Looking Past 2016: Latin America and the Caribbean in US Foreign Policy
At the intersection of domestic and foreign policy, Latin America and the Caribbean are prominently featured in the discourse of presidential candidates. However, the 2016 election cycle is different from past ones. As the race progresses, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have solidified their polarized views on key issues that have the potential to advance, deteriorate, or permanently alter diplomatic relations in the future. Increasingly, the region as a point of contention between the leading nominees highlights their truly different campaign messages, policy proposals, and visions for America.
In recent decades, Latin America and the Caribbean became the figurative battlefield of the U.S. fight on various domestic issues, namely trade and immigration. However, this dynamic has shifted in recent years. Under the Obama administration, a variety of initiatives coupled with an inclusive and multilateral approach have sought to take advantage of the increasingly democratic trends within the region. Following in President George W. Bush’s footsteps, Obama continued to pursue bilateral free-trade agreements and solidify economic ties with the Pacific seaboard countries. Attempted reforms to the U.S. immigration system currently divide the American public, directly influencing the rhetoric invoked in the presidential election.
This issue of The Caravel’s U.S. Foreign Policy Series explores the candidates’ ideas regarding trade, immigration, and dictatorships.
Free-Trade Agreements: NAFTA The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which recently celebrated its twentieth anniversary, has generated vast opportunities for U.S., Canadian, and Mexican markets. By strengthening economic interdependence, NAFTA directly created five million new jobs and sustains 14 million jobs overall, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Relying on his business acumen, Donald Trump continuously advocates for stronger terms of trade and American protectionism. Trump has called NAFTA a “disaster” and the “worst trade deal ever” and aims to either renegotiate the deal or terminate it, though his plan for how he will do this lacks specific details.
Trump has consistently blamed NAFTA for the flight of low-skilled jobs from the United States, though he promises to provide Americans with higher-paying jobs. If Trump won the election and the U.S. withdrew from NAFTA, this unprecedented move would generate uncertainty across the region. Two scenarios could ensue: a trade war or the negotiation of a better deal. Ultimately, though, the move would likely result in unemployment, higher prices for consumers, and a decrease in foreign investment for all countries involved.
When it comes to trade policy, Hillary Clinton’s exact stances are equally uncertain. Despite initial support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Clinton has distanced herself from that opinion in recent months. As President Bill Clinton did with NAFTA, she would likely perform a cost-benefit analysis for joining the TPP, ultimately prioritizing American strength in context of global markets. Overall, Hillary Clinton shares the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s views: NAFTA has been crucial in creating jobs and value chains, raising standards of living, and enhancing the competitiveness of North American industry in an increasingly integrated global market. However, it is unclear what trade policy under a Clinton presidency might look like. She would likely maintain trade and globalization but focus on strengthening the specific terms of the trade agreements. Immigration and Border Security The number of Latin American immigrants to the U.S. rose rapidly to 9.3 percent between 1970 and 1980. Recently, however, the rate has slowed considerably to 2.8 percent, though the population continues to rise, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Under the Obama administration, deportations of immigrants reached a record high in 2013. In fact, the Obama presidency is noted as having the highest removal statistics. In November 2014, President Obama announced a plan known as DAPA that would halt the deportation of certain undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and parents of lawful permanent residents as well as changes to DACA. However, as result of a 4-4 Supreme Court decision, the fate of the policy remains in question.
When he kicked off his campaign in 2015, Donald Trump placed the interrelated issues of immigration and border security at the cornerstone of his campaign with his well-known saying, “we will build a wall.” Since then, Trump has vowed to drastically increase deportations, construct a wall along the entire U.S.-Mexico border, and triple the number of agents for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In the campaign and the GOP platform, Trump advocates for the idea of “America First,” in the context of which he seeks to prioritize American jobs, wages, and security. Despite his self-proclaimed commitment to the issue, a Trump presidency would be unlikely to implement the plan in its current form.
In fact, Trump himself confirmed this degree of uncertainty. Looking back on his meeting with Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto, Trump acknowledged that payment of the wall was not discussed. Generally, Trump’s dismissive and uncompromising behavior has caused widespread alarm in the Latin American community, alienating close U.S. allies and causing a rift in diplomatic and economic relations. Trump’s unwavering stances have already driven a wedge in U.S.-Mexican relations, particularly due to his inflammatory rhetoric.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton proposes a more nuanced response to both immigration and border security. As a proponent of comprehensive immigration reform and Obama’s measures, DACA and DAPA, Clinton hopes to eliminate the legal red tape that discourages legal immigration and to create a path to full and equal citizenship. Clinton’s plan maintains a commitment to upholding and enforcing the laws and regulations at the border and incorporates a strict and thorough vetting process that prioritizes American security. These policies are supported by her track record of advocacy. Nations across Latin America and the Caribbean have reacted positively to her policy proposals.
Dictatorships Latin American countries’ historical legacy of straddling the line between dictatorship and democracy may also affect the way the next administration treats Latin America. Indeed, continuing President Obama’s efforts to normalize relations with Cuba, as well as the complicated relationships with various Latin American and Caribbean leaders, including Venezuela and Nicaragua, will become the next president’s responsibility.
When it comes to Cuba, Trump refuses to accept relations as established by President Obama. Recently, Trump backtracked on the normalization of relations with Cuba, arguing the agreement is one-sided and only beneficial for Cuba. The real-estate millionaire argues that Castro’s government must restore political freedoms and relinquish political prisoners as a prerequisite to diplomatic relations, much in line with his Republican colleagues’ opinion.
Throughout his campaign, Trump has lauded many leaders, notably Russian President Putin, for their leadership capabilities and strong wills. His apparent willingness to negotiate and embrace leaders, regardless of their track record, could possibly carry over to Latin America and the Caribbean. However, it should be noted that his candidacy has been used to strengthen anti-American rhetoric in Latin America. Nevertheless, the exact relations with Latin American dictators (formally so or de-facto) under a Trump presidency remain to be seen.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton would continue to fully support the normalization of U.S.-Cuban relations. To Clinton, it is vital that the United States increase influence in Cuba and repeal the embargo, rather than continue a policy she claims to be “Cold War-era isolationism.” As one of the most well-traveled Secretaries of State, it is likely that a Clinton presidency would build on pre-existing relationships and experience.
As for Venezuela, Secretary Clinton has repeatedly condemned Nicolás Maduro’s repressive and anti-democratic tendencies, suggesting, once in office, she would take action against the Venezuelan government. Moreover, it is highly likely that Tim Kaine will play a major role in Latin American policy and approaches due to his experiences and expertise in the region.
This article is part of a special Caravel series about how foreign policy proposals by the US presidential nominees will affect the regions that make up our sections. Foreign policy implications for other sections are available below: