Latin America: The next Sino-US Battleground?

As China moves relentlessly onwards on its path to becoming one of the world's most powerful global franchises a number of questions have arisen regarding Beijing, its domestic policies, and its overseas Agendas. One such question that has been asked of Beijing is "Is Latin America set to be the next big economic and ideological battleground between the US and China, or the next damp squib thrown up by Anti-China alarmists?"

Although not exactly a new question, and not exactly an original one at that, it is one that has been given extra inputus this week due to a relatively brief speech given by US Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton regarding China, the US, and ties with Latin America. With China watchers expressing concern over the speech's anti-China tone and hostile focus, and warning that it would be 'a mistake' if Washington were to match the bullishness of Clinton's speech with similarly bullish foreign policy.

China watches also expressed extreme concern about Clinton grouping China and Iran together in the speech. Stating that Clinton took 'two very different states' with 'two different agendas' and implied that things were otherwise.

The Speech?

China watcher's reaction comes in relation to a statement made by Clinton on May 1, while speaking at the before a Plenary Session of the US Department of State, in which Clinton appeared to raise the outmoded specter of 'The China Threat' by describing China's growing investment in Latin American economies as being a "disturbing" trend needed to be countered.

Clinton's words came in reaction to a question on US Foreign Policy regarding President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Clinton spoke of China's economic investments in Latin America; which grew 700% between 2000 and 2007, using Cold War terms. Implying that they Beijing's interests were not only in direct competition with America's own, but also that they were in opposition to them.

Clinton also stated that the US needed to drastically rethink its foreign policy in order to prevent China from gaining, as paraphrased by China watcher, 'more interests in Latin Ameirca than was in America's interest'.


Iran?

In addition to alarm over Clinton's Cold War tone, China watcher's also took particular exception to Clinton pairing the Latin American activities of Iran and China, while failing to clearly state the differences between the two states and their intentions.

China watchers noted that Beijing's relationship with Latin America is primarily economic, and that it has two primary goals

1) To gain increased access to Latin American natural resources for Chinese manufacturers
2) To build Latin America's economy to the stage where it can become a net importer of Chinese made products.

while Iran's interests in Latin America are primarily political and ideological, with its two main goal being

1) to create a coalition of like minded, socialist leaning, state working to combat US colonialism and to block the expansion of US interests
2) To create an alternative trade and economic zone that is able to operate independently of US foreign policy

As such, some China watchers have compared Clinton's words to somebody describing a grade school teacher and a pedophile as being similar 'because their lives both revolve around small children', and have rejected any suggestion that China was attempting to build a regional power base or a regional block of anti-US states.

Intentions?

Although Clinton's words made up only a small section of a larger address, China Watchers consider them to be a worrying indicator of future US intentions and policy in the region. Policies that could see American not merely to engage Latin American leaders in order to undo the damage done by the previous administration, or for the betterment of the region as a whole, but with a view to preventing other countries from gaining a political or economic foothold, and to counter any influence that they said foothold may have on the region.

A New Cold War?

Some China watchers have pondered whether Clinton's words are an indicator of a new Cold War between China and the US, with both sides battling for ideological control of Latin America. However, at this point in time it remains too early to say whether the situation will develop further, and if it develops in how serious it will become. With China watchers noting that Clinton's words were, as yet, a relatively brief comment made in a specific context that has yet to be backed up by any policy from the Obama Administration. Policies which may never come given the Obama Administration's less combative stance, and its center-left policies which are far more in line with Latin America's own ideologies than that of the previous Administration. Meaning that the current Administration is less likely to approach the situation aggressively, and is more likely to reduce the Sino-US differential naturalisticly through increased string free US-Latin American trade and aid than by attempts to reduce Sino-Latin American trade and aid.

Some China watchers have also questioned whether the Obama Administration as a whole, as opposed to Clinton as an individual, may be more inclined to think of China's increased engagement with Latin America as being a good thing that should be encouraged as a stabilizing and wealth generating influence.

Vacuum?

Largely, China's ability to invest in Latin America has been down to two factors. Firstly China's increasing wealth has given it the extra capital to invest in the first place. Secondly, and some would argue most importantly, over the last 8 years the policies of the Bush Administration have created an investment vacuum in Latin America. A space ripe for capitol and knowledge investment that was not filled by US companies, but which was left wide open for other countries, such as China, to pursue.

Aid and Reform v Non-Interference?

The reason for the vacuum in US investment and influence in Latin can primarily be linked to Washington's policy of offering support, aid, and investment to countries:

1) whose social, political and economic ideologies match the US's own
2) Who were willing to change the above to match the US's own
3) Who supported US foreign policy in some notable way.

While isolating those whose systems were different or who did not support Us foreign policy, and encouraging others who are in receipt of US trade and aid to do the same.

However, in contrast, it has long been China's policy that aid and political support should be given based on need, and that trade should be an economic activity with no political string attached.

Thus American investment in Latin America has been significantly held back, while anti-American sentiment has been been significantly advanced due to political interference from Washington and (real or perceived) attempts by the US to force American values on Latin American states. Leaving large gaps in which China, with it non-intervention no-strings approach to trade, has been able to fill.

China watches note that this trend which has been particularly noticeable over the eight years of the Bush administration, and particularly in regard to countries such as Venezuela which have been attempting to implement socialist market reforms under a democratic mandate. Something which the US has opposed on a global scale.

Irony?

Ironically, China's policy of refusing to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries was often seen as being a threatening and interventionist gesture by the Bush administration. With Washington viewing non-interventionist provisions of trade and aid as being a deliberate attempt by China to undermine US efforts to force change on other states in return for trade and aid.

Touchy subject?

Historically, Latin America has always been an extremely touchy subject for the US. Particularly when it comes to the influencing of Latin American states by ideologies that conflict with America's own, due to Latin America's location close to the US doorstep.

A prime example of this has been the conflict between America, which seeks to further wealth centric Capitalist ideologies, and local people's desires for a more equal socialist society. With Washington refusing to acknowledge the distinction between Socialist reform and Communism, and acting to stamp out of suppress leftward leaning Latin American leaders by sponsoring opposition parties or in some cases even supporting armed insurrections against them.

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit