In four days’ time, the world will be
watching as the United States elects its new president — but how will
the result affect this country?
With only four days until the US presidential election, the 10-point
lead Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton once held over Republican
nominee Donald Trump has evaporated into a neck-and-neck race in the
polls. And while the uncertainty over the future direction of the
country has started to alarm global partners, it also could mark a stark
turning-point for US relations with Argentina and the Latin American
region.
Long considered the backyard of the United States, with many
controversial interventions overshadowing relations, interchanging
Democratic and Republican administrations have many times offered
similar foreign policies approaches toward Latin America, though with
slight variations across party lines.
But this is no ordinary election. If Clinton is elected, experts
believe it would represent mostly a continuation of current President
Barack Obama’s policies toward the region — the reintroduction of
diplomatic relations with Cuba, support for the Colombian peace process
with FARC guerrillas and the promotion of further integration of trade
accords — with the result being a more assertive foreign policy in Latin
America.
However, if Trump is elected, the region could suddenly be facing an
inward looking candidate who has made outwardly racist and xenophobic
attacks against Hispanics and Mexicans and threatened to pull out of
joint trade accords. Frankly, a man with a “my way or the highway”
position on most issues, take it or leave it.
Implications for the region
While it’s difficult to predict what the future policy of either US
administration would exactly entail, the Herald talked with a multitude
of US-Latin American foreign policy experts and former high-level
government officials from both the White House and Pink House in order
to discover what a future Trump or Clinton administration could mean for
the region.
“The fundamental difference between the two candidates is Trump would
make the US more isolationist and Clinton would be a key player in
building an international order — this will have real implications for
Latin America,”
Daniel Restrepo, the White House’s former Senior Adviser
for Latin American Affairs for the Obama administration told the
Herald.
Restrepo considered that Trump has a very simplistic view of business
transactions and that his approach would have an immediate impact on
the trade agreements between the regions. But at the same time, he
stressed, it still wouldn’t be a cakewalk for a new Democratic
administration in the south.
“The politics of trade will be difficult regardless, due to the
current political climate where there is more scepticism of trade
deals,” Restrepo said.
Since taking office last year, President Mauricio Macri has made a
clear effort to cultivate a closer relationship with the United States,
with the highlight being Obama’s visit to Argentina last March, marking a
new friendship and closer relationship between the two countries. The
Argentine head of state has even showed a willingness to join the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal promoted by the United States to
lower tariff barriers to trade.
But the wave of protectionist fervour — not only in the United
States, but also in other countries such as Britain, which recently left
the European Union — has influenced the US election greatly. While
Trump has consistently argued against trade agreements such as NAFTA
(North American Trade Agreement), and the TPP (Trade Pacific
Partnership), calling for a renegotiating of the trade deals.
Clinton — amid growing pressure from former rival for the Democratic
nomination, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Senator Elizabeth Warren — has
followed, withdrawing her support for the TPP.
Despite the political climate, the Director of Georgetown
University’s Center for Latin American Studies
Matthew Carnes is
confident that if Clinton were elected she would continue expanding
trade agreements with the region.
“Hillary would be a continuation of the Obama administration,
committed to expanding trade connections with the region with a strong
vision of the importance of trade in the hemisphere,” he explained.
In a Wikileaks document recently released from the so-called Podesta
email files, it revealed that in Clinton’s infamous private speeches to
Goldman Sachs, she had told the bank employees that she “dreamed of a
hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders,” a markedly
different position from her more recent comments.
Trump, at the same time, has communicated a radically different
approach to other areas, threatening to cut off funding to multilateral
organizations such as NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). It’s a
policy which could potentially have a major effect on multilateral
organizations which provides financial assistance to Latin American
countries and Argentina, such as the OAS (Organization of American
States), IMF (International Monetary Fund), and World Bank.
Yet Carnes is confident the US Congress would limit how much Trump could do.
“In the short term he could cut funding to these organizations, but
at the end of the day he would have to work with Congress, and
main-stream Republicans and Democrats would be against these policies,”
explained Carnes.
