Governor Bush And the "Century of the Americas"

Meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations: Monday, October 30, 2000

The following are the talking points of Robert B. Zoellick, speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations' Washington DC office on October 30, 2000.

The topic of the Americas is one close to the heart of Governor Bush. That's why he delivered a speech on the "Century of the Americas" in Miami on August 25. -- His opponent never quite found the time to give a speech on Latin America.

Governor Bush knows that this American neighborhood is about more than foreign policy: It helps us understand and appreciate who we are as a people....

The influence of Latin America extends beyond Texas, Florida, California, Arizona, and New Mexico... to New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Colorado... to here in the District of Columbia, and others. As one of the largest Spanish-speaking countries in the world, the U.S. is now a major source of Spanish music, journalism, and culture.

Latins have come to the United States to seek the same dreams that have inspired millions of other Americans: they want a better life for their families and their children's children. This Latin influence has enriched our country: It has brought with it an emphasis on family, a strong work ethic, and commitments to church and community.

We can all learn from the strength, solidarity, and values of these Latin Americans. Those who slight Latin America do not fully understand America itself. And those who slight our hemisphere do not fully understand America's interests.

In the 21st century, the U.S. will prosper or stumble with our hemispheric neighbors.

There is a powerful economic logic behind this conclusion: Latin America buys almost 21% of U.S. exports, up from about 17% five years ago. U.S. shipments to Latin America have increased over 50% since 1994, about twice as fast as exports to countries outside the hemisphere.

And U.S. trade and investment with the hemisphere is projected to exceed that with Europe and Japan by 2010. There is also a broader strategic logic behind my conclusion that U.S. fortunes depend on the success of its neighbors.

In the 19th century, many strong countries wanted weak neighbors that they could overawe and even overpower. In the 21st century, in contrast, strong countries will benefit from healthy, prosperous, and confident democratic neighbors. Troubled neighbors export problems: of weak economies, illegal immigration, environmental harm, and even of crime, narcotics, and violence.

Healthy neighbors create stronger regions through economic integration and political cooperation. This is why both the U.S. and the European Union, in different ways, have turned to the challenge of their neighbors' stability, prosperity, and democracy.

The United States' deeper integration within its own hemisphere will not be to the exclusion of U.S. alliances and networks with the rest of the world. To the contrary, if the Americas are strong, the U.S. will be better positioned to pursue its aims around the world.... If our hemisphere is troubled, the U.S. will be preoccupied at home and handicapped abroad.

Therefore, sustained global engagement by the U.S. now requires a new U.S. policy toward our own hemisphere to make it safe, prosperous, and democratic. There will be a second American Century, but this next century will be of all the Americas, not just the United States.

In 1992, the 500th anniversary of the Spanish contact with the Americas, the United States had just opened a new chapter in its own history with the hemisphere. We had worked through the debt crisis of the 1980s together, and investment was returning to the region, encouraged by a commitment to privatization and reliance on markets.

We had negotiated and signed NAFTA, and the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative looked to the spread of free trade throughout the hemisphere. By leading the free trade agenda, the U.S. created a positive dynamic: Countries were competing to get to the head of the line for free trade.

The USG had linked the forgiveness of government debt to environmental protection, encouraging home-grown movements to conserve Latin America's extraordinary biodiversity. Working with partners in Latin America, the U.S. also had helped negotiate the end of cruel and bloody wars in Central America, opening opportunities for young democracies.

Throughout Latin America, democracy was on the move in 1992, as old authoritarian regimes gave way to new elected leaders who wanted to bring their countries into an emerging democratic age. These new leaders helped resolve serious security problems -- some old, such as border conflicts between neighbors; some newer, involving the renunciation of weapons of mass destruction and missile proliferation.

For example, the United States employed the Latin responsiveness to U.S. interest to persuade Brazil and Argentina to end nuclear programs and sign full-scope safeguards; Argentina halted the Condor II missile program, which had been backed by none other than Iraq.

Now I want to be fair: The current administration has done a number of good things in Latin America. But over the past years, top level attention in Washington to Latin America has slipped. The strategy deteriorated into ad hoc, tactical responses. I worry that the U.S. has been repeating mistakes of the past.

The U.S. should not wait to act until Latin American problems have festered into crises... by then the stakes are higher, the costs are bigger, and the solutions are harder. While parts of Latin America have made significant progress, we need to acknowledge that we face dangers in the hemisphere today. Democracy and market economics are still on trial.

