Leaders in 3 countries reawaken old concerns
By MICHAEL E. KANELL The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
With Nestor Kirchner scheduled to be inaugurated Sunday as the new president of Argentina, U.S. policy-makers now face left-of-center leaders in a trio of key Latin American nations.
Kirchner, a member of the party created by Juan and Eva Perón, joins Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the former labor leader who is now Brazil's president, and Hugo Chavez of oil-rich Venezuela as potential thorns in the southern side of the United States.
A few decades back, that notion would be enough to give then-U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger a cow -- if not a coup.
In 1973, Kissinger was instrumental in a U.S.-supported military revolt that overthrew the elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile and set off years of bloody oppression. It was thousands of lives and almost two decades later before free elections were held again.
Is the stage now again set for conflict -- whether it be diplomatic tension, trade penalties or even something more forceful?
Even if relations sour, President Bush probably cannot take action that overtly contradicts years of U.S. policy, said Vicki Gass, senior associate for economic issues at the Washington Office on Latin America. "The U.S. has been pushing democracy building. They can't go in there and do what they did with Allende."
Since the Monroe Doctrine, Latin America has been treated by the United States as a key zone of interest. Washington dispatched troops to Argentina to protect U.S. interests as far back as the 1830s. During the Cold War, Latin America was viewed as a battleground in the struggle against the Soviet Union -- a "back yard" requiring tending, covert action and support of proxy forces such as the Contras in Nicaragua pitted against governments backed by the former Soviet Union such as Fidel Castro in Cuba and the Sandinista regime of Nicaragua.
But since the fall of the Soviet Union, Latin America has mostly been out of the U.S. spotlight. Certainly, the Bush administration's foreign policy has been more focused on terrorism and Iraq.
Latin America is one of the few issues on which Bush has not aggressively pursued policies far from those of the Clinton administration, which hammered away at free trade, Gass said. "As far as the administration has any policy toward Latin America, it is about trade."
And that is where to find the most likely point of contention, said Robert B. Ahdieh at Emory Law School, a specialist in emerging markets and international trade. The leftward drift of regional leaders will up the ante on the Free Trade Area of the Americas, U.S.-sponsored negotiations aimed at a hemispheric trade pact.
"This administration -- like Clinton's -- [has] made the FTAA something of a priority," Ahdieh said.
Atlanta officials have been lobbying to have the trade organization's headquarters located here. The city faces a tough challenge: Miami is regarded as the front-runner in the United States, while Panama City, Panama, and Port of Spain in Trinidad and Tobago are also keen to host the secretariat.
Analysts have likened the economic spinoff for the successful city as somewhat akin to the billions of dollars a year pumped into the Brussels economy as a result of the Belgian capital's hosting the headquarters of the European Union.
The trade talks offer a chance for Kirchner to partner with Silva and Chavez, hoping for more leverage than any would have solo, Ahdieh said. For the United States, having tougher bargainers on the other side of the table is not a deal breaker, but it may slow down an agreement and will probably mean modifications to the U.S. vision.
"It may derail some elements," he said. "It may be narrower than the original."
Rhetoric mellows
The new wave of leaders may also be more interested in alliances with their neighbors than with the superpower to the north. That may not please the United States, but the challenge is far less radical than that of Allende, or even of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua during the 1980s.
None of the three recently elected presidents now calls for radical reshaping of their economies. Moreover, both Kirchner and Silva have softened their reputations by choosing mainstream advisers and economic managers.
"They are left of center, but they are committed democrats -- and they are both very realistic about the economic constraints they face," said Carol Graham, vice president and director of government studies at the Washington-based Brookings Institution.
Kirchner hasn't yet shown how he intends to wield power, but his hints so far echo the performance of Silva -- a good sign for hemispheric relations, she said. "The nuts and bolts of Lula [Silva] -- it's Washington consensus policies."
Pragmatism dictates moderation -- and most leaders get the message, said David Bruce, professor of international business at Georgia State University. "Both Lula [Silva] and Kirchner have emitted a lot of continuity vibrations. My guess is, there is not all that much excitement about them in Washington."
Oil production rebuilt
But Chavez is different.
He has expressed support for Fidel Castro and other villains in the American pantheon. He has used virulent anti-U.S. rhetoric, and his fiscal policies have infuriated Venezuela's business community.
That mix puts him in a different category, Bruce said. "He is annoying on the international stage, and he controls a big source of oil."
Yet even Chavez's radicalism has been more rhetorical than real rebellion -- at least when it comes to the crucial components of trade and finance that connect Venezuela to the global economy. Most critical to his relations with the United States, he has managed to rebuild much of the nation's oil production despite a bitter strike. Chavez's realism is a matter of survival -- a realism shared by the other two, say experts.
Like Argentina and Brazil, Venezuela depends on assistance from funding agencies such as the International Monetary Fund, Inter-American Development Bank or the World Bank, but also on the huge private institutions that shift billions of dollars around the planet each day in search of lucrative returns.
"As those institutions play a stronger role, that puts countries in an economic straitjacket," Gass said.
A year ago, the Bush administration seemingly welcomed a coup in Venezuela, only to be embarrassed when it fizzled. There has been no evidence that Washington actually backed the plotters.
"But there is a perception -- whether accurate or not -- that Bush is using more stick relative to carrot," said Ahdieh.
A potential showdown?
More recently, the United States said it would delay signing a free trade agreement with Chile -- apparently because that nation, a member of the U.N. Security Council, did not support the war against Iraq. "The message is that we are big enough to do without you. Are you big enough to do without us? And unfortunately for them, the answer is no," said Ahdieh.
The most likely spot for a high-stakes showdown is Venezuela -- and then, only if Chavez cancels or ignores a referendum on his rule slated for August.
Kissinger once said the United States would not stand by while a nation foolishly chooses a socialist path -- however democratically. And certainly all three of these leaders came to office via the ballot box. But there's a potential complication.
What happens if Chavez this summer defies the democratic rules? Would the United States move against him?
Most experts think retaliation in Venezuela would be low-key.
"I don't think it's merely rhetoric -- we would prefer democracy," Ahdieh said. "But I don't think the United States feels it's in our vital strategic interests that there be democracy in Venezuela. Whether the oil is flowing -- that is a serious concern."