Anti-Hispanic rhetoric
Another factor often highlighted by experts, one which could affect
relations between the region’s relations with a future Trump
administration, is the candidate’s controversial rhetoric against
Hispanics and more specifically, Mexicans.
“His proposal to deport eight million Hispanic immigrants (from the
US), to build a wall between the US and Mexico — this will create a
feeling of rejection and anti-Americanism will grow in (wider) society,”
historian
Leandro Morgenfeld, an expert on US-Argentine foreign
relations, told the Herald.
He recalled how after President George W. Bush had decided to invade
Iraq 2003, the US was strongly criticised by several Latin American
countries throughout the region. Two years later, this culminated in a
huge protest during the Summit of Americas held in Mar del Plata, aimed
at Bush and the US-sponsored FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas)
agreement. The protest was led most vocally by former Venezuelan
president Hugo Chávez, Bolivian President Evo Morales and famously, late
former Argentine president Néstor Kirchner, who delivered an aggressive
speech laced with criticism.
Carnes anticipated that any anti-Trump feeling that could emerge
after the election would also mean Latin American countries would maybe
be less likely to conduct business with the US.
“(Mexican President Enrique) Peña Nieto suffered after he invited him
(Trump). There would be a desire not to negotiate with him because of
this political aspect,” said Carnes, a Georgetown professor.
In an unprecedented move, both Foreign Minister Susana Malcorra and
President Mauricio Macri have publicly demonstrated their preference for
Clinton over Trump during the campaign. Malcorra, in particular, has
voiced her “concerns” over the Republican candidate’s rhetoric and
statements on the region. Macri, meanwhile, reportedly told Bill Clinton
during the G20 conference in Hangzhou, China last August, that he
expected to see him next year as the “first man.”
Malcorra though has backtracked a little. She admitted last Wednesday
— after new polls showed the race for the White House tightening — that
if Trump were to win, they would just have to “adapt.”
In an interview with the Herald, former Foreign minister Jorge Taiana
preached caution too, saying it was difficult to predict what Trump’s
Latin American policy would be exactly, despite his infamous statements.
“While he mentions Mexico, it doesn’t appear that Latin America is
really on his radar. It will most likely be affected more by decisions
he makes with other major countries such as Russia or China,” Taiana
said.
The current president of the Mercosur regional bloc’s Parliament said
that he believed that in spite of the Republican candidates’ words, he
would be limited by the US establishment, Congress and so-called
“special interests.”
Neo-conservative restoration
For former Argentine ambassador to the United States,
Cecilia Nahón, a
Clinton victory on November 8 would be like a third term for the Obama
administration, in contrast to the ongoing “neo-conservative”
restoration in Latin America.
“The doors would be more open to the United States to advance its
interests in the region at the expense of Argentina and other
countries,” she told the Herald.
The former ambassador, who is currently a professor at the Washington
DC-based American university, explained that despite the differences
posed by both administrations, the US would continue to follow a foreign
policy dominated by its major corporations and industrial-military
complex.
“This is why it’s an error to seek salvation or demons in US foreign
policy — it is defined by their interests and it is our obligation as
Argentines and Latin Americans to defend our own while agreeing to
mutual benefitting agreements without sacrificing our identity and
necessities,” she said.
@delcarril
#EleccionesEEUU2016 y consecuencias para Argentina (Entrevista Morgenfeld)
"Libia
fue la guerra de Hillary Clinton […] algo que ella utilizaría para
presentar en las elecciones generales presidenciales".
Este
proyecto respondía también a la necesidad de Estados Unidos y sus
capitales más concentrados de competir con los otros bloques económicos
y/o políticos. Estados Unidos, con el ALCA, pretendía contrarrestar el
proceso de conformación de bloques en Europa y Asia, estableciendo un
área donde su hegemonía no se viera desafiada. Por su creciente déficit
comercial y fiscal y por su excesivo endeudamiento, Estados Unidos
necesitaba revertir ciertas tendencias económicas de los últimos años.
Los sectores financieros, los grandes exportadores y las empresas
estadounidenses más concentradas pretendían terminar de apropiarse de un
área históricamente disputada con Europa, consolidando la supremacía
del dólar y frenando el avance de nuevas potencias, como China, que
venían posicionándose en la región.