Governments and democracy in the Andean region have been engulfed in crises. The entire Caribbean basin, including Central America, has been buffeted by waves of problems, from narco-traffikers to hurricanes, stimulating emigration to the U.S. Despite the U.S. occupation of Haiti, and after spending at least $2 billion, that sad country is descending again into human tragedy.

Last month, the GAO concluded that the money spent to build a new police force and to strengthen the legal system had largely been wasted. Throughout Latin America, elected governments are struggling to show results for their citizens. Too many are not meeting basic needs for health, education, and safety. Only 1 in 3 Latin American children attends secondary school. Grinding poverty still grips millions. And corruption erodes civic trust.

Some public attitudes in Latin America toward democracy are worrying. In surveys of the Latin American Barometer, taken in South America and Mexico in 1997 and 1998, more than 60% were unsatisfied with democracy, and almost one-third favored authoritarian rule or were indifferent.

In some countries, extra-constitutional processes are threatening democracy. Buffeted by the stresses of a global economy, Latin governments have generally persevered, but they face contentious problems. Latin economies are still vulnerable to external shocks. Unfortunately, Latins can no longer rally support to face these problems by pointing to a vision of hemispheric free trade because the FTAA has slowed to a crawl.

It is a real problem that the Administration hasn't secured the authority from Congress to negotiate this hemispheric free trade agreement. And the recent statement by Ambassador Barshefsky that America doesn't really need fast-track negotiating authority is a terrible sign of defeat and retreat. Since the Americas Summit will be in Quebec City in April, the next administration will need to have its hemispheric policy in place within 100 days. Otherwise, our partners will be polite, but will draw a bad conclusion.

The Vice President's silence on the topic does not auger well. The United States now needs a Presidential priority on our American neighborhood. The next President needs to look south not as an afterthought, but as a fundamental commitment of his Presidency. Just as we ended the great divide between East and West by waging and winning the long twilight struggle for freedom that defined the Cold War, so today we can overcome the North-South divide by demonstrating that we can make this hemisphere into two connected continents of freedom and prosperity.

I would propose six principles to guide a revitalized U.S. policy toward the hemisphere

1st, mutual respect: This venture must be cooperative, and it must treat all Americans -- North, Central, and South with dignity.

2nd, we must build on the private sector: Unlike the world of the mid-20th century, private energy is matching and exceeding governmental power in many areas. The reach of this private sector will extend much deeper and range more widely in the information age, with its explosion of new networks.

3rd, we should work jointly -- whenever possible: Given the history of the Americas, the United States will be more effective, and others will be more receptive, if we work multilaterally. Others in the Americas have experience, insights, and resources to bring to bear. We can also improve the capabilities of the OAS to solve problems.

4th, we should build on the cornerstones of democracy and free markets: These common attributes will draw together all Americans and help us unite to meet challenges.

5th, we need to safeguard a common security based on the rule of law and respect for liberty: Our hemisphere offers urgent examples of new security threats that can destroy governments and societies from both inside and out. We need to band together to defeat them.

6th, we should recognize Latin America's diversity and differences: Too often, the U.S. has treated Latin America as an undifferentiated whole. Our policies need to recognize distinctions in experience, size, development, and governance, so we can draw on individual national strengths and target specific dangers.

 

Let me offer a few examples of actions in support of these principles. Today, Mexico has a new democracy and a promising new President. When Governor Bush met President-elect Fox in August, they agreed to meet again in November, before both assume office, to give this vital relationship renewed momentum and to begin to establish a joint agenda.

Mr. Fox asked the Vice President for the same commitment, but, well, it just didn't happen. Governor Bush has spoken of a vision of a "special relationship" with a modernizing Mexico, like our relationships with Canada and Great Britain.

A special relationship recognizes that differences are inevitable, in part because our contacts are extensive. But as is the case with Canada and the United Kingdom, frictions are buffered by a common appreciation of shared heritage, respect, and interests. We should seek to draw our civil societies more closely together, including through cooperation to improve education (in Spanish and English) and by sponsoring interaction among private groups.

The two countries should focus on the availability and cleanliness of water on both sides of the border... on opening the promise of NAFTA to small business and entrepreneurs... on economic development, especially in areas of Mexico that send illegal immigrants to the U.S... and on improving health and criminal justice in both nations.

