A Dream Deferred

Boz tipped me to this article by Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialog about Hugo Chávez. While I also agree with much of it, especially this paragraph which Boz also cites:

Chavez's chief strength is his claim to a populist model that recognizes real social injustices and resentments in Venezuela and elsewhere. But his appeals, however seductive, are in the final analysis illusory. Despite frustration about Latin America's lack of democratic and economic progress over the past decade, it would be tragic if the region regressed to past eras. The challenge for U.S. policy is to contest the validity of Chavez's claims and his grandiose but wrongheaded designs. Policy alternatives need to be devised that come to grips with harsh realities but do not jettison modern Western values.

While I agree with Boz that this defines the problem, I don't think that we agree on this for the same reasons, Whether the president has been Clinton, Bush, Wilson, Johnson, much of the prevailing attitude towards Latin America has been, as Shifter notes, is seeing the region as our "back yard." Moreover in the Clinton administration and the George W. Bush administration, the belief that "free trade" will solve Latin America's problems seems to have prevailed.

Well, "free trade" hasn't solved the harsh realities in Latin America. As Marc Cooper noted here, a number of subsistence corn farmers in Mexico were driven out of business when cheap American corn flooded the market. Sugar farmers in Mexico also face similar problems now that Mexico has lost a WTO ruling on a tax on drinks made with high-fructose corn syrup, which despite the ugly aftertaste it adds to soft drinks, manufacturers like the fact that it is cheaper than sugar.

NAFTA certainly doesn't appear to have helped reduce the immigration of the poor from Mexico. I don't expect to CAFTA to do anything to reduce poverty, improve infrastructure or improve education in Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica or Honduras.

The fact that Hugo Chávez has been able to win support among his followers by addressing, with the help of the current rise in oil prices, however imperfectly, some of these needs should, at minimum, get some of those in Washington to do more than trot out the same tired bromides.

They could start by reading Langston Hughes.

Comments

[Jon]

Hi, I've just come across your blog. Interesting. I've added your feed to my reading. You may be interested in something I wrote on Chavez here, on my own blog.

[Joel]

You might also add that fructose is the leading contributor to the rise in diabetes and obesity in America. Nasty stuff.

[boz]

...manufacturers like the fact that it is cheaper than sugar

Not quite. Manufacturers like the the fact that farm subsidies on corn combined with tariffs on imported sugar artificially make corn syrup cheaper. In pure free trade, sugar would win out because it's cheaper and better tasting.

You're right, free trade isn't THE solution, but it's part of the long term solution. The two things we shouldn't do, however, are oversell its benefits and continue unfair trade practices while we push the mantra of free trade.

The problem for Latin America isn't that we're passing free trade agreements. The problem is that our farm lobby and others keep us from implementing real free trade. If Latin America was allowed to compete on even footing, they'd at least have a shot.

[Brian Greene]

I am with Boz here. The concept of the long-term benefits of free trade is pretty fundamental to my political views. But, I recognize that free trade is not endemically good or bad.

If agreements aren't drawn up right, they can have disastrous consequences. Even if they are successful overall, some people will lose. However, I think the key to any long-term development of the region is through a lowering of external tariffs and opening up Latin American countries to competition and trade.

[Randy Paul]

What bothers me is the constant litany of "free trade" agreements as being the solution and the inability to recognize that those who have lost have been those who have a greater difficulty of recovering anything, such as the corn farmers.

I think that Boz's and Brian's points are well taken, but our history indicates that the tendency has been to oversell and overhype "FT"A's while being hypocritical about not only farm and manufactured products, but IP issues as well.

[eRobin]

Fair trade. "Free trade" isn't free or fair. I don't use the term except derisively. It's a lie.

New place looks great, Randy.