Puzzling indeed. First, the Obama handshake/gift exchange = a media slap in the face. Most politicians and pundits are all up in arms about the handshake, but what about the actual gift Chavez gave to Obama? Here ya go Obama, here's a book about the history of Latin America, as you obviously know nothing about the region. Yeah, that's offensive. The handshake can easily be played off as Obama's commitment to respecting foreign nations.
Also, I admit that I am not an expert on Latin America, but I do agree with Michael Barone that Obama's priorities seem discombobulated:
"As Barack Obama finishes up his second major foreign tour, a pattern in his approach to foreign policy seems to be emerging. On pressing matters of obvious importance, he has made responsible decisions that have not been far out of line with the policies of his predecessor and current necessities. But when it comes to seting priorities for the future, he has chosen to emphasize initiatives that seem more appropriate to situations America faced in his college years, the late 1970s and early 1980s, than to the threats America faces today...
In 1961, the year Obama was born, Cuba was a central preoccupation of American foreign policy. Today Cuba (population 11 million) is not a major problem. Meanwhile, the Obama administration violates the North American Free Trade Association treaty by banning trucks from Mexico (population 109 million), refuses to ratify the free-trade agreement with Colombia (population 44 million), and, despite our need for alternative fuels, makes no move to rescind the 54-cent tariff on sugar ethanol from Brazil (population 191 million).
Obama campaigned as the candidate of hope and change. But on pressing matters he has, responsibly, not produced as much change as many of his supporters expected. And in setting priorities, he seems to be heading back to the distant past, to the disarmament debates of the 1970s and 1980s, to the frenzy over Cuba in 1961-62. Is that the change we need?"
As cold war bunkers are being turned into mansions, Mr. Barone offers an interesting debate topic. Ms. Lanier, do you have any enlightening words of wisdom about Latin America foreign policy as a scholar of Brazil? Thoughts on Cuba?
Posts
3 comments:
My question is simply this: what purpose does the continued embargo against Cuba serve? Sure, you can make the argument that it enforces the idea that we refuse to deal with communist regimes, except that doesn't really work when you realize that our biggest trade partner is China. It unfairly punishes the citizens of Cuba, who are not able to expand their economy to include US goods and services, and it denies United States the right to visit this wonderful country, with its excellent rum, world-famous cigars, and some of the best bass fishing in the northern hemisphere. While it may not be the number one priority, the fact that he is addressing Cuba at all is certainly promising to this follower.
The domestic political impetus behind the Cuba discussion is pretty clear, but the foreign policy realpolitik justifications are non-existent. Cuba's a human rights issue, a NIMBY issue, and a minor economic issue. But we've got much bigger human rights issues (Africa and China), NIMBY issues (Mexico??) and economic issues (duh). If the embargo falls, it will be a win for Obama because the liberal media will laud him as the Dem who ended the last standoff of the Cold War. But nothing substantial will have changed in our overall foreign policy. It's like he CHOSE to be the guy wrapping up the details 20 years after Reagan.
To be clear, I think he's on the right track with Cuba policy...I just don't it's the top priority in foreign relations, or even in Latin American relations. Big fish to fry, especially since Mexico wants to blame us for it's drug wars, and put gigantic tariffs on everything we ship them.
Post a Comment