Our goal should be to create a "North American Community" from the bottom up, fitting the decentralized but globalized and wired world. This new community would emphasize the private sector, non-governmental organizations, markets, and the ability of private groups to organize to overcome problems.

For the hemisphere as a whole, the cornerstone of better hemispheric relations is the extension of a free trade community. Historically, hemispheric trade initiatives have been integrally linked to overarching goals of promoting economic growth and political reform. Hemispheric free trade would draw Latin America closer to the U.S., not only for trade, but through business integration, common commercial norms, benchmarks of behavior, and education.

Indeed, this economic and social association is likely to move the Americas closer to a shared outlook toward the world. The prospect of FTAs can also provide incentives and rewards for governments pursuing difficult economic reforms. The pursuit of common economic interests, in a win-win fashion, also creates a basis for mutual efforts to improve performance in other areas of common interest: e.g., environment and labor conditions.

The long-term commitments of Latin countries in areas like the environment are likely to be stronger if their efforts are rooted in local interest, as opposed to being imposed by the U.S. as a price for economic ties. FTAs can also help Latin governments to "lock in" other domestic economic reforms that will be part of the package of liberalization and openness.

And competition in free trade can spur trade-opening negotiations globally and with other regions. Sadly, in recent years the nations of Latin America have had to turn to others, for example the EU, because the U.S. has turned away. I don't fault our European friends for making these deals. We dropped the ball, and they're running with it. We have to get back into the game.

To advance this free trade agenda, the next President must take the lead in persuading the Congress to grant the Executive negotiating authority. After all, if the U.S. is unwilling to face vested interests that oppose open markets, how can we expect the developing Latin democracies to do so? Governor Bush pledged to seek fast-track trade negotiating authority promptly, so that by the time of the Americas' Summit in Quebec next April, other nations will know that this authority is on its way.

His opponent has been silent, raising serious doubts about where he stands on this key issue.Given the close relationship among trade, investment, and finance, the U.S. should also support efforts to develop a stronger private financial infrastructure in Latin America. It is important to reform banking and financial systems before crises hit.

As Governor Bush explained in Miami, the future of this hemisphere lies with the creation of millions of small businesses among the poor -- the surest path out of poverty. But the poor in Latin America have no access to small amounts of working capital -- to credit cards or bank loans -- that would help them buy something as simple as an oven to bake bread to sell. So Governor Bush proposed granting $100 million to help organizations in Latin America offering "microloans" -- small, no collateral loans enabling the poor to start a business and employ their neighbors. He said he'd also ask the World Bank and IDB to add to this investment.

The Governor also wants to use the power of debt reduction to relieve poverty and protect the resources that sustain life in the Americas. So he proposed expanding the aims of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act and stated he'd ask Congress to provide $100 million to support the exchange of debt for the protection of tropical forests.

The U.S. should also explore what steps we can take with others to improve the quality of democracy in the hemisphere. Some Latin countries need to strengthen the institutions, constitutional frameworks, and culture of democracy. They need to improve the constructive interaction of the private sector with government, so that public participation and involvement support a decentralized democratic system.

Latin elites cannot wall themselves off from the rest of their societies. They need to have a sense of responsibility for their countries. Because U.S. society is reflecting more Latin culture at the same time that Latin America is opening up voluntarily to North America, our goal should be to build a new Inter-American civil society.

These efforts might draw on, for example, more involvement by both IRI and NDI, as well as European party foundations. State governments can help share their experiences with federalism. And we need to involve private groups, from foundations to NGOs and media organizations. In Miami, Governor Bush called for the creation of an "American Fellows" program, based on the concept of the White House Fellows, but expanded to the whole hemisphere.

We would invite outstanding young men and women throughout the Americas to work for a year in various agencies of our government -- and then return with experiences they might apply to the special circumstances of their home countries. Like White House Fellows, the American Fellows would also create a new network of hemispheric talent that could draw on one another in the years ahead.

Governor Bush also pointed to the important roles of American charities and churches and relief organizations in Latin America -- organizations that build housing, health clinics, and schools. These are groups like CARE, World Vision, Catholic Relief Services, Laubach Literacy International, Latter-Day Saints Charities... and many, many more.

These groups offer practical and effective ways for the wealth and compassion of the U.S. to help all the Americas. They introduce many Americans outside the so-called foreign policy community to their nation's wider neighborhood. And most important, they plant the seeds of civic participation in Latin soil, seeds that will bloom with local colors and tastes.

