Bush's Iraq Focus Adds to Latam Frustrations

abcnews.go.com Feb. 7 — By Pablo Bachelet

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As it prepares for possible war on Iraq, the White House has only won tepid support from its allies in Latin America.

Rather than embrace the Bush administration's call for action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Chile and Mexico, both members of the Security Council, want to give United Nations arms inspectors more time.

"We are in favor of intensifying and strengthening those inspections," said Luis Ernest Derbez, Mexico's foreign minister, after Secretary of State Colin Powell presented intelligence in a speech to the United Nations that he said showed Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

Brazil and Argentina have issued public statements calling for multilateral action on Iraq.

While Latin American reluctance to back a tough U.S. stance on Iraq partly reflects historical reservations about U.S. unilateralism, many analysts point to a feeling that the United States has failed to live up to its promises to the region.

Latin America's Iraq posture "was predictable because of the baggage of U.S. military intervention in Latin America," said Michael Shifter, of the Interamerican Dialogue, a Washington think-tank. "And another part of it is that Latin America feels the United States hasn't followed through on its commitments."

The United States has a history of intervention in countries such as Cuba and Chile, but this was set to change as President Bush ushered in what he called the century of the Americas. Washington was to lead the way with initiatives such as a free trade area and an immigration pact with Mexico.

Then, after Sept. 11, Washington shifted its focus toward terrorism, North Korea and Iraq.

Day-to-day handling of Latin American affairs devolved to mid-level officials at a time when the region was struggling with economic stagnation and a string of crises.

Mexico was irked when U.S. officials went cool on the migration deal. The Venezuelan economy is in shambles following a long strike against President Hugo Chavez and Argentina is slowly emerging from its worst recession its history.

Brazil came close to a default on its foreign debt and voters in Ecuador and Brazil showed their unhappiness by turning to leaders with populist credentials.

"It's easy to see when Bush is saying so much about the Middle East and North Korea and very little about Mexico or Argentina or Venezuela or Colombia, that perhaps there's something wrong," said Stephen Johnson, of The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank.

SOME POSITIVE ASPECTS

But Johnson said there had been some positive aspects to U.S.-Latin American relations. Bush has met with many Latin American leaders, including Brazil's Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, a socialist.

Bush managed to pass a trade bill that paved the way for a free trade pact with Chile and set the scene for a pact with the rest of Latin America. The administration also won bipartisan support for increased aid to Colombia.

But Arturo Valenzuela, director of Latin American Studies at Georgetown University, said these gains were attributable to a "sophisticated bureaucracy" implementing policies already in place rather than breaking new ground.

"The boxes are still being checked, the memos are still being sent out," he said.

What's lacking, he said, is a strong U.S. response to Latin America's ills. "You have to be proactive in a crisis."

"If you have a senior person that wants to work on these issues and shows interest, then things can be done," said the Interamerican Dialogue's Shifter.

In the end, Latin Americans may want an old fashioned diplomatic quid pro quo before endorsing Bush's stance on Iraq. "If the United States has not shown sensitivity to Latin America's problems, then its hard for Latin Americans to fully support where the U.S. is going," Shifter said.