disengagement in multilateral institutions.