Chavez's balancing act

(Presidente Chávez en la graduación de la Misión Che Guevara Cargado originalmente por ¡Que comunismo!)

In his post- Cold War classic The Grand Chessboard Zbigniew Brzezinski argued that the maintenance of the United States exceptional position as the world's only superpower demanded the deployment of aggressive geopolitical strategy. Throughout his book Brzezinski adviced policy makers on keeping their eyes on the prize, the Eurasian continent:

A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral.(Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Basic Books: 1989, p.31)

Enter Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez ready to crash Brzezinski's carefully crafted model. Backed by Venezuela's oil wealth and by elections and referenda which have legitimized his presidency, Chavez has pursued a foreign policy agenda counter to the Bush administration's objectives.

Rejecting his nation's peripheral status with his actions and declarations, Chavez has made a name for himself in American mainstream media and in the midst of the presidential campaign coverage he is consistently mentioned as one of those difficult world leaders the next U.S. administration will have to deal with.

Lately Chavez has made international headlines by rekindling his friendship with Russia - of recent Georgia invasion fame- hosting two strategic Russian bombers in Venezuela and preparing to conduct a joint naval exercise in Caribbean waters. The intrepid Venezuelan is also planning a state visit to Moscow next Friday.

Coming from a Western Hemisphere country where foreign policy options have been permanently constrained to different versions of bandwagoning I cannot help but to marvel at Chavez's sheer determination to participate in the often off limits game of balance of power. Thucydides would be proud at his awkward but persistent Venezuelan student.

Turning the tables

Gordon Brown - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2008
Cargado originalmente por World Economic Forum
(Gordon Brown sporting Mr. Bean's haircut at the World Economic Forum in Davos 2008 Copyright World Economic Forum Photo by Remy Steinegger)

It appears that Mexican president Felipe Calderon is not alone amongst foreign leaders who declare their support for one of the U.S.presidential candidates. Just last week British Prime Minister Gordon Brown made headlines with his endorsement of Barack Obama. Praising the advance of progressive leadership around the world, Brown described Obama's campaign as the one "generating the ideas to help people through more difficult times". Brown made no mention in his article of what John McCain and the Republicans are contributing to the race. He has subsequently been criticized for this endorsement which has been qualified as a diplomatic blunder, with the British press arguing that leaders should maintain neutrality at all times regarding the elections in another country.

When I blogged about Calderon's wink at the McCain campaign Nonna rightly asked if this was a common practice, for a Mexican president to meddle into another country's election by announcing who his preferred winner was. My answer was no, it was not common. I also added that Calderon's words would have no impact on the Mexican- American vote. Yet I contended Calderon had good reasons to hope for a McCain win: his party has always maintained a good relation with the Republicans, the United States is Mexico's neighbour and largest economic partner and the Mexican government shares the Republican view on trade. Plus McCain's immigration stand is in tune with what the Mexican government advocates for those who cross the border in pursuit of the American dream.

The United States has traditionally and unapologetically made its preferences be known when other countries elect their leaders. With all the debate on what the "Bush doctrine" entails, one foreign policy doctrine that is well understood in the hemisphere is the Monroe doctrine with its Roosevelt Corollary. In Latin America, the United States has tried historically to exercise a veto power over the electoral choices people make when they are not in accordance with United States interests. Sometimes the United States has even recurred to military intervention or supported internal military coups in order to exercise this veto.

With the end of the Cold War, tipping electoral preferences abroad to favor American interests has required a more sophisticated approach. Declarations of United States ambassadors, American newspaper editorials, announcements made by State Department officials, all have the intention of letting Latin Americans know if a candidate would be welcomed by the United States as someone they can work with. A number of times, a United States endorsement has had the opposite intended effect as Latin American voters have chosen to reject American electoral advice (the elections and re-elections through referenda of both Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales are examples of this trend).

The Bush administration's current unpopularity in and outside of the United States and the Iraqi disaster have paved the way for the tables turning. Call it the globalization of electoral meddling. The United States meddles with elections in other countries and other countries are now meddling with the elections in the United States. In a world where United States foreign policy decisions have such a big impact on the well being of all peoples it is plain common sense for foreign leaders to have a position on the outcome of the U.S. presidential elections. Is it undiplomatic to make their preferences publicly known? Yes. Relevant to voters’ preferences in the U.S.? No. Reason enough to back a complaint from within the United States? Certainly not, as the United States would thus be forced to acknowledge and decry its current and past interventionist actions in foreign elections, many of them much more condemnable than Calderon's support for John McCain or the enthusiastic praise that Brown had for Barack Obama.

