This article was originally published on opendemocracy.net.
For the U.S., the Latin American agenda is not a priority. Still, Biden’s arrival at the White House signifies a respite for foreign ministries, who are exhausted by the region’s tension created by Trump. What changes can we expect now?
While Donald Trump is disappointed with the results of November 8th, the world remains incredulous about the difficulties of the great American democracy in recognizing as president-elect the one who won the popular vote with 50.9% and more that 5.5 million more votes than his opponent, who obtained 47.3%.
Although Trump has raised an amendment to the entire election result, alleging massive fraud, he has been unable so far to present any evidence. Biden will be the 46th president of the United States after four years of Trumpism, which has generated turbulence worldwide. Latin America and the Caribbean wonder what the arrival of a Democrat like Joe Biden might mean for them.
By Sergio Guzmán
The United States continues to be a global superpower. The US for the time being will continue to influence countries all across Latin America. However, recent events have suggested signs of decline. And as the decline grows more evident, how will the region’s political power rebalance? The election of Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) in Mexico, as well as the election of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil marks a radical departure from the current status quo. What does this mean for Colombia and Latin America at large?
Personnel d’Open Americas, Traduit par William Giller
Lundi, le 12 février, la Maison-Blanche a présenté la proposition de budget pour 2019. Ce document, qui propose une réduction drastique des budgets américains pour l’aide humanitaire en Amérique latine, augmente simultanément les dépenses pour la défense et l’infrastructure nationale.
Open Americas croit fermement que tout budget reflète les valeurs personnelles et politiques de ses créateurs. Les mêmes convictions de nativisme, militarisme et exceptionnalisme américain publiées dans le document pour 2019 sont intégrées dans les décisions politiques qui nuisent aux peuples partout dans les Amériques.
By Aidan Sanchez
The current political climate in the United States in 2018 is volatile. Among the many contentious topics is Islam’s place in modern Western society. Much of the kindling for growing islamophobic sentiments in the West has come from President Donald Trump. During his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump regularly established that Islam, and by extension Muslims, are public enemy number one. During a campaign rally in December of 2015, Trump infamously called for “’a total and complete shutdown’ of Muslims entering the United States ‘until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.’” In the same speech, Trump conceded that “we have no choice,” and must prevent Muslims from entering the United States. Establishing such a travel ban was, according to supporters, imperative in the interest of preserving national security. In his 1993 article The Clash of Civilizations?, Samuel Huntington predicted that cultural differences between the East and West would be the fundamental source for international conflicts in the post-Cold War Era. Using Huntington’s hypothesis, it is possible to identify the historical framework that has led us to where we are now.
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union took the place as the U.S. collective ‘other,’ unifying two distinct conservative political sects: civilizational and ideological, against a common enemy. The civilizational conservatives opposed communism due to ideological reasons. The Soviet Union was an atheist state; its lack of faith ran contrary to Anglo-Saxon Christian traditions. Ideological conservatives stood against communism in the interest of preserving liberty and preventing the global domination of a totalitarian regime. This ‘us versus them’ paradigm is useful in analyzing this time period. Politicians and media outlets alike utilized this worldview to frame international politics because it was easy to identify the ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys.’ From this perspective, the United States was the good guy, and the Soviet Union was the godless enemy. In a December 1992 memo to his staff, New York Times foreign editor Bernard Gwertzman wrote, “In the old days, when certain countries were pawns in the Cold War, their political orientation alone was reason enough for covering them.” However, when the threat of nuclear annihilation subsided, the United States emerged as the clear global hegemon.
Por Blake Burdge, Traducido por William Giller
Las relaciones entre los Estados Unidos y Argentina se han mantenido estables bajo el mandato de Trump. Es probable que Trump favorezca al país debido a las estrechas relaciones que tenía con el presidente argentino Mauricio Macri cuando los dos eran empresarios. Trump y Macri se reunieron en la Casa Blanca a finales de abril para dialogar sobre la ciberseguridad bilateral y demostrar un apoyo unido para la restauración de democracia y respeto a derechos humanos en Venezuela.
Los Estados Unidos y Argentina han reforzado relaciones económicas desde la inauguración de Trump. Ambos países han levantado las restricciones sobre varios bienes provenientes del otro país. Los agricultores estadounidenses podrán exportar carne de cerdo a Argentina por primera vez desde 1992, con un mercado potencial de hasta 10 millones de dólares. Lo que es más, el presidente Trump acabó la propuesta que había empezado la administración de Obama para levantar las restricciones sobre limones de Argentina, el cuarto productor de limones más grande del mundo.
By Alexia Rauen
The widespread lack of electricity across Puerto Rico in the aftermath of Hurricane María has been widely publicized and carries with it deep concern for the lack of vital resources available to the island. As Puerto Rico is a United States territory, the federal government is responsible for ensuring the reconstruction of the island. But is it doing enough now, and will it be doing enough in the future, when the world has turned its attention to the next headline-worthy natural disaster?
By Blake Burdge
The relationship between the United States and Argentina has remained strong under President Trump. It is likely that Trump views the country favorably due to the close relationship that he shared with Argentine President Mauricio Macri when the two were businessmen. Trump and Macri met at the White House in late April to discuss bilateral cybersecurity and to show joint support for the restoration of democracy and respect for human rights in Venezuela.
The United States and Argentina have strengthened economic ties since Trump entered office, as both countries have lifted bans on the other for certain goods. For the first time since 1992, U.S. farmers will be able to export pork to Argentina, with a potential market of up to USD $10 million. Additionally, President Trump followed through on the Obama administration’s proposal to relinquish a ban on lemons from Argentina, which is the fourth-largest producer of the fruit in the world.