Questions for presidential candidates on Latin America
Guillermo I. Martinez | Columnist
April 3, 2008

It is rare when U.S. presidential candidates talk about Latin America during the campaign. Usually a mention or two about Cuba and an obligatory salute to democratic regimes in the hemisphere are all the candidates believe is required of them.

This time we have been lucky, and know a little bit more, though not enough.

We know both Democratic candidates, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, say they would like to renegotiate the North America Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada, although top supporters in both camps have told officials in Canada this is only campaign talk. They also oppose new free trade agreements, particularly the one pending with Colombia.

We know that the two Democratic candidates and Republican John McCain speak of securing the border with Mexico before considering any comprehensive immigration reform.

And of course, we have heard all three candidates criticize the Cuban government, while Obama says he would talk to its leader without any preconditions.

There is much more to discuss. Letting the candidates get away with a few cursory comments about politics in the region is unacceptable. Latin America is too close, and its problems too serious to be dismissed so lightly.

A serious debate on U.S. relations with nations in the region is necessary.

Candidates should be asked how they would deal with the new wave of radical populist regimes holding sway in several Latin American countries. What would a new U.S. president say about Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and his attempt to create an anti-imperialistic block of nations in the hemisphere? Would the new president maintain a critical view of Chávez or would he/she attempt to constructively engage Venezuela to curb its ambitions in the region?

Would he/she watch from afar and do nothing as Chávez uses his vast oil resources to consolidate and perpetuate the regimes of Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua? Would a new U.S. president watch passively as Venezuela tries to influence the political process in Peru?

So far, Chávez has been full of sound and fury, but has not followed through with a proactive agenda to create the anti-U.S. coalition he so desperately wants. A new president should be aware of the difference between what Fidel Castro tried doing in Latin America during his early years in power and what Chávez is attempting to carry out now.

Castro had an ideology and a charismatic personality but lacked the money. Cuba fought in Africa, where the Soviet Union needed a surrogate force. That was the price Cuba paid for the aid the Soviet Union provided the island nation. Chávez can pick where he wants to fight. He has the money.

It would also be interesting to know if a new administration would continue to provide financial support and training to Colombia's military to help control the alliance of drug dealers and left-wing guerrillas who for decades have sown chaos in Colombia. Plan Colombia has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance and helped the government of President Alvaro Uribe restore peace in much of the country.

If given an opportunity, I would ask the presidential candidates if they would still consider Colombia's Revolutionary Armed Forces a terrorist organization, as Europe and the United States say now, or would they decide that the FARC is a legitimate force that deserves international recognition?

What would a new U.S. president do to strengthen relations with other nations in the hemisphere, with socialist democratic presidents? Would they try to improve relations with countries such as Brazil, Chile and Argentina, or would they let these nations drift to a natural alliance with the more radical ideas predicated by Chávez?

The person elected in November should also pay special attention to Mexico, one of our most important trading partners, and a vital component of any new Latin American policy for the new administration.

We cannot forget that early in his administration, President George W. Bush said relations with Mexico would have top priority. Sept. 11, 2001, changed all that.

Mexicans still resent that Bush never returned to that principle. It would be interesting to ask the presidential candidates what they would do to improve relations with Mexico. The two countries share a common border where problems with drug trafficking, the use of water and illegal immigration abound.

If elected, what would the new president do to improve relations with Mexico?


http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinio ... 236.column