Mexican president endorses McCain

Does it even matter? Hispanic network Univision announces Mexican president Felipe Calderon has endorsed Republican candidate John McCain. This should not come as any surprise. Calderon's party, the PAN (National Action Party- conservative) has for long held close relations with the Republican party.

According to the AP article, Calderon believes that McCain "knows the Mexican reality better" even though he acknowledges that Obama is being supported by many Mexican-Americans. Calderon said Obama's plans regarding NAFTA could entail a "return to protectionism" which would be damaging to the bilateral relationship. He added that McCain has supported "the most advanced immigration proposal."

Calderon's public endorsement is logical. He does not want NAFTA to be unilateraly renegotiated and demanding a humane and fair treatment of Mexican immigrants abroad is part of the mandate of any Mexican president. But does it matter whom he endorses? Will his declarations have any impact on the electoral preferences of Mexican-Americans?

The answer is... hardly. Most immigrants crossed the border to escape from a vicious circle of poverty and exclusion. Some risked their lives in the process. Many have encountered racism and denigrating treatment in their search for better opportunities. Not one of them is under any obligation to heed Calderon's opinion on how to cast their vote.

Calderon might have some influence if his own record as Mexican president was different. A reform minded Mexican Executive, willing and able to address effectively Mexico's problems of inequality, corruption and violence could expect the sympathies of those who were forced to flee from the status-quo. Such a president Calderon is not and his opinions regarding the candidates are not only uncalled for but also irrelevant.

Repairing a damaged image

In his address at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, former U.S. President Bill Clinton argued that two questions will have to be answered by voters when deciding whom to elect: who can restore confidence in the attainability of the American dream at home and who can restore America's world leadership.

Whether the response of the American electorate is Barack Obama or John McCain, one thing is certain: the demise of the Bush administration will entail an opportunity for the United States to repair its damaged international relations and improve the bargaining position of that country in the world arena.

The unilateral decision to invade Iraq as part of a strategy to win the war on terrorism was met in the rest of the world with positions ranging from criticism to outright rejection. Some of the governments, like Spain and Great Britain, that initially joined the coalition of the willing were later forced by the pressure of their internal electorates to reconsider their full support to the Bush strategy.

Most Latin American countries were not sold on the Bush doctrine. Mexico and Chile, members of the UN Security Council, chose not to support the United States representation in its demand for a UN sanctioned intervention on Iraq. In Mexico, the decision was not made by President Vicente Fox but by public opinion. Although Fox himself might have been willing to disregard Mexico's own historical experience as an invaded country in exchange for Bush's support to his plan on a bilateral immigration agreement, Mexican voters overwhelmingly condemned the Iraq war. In the midst of midterm elections, Fox was forced to go against his own inclinations to increase his party's chances at winning a majority.

The weak Latin American representation in the coalition of the willing gave the Bush administration enough of a reason to continue ignoring the region. That is, if any reason was needed to justify the non-strategy towards Latin America. Regional issues such as drug trafficking, immigration and economic development were to be addressed unilaterally by the United States or not at all.

Latin America's views on the United States can be divided between aspirational and resentful. On the one hand, Latin American societies admire American democracy, economic might and the rights and opportunities enjoyed by United States citizens. On the other, many Latin Americans resent the intermitent drive of United States administrations to push other countries around in order to further their interests, while making a mockery of the values and principles they uphold at home.

As Bill Clinton stated at Denver, the United States position in the world has been weakened by too much unilateralism and too little cooperation and by a failure to consistently use the power of diplomacy. In regards to the hemisphere's shared challenges, the end of the Bush administration will represent a unique opportunity for the United States to repair its relations with Latin American countries. A cooperative approach will resonate with Latin American societies and directly promote the aspirational view of the United States. This in turn will surely foster Latin American countries willingness to share responsibilities and efforts with the United States in providing solution to regional and world problems.