The United States is preparing to elect its next president. The geopolitical importance of the United States, as well as its active interests in Latin America, means that the election takes on special relevance for the region.
201 years ago, the United States declared its clear intention to put all the Americas under its zone of influence and assert its dominance over its imperial competitors. In 1823, John Q. Adams and James Monroe summarized this idea in a famous and sad phrase for the Latin American peoples seeking to escape from European colonial rule: “America for the Americans”, a maxim that could well be translated as “The Americas for the United States”.
Although at the beginning it could be interpreted as a declaration in defense of the nascent Latin American republics against any plan of European reconquest, it later became a declaration of intent of US foreign policy: the entire American continent should be supervised and controlled by the United States. This policy now known as the “Monroe Doctrine” has defined US policy towards the region ever since.
In this sense, Latin America always pays close attention to the US elections to get a sense of how international relations will be defined in the years to come.
How would a Trump or Harris win affect the region?
With the imminent election of Trump or Harris, the big question in Latin America is whether it will matter whether a Republican or a Democrat wins. Peoples Dispatch spoke with two analysts to explore this question.
Miguel Ruiz, a professor at the Central University of Ecuador, explains that experts on diplomatic relations between the United States and Latin America affirm that for several decades there has been no major difference between the foreign policy of the Democrats and the Republicans with regards to the region.
Laura Capote, a member of the secretariat of ALBA Movimientos, agrees in general terms with this point of view: “There is a defined [foreign] policy in the United States that is independent of the government in power, which is to continue with the Monroe Doctrine.” Behind any democratic discourse, the United States has historically maintained an imperialist attitude towards the region that seeks to subjugate any political desire that goes against its geopolitical interests.
However, Ruiz explains that in the case of this election, there are some key differences to consider. In the case of Trump, several countries in the region such as Cuba and Venezuela noted that US foreign policy was much more aggressive under a Republican administration. And while it is true that the Democrats have also intensified their anti-migrant policies, at least in discursive terms, the rhetoric of the Republican candidate is more aggressive against Latin American migrants.
Capote also believes that, despite the great similarities, there are certain rhetorical nuances between one candidate and the other. In the case of a possible Donald Trump victory, the communication may be more aggressive, for example, in the case of migration, while the Democrats resort to more conciliatory language.
Yet, underneath this, Capote clarifies, there is a hypocritical discourse about the concern of the massive migration of Latin Americans to the United States, which is caused precisely by the imperialist policies of the US: “The great phenomenon of migration to the United States is nothing more than the consequence of the impoverishment of living conditions in the regions of Central America, as well as of an extractivist and violent economic policy through which coups d’état and private groups that caused terror among the local population are financed. Today, these countries devastated by neoliberal policies cause severe poverty that encourages migration.”
Therefore, beyond the rhetorical elements, Capote says that the fundamental objective remains the same: to advance the historical imperialist policy of the United States. Hence, economic sanctions against Cuba or Venezuela are sustained by both candidates to suffocate any country that has an alternative method of economic development and a different type of government. A recent method to weaken the legitimacy of these states, Capote continues, has been the recognition of opposition politicians as the victors of elections, as is the case of Juan Guaidó and Edmundo González in Venezuela.
Latin America in the geopolitical dispute
In this aspect, Ruiz agrees: “Neither should we think that a Democratic administration would be benevolent with those countries, migration problems, and other cooperation issues.” Therefore, it would be better to pay more attention to the fact that for several years the US foreign policy of the elites (be they Democrats or Republicans) has been promoting “the recovery of its military, geopolitical and cultural control in [Latin America], and in the dispute that the United States has with China, the region will become a continent of discord; then the difference between Democrats and Republicans will not be too great.”
Capote agrees that in the hegemonic dispute between the United States and other geopolitical poles, Latin America plays a strategic role: “With the emergence of the BRICS, the place of the hegemonic country occupied by the United States is in decline, thus it needs to strengthen its presence in those territories where its presence has historically been strong and forceful, especially in the Western Hemisphere and particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean.”
The possible empowerment of ultra-liberal Latin American politicians if Trump wins
Despite the great similarities, some aspects may seem minor (such as the style of communicating and making policy), but they could have a great impact on the development of domestic policy in each Latin American country. Being such an influential country, the United States also affects the ways of “doing politics” in the countries of the region.
Hence, Ruiz emphasizes that Trump’s victory would directly influence the strengthening of certain political groups in Latin America. “There is a high probability that Latin American ultra-right political tendencies will gain more strength, and that is not a minor problem. I am thinking of the case of Bolsonarismo in Brazil, Milei’s followers in Argentina, and other politicians who have shown their sympathies for Trump who would benefit from a victory [of the Republican candidate].” In this sense, the winning rhetoric in the elections could affect what kind of politicians could access a presidential seat in Latin America, in the sense that a possible Trump victory could boost ultra-liberal politicians with more aggressive rhetoric.
In any case, it is clear that Latin America will be closely watching the outcome of Tuesday’s elections, and precisely because it is one of the areas historically most controlled and influenced by the United States, any variation in form or content could affect the entire region.
