The Foreign Service Journal, April 2006

during the last century but only once completed a term in office. Civilian coups have come to replace military coups as the method of choice for unscheduled changes of govern- ment. This trend, while not as disreputable as a shift to outright military rule, “remains both an indication of democratic fragility and a threat to institutionalization of democracy” in the region, says Susan Kaufman Purcell, director of the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami. Peter Hakim, president of the Washington-based Inter-American Dialogue, recently wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine that several small and weak states in the Caribbean and Latin America are at risk of becoming per- manent centers of drug activity, money laundering and other criminal operations. “Stability,” he added, “is threat- ened by the upsurge of crime and violence almost every- where in Latin America.” Another noteworthy feature of the region is the rela- tive absence of strong bonds of friendship for the United States. Cuba’s Fidel Castro, the principal anti- American voice in the region, now has allies in Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Bolivia’s Evo Morales. The three are, arguably, among the five most anti- American heads of government in the world, joining the leaders of Iran and North Korea. Chavez and Morales see the United States as the enemy and Cuba as a model for Latin America, although U.S. officials are hopeful that Morales, who took office in January, will govern more moderately than his campaign rhetoric last year suggested he would. The diminished regard for the United States is not lim- ited to a handful of radical leaders. In particular, the Iraq War is highly unpopular throughout Latin America. Many in the region were shocked by the revelations of American abuse of prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere, not- ing the sharp contrast with the American self-image as a world leader in human rights protection. To the extent that the region was willing to dispatch troops to Iraq in support of the U.S.-led coalition, all came from small, poor countries from Central America and the Caribbean that are dependent on U.S. assistance. They included the Dominican Republic, 300 troops; El Salvador, 360; Honduras, 360; and Nicaragua, 120. All except the Salvadorans were withdrawn after a relatively short stay. No South American country volunteered troops. Closer to home, Washington’s policies have struck Latin America as hypocritical, such as its promotion of a hemisphere free of trade barriers on the one hand while, on the other, restricting access to U.S. markets for many of the region’s agricultural products. Another sore point comes from the aid cuts Washington has imposed on at least a dozen Latin American countries that refuse to sign agreements guaranteeing to shield Americans from pros- ecutions by the International Criminal Court. (The Bush administration has long opposed the court, fearing politi- cally-motivated prosecutions of Americans.) Finally, on Cuba, there is unanimous opposition in Latin America to the 44-year-old U.S. embargo. The good news for Washington is that, despite Castro, Chavez and Morales, there is little prospect that the region as a whole will lurch very far leftward. Beyond that, the presence of left-of-center governments in a num- ber of countries seems to reflect local conditions rather than external forces. Washington says it has no problem with left-leaning governments so long as they remain faithful to democratic practices. It is the authoritarian democrats such as Chavez who are the most serious cause for worry among U.S. officials. The Need for Good Governance The advances on the left suggest Latin American vot- ers have been in an anti-status-quo mood in recent years. Curiously, the shift comes at a time when the economies of the region are performing better than at any time in years. Russell Crandall, a Latin America expert at Davidson College, contrasts the situation now and the one at the end of the 1980s, when the region completed its transition to democracy from military rule. At that time, it was dangerously close to economic implosion from hyperinflation, negative growth, high unemploy- ment and crushing foreign debt payments, Davidson writes in the winter edition of The National Interest . In contrast, today’s Latin America is much healthier, with- out rampant inflation, uncontrolled fiscal profligacy and other ailments that plagued it during the ‘lost decade’ of the 1980s. Still, sounder economic policies often have not trans- lated into improved lives for ordinary people. Many are therefore seeking change, though not necessarily the rad- F O C U S A P R I L 2 0 0 6 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 21 George Gedda, a frequent contributor to the Journal, covers the State Department for The Associated Press.