As Governor Bush emphasized, the U.S. will respect those who respect the rights of their citizens. In our hemisphere, there is one clear example where this does not happen. The leadership of Cuba has not even begun the journey to that goal. Sadly, economic ties to Cuba will not benefit the people. Today, they will just empower Castro's secret police, his army, and his chokehold on the country.

We must challenge the Castro regime to recognize what has happened in the world and to adopt the ways of democracy. Castro must free political prisoners, allow free speech, and hold free elections. We, in turn, should support the forces of democracy, which I hope before long will triumph in Cuba.

The successful pursuit of this democratic vision for the hemisphere depends, however, on our ability to assure the region's security in the face of new threats. The forces of democracy need solidarity. If democracies in Latin America fail, their problems will spill over to their neighbors. The security problems of Latin America can affect the U.S. directly through new transnational networks of organized crime, narcotics traffickers, and even terrorists.

Therefore the U.S. needs to lead a new type of American alliance against these threats. In Colombia, for example, we cannot continue to make a false distinction between counterinsurgency and counternarcotics efforts. The narcotraffikers and guerillas compose one dangerous network. If the legitimately elected leaders of Colombia demonstrate the political will to take their country back from killers and drug lords, and if the Colombian people are willing to fight for their own country, then the U.S. should offer serious, sustained, and timely financial, material, and intelligence support.

The Colombian government must strengthen its police, military, legal institutions, and social services to be able to fight back. Our aid can help the Colombian government protect its people, fight the drug trade, halt the momentum of the guerillas and paramilitary groups, and bring about a sensible and peaceful resolution to this conflict. On the supply side, we can help countries to promote crop substitutes, as Bolivia and Peru have done. We can work with banks to prevent money laundering.

With better intelligence and surveillance, we can track and catch drug smugglers as they move their poisonous product. In the fight against narcotics, the U.S. must also target our own homefront, through efforts to cut demand for drugs. We should not blame others for America's own weaknesses.

To make the Western Hemisphere a priority, the U.S. needs most of all a changed mindset about the Americas after the Cold War. When the U.S. paid attention to Latin America in the past, U.S. policies reflected limited outlooks. In the 1930s and '40s, FDR's Good Neighbor policy pledged to forgo military intervention if Latins respected the rights of U.S. investors.

In the Cold War, the U.S. exchanged economic and security assistance for support against Communism. So it is sad, but perhaps not surprising, that when Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, published a special 75th edition in 1997, Latin America only made a cameo appearance: This region's brief moment was in a discussion about whether ethnicity and immigration would undermine the United States' concept of its national interest.

Today, we face a prospect of a much grander vision for the Americas. Governor Bush has spoken personally, in detail, on these topics; his opponent has been silent. America needs Presidential leadership, not silence, because we have an opening to launch a cooperative and common venture, reflecting the opportunities and challenges of regional integration. If we build an architecture of democracy, respect for the rule of law, free trade, open investment, and networked information societies, the hemisphere can band together to overcome the threats to this vision -- narcotics, crime, corruption, poverty, abuse of power, and weak civil societies.

This vision can attract and draw its vitality from a new generation of leaders, public and private, throughout the hemisphere. Some still look to Latin America through stereotypes rooted in ignorance and the past. All they see are crises, cocaine, colonels, and coups. Governor Bush sees a hemisphere of 500 million people striving to take part in a larger American dream.

Go to Miami, San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago, or Jersey City and close your eyes and listen; you could be in Santiago or San Jose. We are all part of the new, inclusive Americas. We want to build a hemisphere that crosses the digital divide and spans the economic gap between North and South.

By doing so, this hemisphere can set the pace, and be a model, for overcoming a great challenge of the post-Cold War age. We must move beyond the old troubles of East-West conflict to the new possibilities of North-South prosperity and democracy. This vision requires not just crisis management, but a common enterprise. This vision requires the next President's interest, initiative, and sustained involvement.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here, and I would be pleased to try to answer your questions.

THE COUNCIL TAKES NO INSTITUTIONAL POSITION ON POLICY ISSUES AND HAS NO AFFILIATION WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. ALL STATEMENTS OF FACT AND EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION CONTAINED IN ALL ITS PUBLICATIONS ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR OR AUTHORS. [source: http://www.foreignpolicy2000.org/transcripts/t_zoellick.html ]

BACK