Until a few years ago, it was called the “backyard” of the United States, which “made and unmade” governments and presidents as they pleased. Today, the immense sub-continent of Latin America, with its Caribbean “appendage”, is, at best, “a little-frequented backyard” of US administrations. But, in the near future, something could change, especially in the event of Kamala Harris‘ victory
(Photo ANSA/SIR)
Until a few years ago, it was called the “backyard” of the United States, which “made and unmade” governments and presidents as they pleased. Today, the immense sub-continent of Latin America, with its Caribbean “appendage”, is, at best, “a little-frequented backyard” of US administrations. But, in the near future, something could change, especially in the event of the victory of Kamala Harris, who as vice-president has dealt with Latin American issues with a certain stability, and is part of a political force, the Democratic Party, more inclined to seek more structured relationships with other countries. This is stated by Gianni La Bella, professor of contemporary history at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, a great expert in the area, who follows for the Community of Sant’Egidio, and author of several essays dedicated to Latin American countries. SIR interviewed him on the eve of the presidential elections on November 5 between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.
So, professor, the “backyard” no longer exists? Does Latin America count for little in this presidential election?
Yes, it must be said that the loss of interest has occurred with all the recent presidents, in particular the trend concerned both the presidency of Donald Trump and that of Joe Biden. Latin America remained in the background, while other international issues were pressing. There is a fact that gives an idea: on the last three, perhaps four occasions, the president of the United States has deserted the Summit of the Americas, the meeting to which all the heads of state of the continent are invited, at irregular intervals. . Now, however, the “global game” has become delicate and important, every part of the world “counts”.
What can we expect from the two contenders in the event of victory?
Kamala Harris could become a reference for progressive governments. From her we can hope for greater sensitivity to human rights, and also for negotiated solutions on the great issue of migration from South to North, and indeed for an approach that is more attentive to people’s rights. Connected to the migration issue, there is the issue of investments, especially in Central American countries. Harris personally followed the “Central America Forward” program, which had a fairly good impact, with the creation of at least 50-70 thousand jobs in countries such as Honduras and Guatemala, traditional places of departure for migrant “caravans”. Trump will insist on a free market and a “hard hand” towards irregular migrants and those who are pressing at the Mexican border. During the election campaign, he promised that he would expel all “undocumentados” from the United States. An operation that appears impossible, given that we are talking about ten million people, including 4 million Mexicans and 2 million Central Americans. The bombastic declarations are part of the “character”, but it is likely that in many cases they will remain so, and this also applies to the fight against drug trafficking and to relations with what I would call the “stone guests”, i.e. Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua .
How could things change for Latin American governments?
Of course, much depends on their current political color. Therefore, Donald Trump, in the event of victory, will be a model and an ally above all for Javier Milei’s Argentina and for Nayib Bukele’s El Salvador; Kamala Harris could, however, become a point of reference for progressive governments, for Inacio Lula’s Brazil, Gustavo Petro’s Colombia, Gabriel Boric’s Chile, especially Claudia Scheinbaum’s Mexico, who took office only a month ago.
The relationship with neighboring Mexico remains a particularly important relationship for the United States…
Certainly. It is true that former president Andrés López Obrador, beyond his progressive matrix, but with populist traits, had a good relationship with Donald Trump at the time, but I think that Sheinbaum, also to free himself from the “protection” of his predecessor, could possibly focus on a privileged relationship with Harris. In any case, it should not be forgotten that Mexico has become the first trading partner with the United States and that in 2026 the Canada-USA-Mexico trade agreement will expire and will have to be renegotiated.
First he mentioned the “stone guests”, where dictatorships that we can conventionally define as “left-wing”, today close to Russia and China, and disastrous economic situations coexist. How will the new US presidency be called upon to address the crises in Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua?
This is a sore point, and in any case difficult to deal with.
Even in this case, perhaps Harris could have greater sensitivity, while Trump risks limiting himself to bombastic declarations, given that a “muscular” attitude, in the current international context, could hardly trigger, for example, a conflict in one of these countries. We must not forget, however, that these are not just geopolitical issues. Today Venezuela is experiencing the largest humanitarian emergency in the world, with almost 9 million people leaving the country, mostly living in other American countries. It is a “bleeded” country. In Cuba, there has been no drinking water for two weeks and there has been no electricity for days. Venezuela, with its oil, can no longer be an economic reference point.
To conclude, are there any reasons to hypothesize a return of interest in Latin America on the part of the next US Administration?
It is possible, it is certainly desirable. And this hope, among other things, also concerns Europe. The United States should look more carefully at this part of the world, even if only simply for the fact that, within the UN, it is a “reserve” of 22-24 votes, which could be very important for this “West” so battered.
The West is today divided in the face of global challenges and greater integration between the USA, Europe and Latin America would only be hoped for.
Another challenge would be to revitalize the Organization of American States, a sort of “continental UN” which today lies in limbo. It exists, but without a really important role. The alternative to this commitment by the USA and Europe is to give the continent into the hands of China and Russia. Which is largely already happening, given that China has been the leading investor country in the sub-continent for some time. And also give space to new “regional” powers, such as, for example, Iran, which uses Venezuela as a gateway to the continent. But Brazil is also a regional power, permanently in the group of Brics countries, with Russia and China. Mostly, a gathering of “autocrats”. In this context, Brazil has waged the battle to delegitimize the centrality of the dollar and its role in the world economy. A battle that probably has little chance of success, but gives an idea of what is at stake.
*journalist for “La vita del Popolo”
Download the article in pdf / txt / rtf /
