Quoted: El papel de Brasil en la cumbre de los BRICS está en duda

"El Papel de Brasil en la Cumbre de los BRICS esta en duda"
Por: Ana Maria Palacios
Sputnik Mundo
14 October, 2016
Originally published: https://mundo.sputniknews.com/politica/201610141064105618-brics-brasil-politica/


BUENOS AIRES (Sputnik) — Es incierta la actitud que tomará el nuevo Gobierno brasileño de Michel Temer en la cumbre del grupo BRICS que se celebra en la ciudad india de Goa, indicó a Sputnik Nóvosti el experto en asuntos rusos Alejandro Sánchez.

"Veremos qué interés tiene el nuevo presidente Michel Temer en este bloque, que fue una prioridad para la expresidenta Dilma Rousseff", indicó Sánchez, integrante del Observatorio de Rusia en el Centro Argentino de Estudios Internacionales. 

La cumbre de los países que conforman el bloque de los BRICS (Brasil, Rusia, India, China y Sudáfrica) "ocurre en un momento muy importante para uno de ellos, Brasil", a pocas semanas de la destitución de la anterior jefa de Estado. "Por el momento veo a este nuevo Gobierno brasileño con más interés en Washington que en Moscú", explicó Sánchez, también analista para el Consejo de Asuntos Hemisféricos. En una entrevista con Sputnik y con la agencia india IANS, el presidente ruso Vladímir Putin manifestó su voluntad de "crear nuevos formatos y mecanismos de cooperación con los socios" del BRICS. Lea más: Los BRICS no planean admitir nuevos miembros Los cinco países están "firmemente decididos a cooperar en la lucha contra el terrorismo, las amenazas provenientes del tráfico de drogas, la corrupción, así como a contribuir juntos al arreglo de los conflictos y a la seguridad internacional en materia de información", aseguró Putin.

En sus declaraciones, Putin lamentó que los problemas de la economía internacional se intenten resolver a través de alianzas cerradas como el Acuerdo Transpacífico de Cooperación Económica (TPP) o la Asociación Transatlántica para el Comercio y la Inversión (TTIP). "Hay un ángulo político" en esa observación del mandatario ruso, afirmó Sánchez, "ya que todos los países" que están interesados en esos acuerdos "son países aliados o amigos de Washington". "No me sorprende que el Gobierno ruso critique la TTIP, dado que las relaciones entre las dos potencias mundiales, Rusia y Estados Unidos, están muy deterioradas", manifestó Sánchez. Lea más: Todo lo que tienes que saber sobre el TTP Moscú también tiene su propio bloque de integración político-económica por medio de la Unión Económica Euroasiática, recordó.

En su entrevista con las agencias rusa y china, Putin se refirió a la situación que padece Afganistán, país acosado por problemas de "terrorismo, extremismo y tráfico ilícito de drogas". El jefe de Estado ruso busca así "cambiar un poco la atención mundial de Siria a Afganistán", ante las críticas que ha recibido Rusia por los bombardeos en la ciudad siria de Alepo y por rechazar una propuesta de armisticio para la zona, presentada por Francia en el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU. Tanto Estados Unidos como la Unión Europea acusan a Rusia de apoyar la ofensiva del Ejército de Siria contra los terroristas del Frente Fatah al Sham (antes conocido como Frente al Nusra, proscrito en Rusia y otros países) y los grupos insurgentes en la parte oriental de esa ciudad siria.

La escalada de hostilidades en el este de Alepo, donde permanecen atrapados hasta 275.000 civiles, provocó en las últimas semanas centenares de muertos y heridos, según Naciones Unidas. En cuanto a Afganistán, "ningún país del BRICS ni de otras partes del mundo (incluyendo EEUU y Europa) quiere que los talibanes retomen el control de Afganistán, por lo que no sería difícil pasar alguna resolución del bloque ensalzando la cooperación de Brasil, Rusia, India, China y Sudáfrica contra el terrorismo", reflexionó Sánchez. Más allá de las declaraciones conjuntas de apoyo, "habrá que ver si los países geográficamente más cercanos a Afganistán (Rusia, China e India), promueven una mayor cooperación en temas de seguridad y defensa contra el terrorismo", opinó. 

Para Sánchez, el foro más apropiado para discutir estos asuntos sería la Organización de Cooperación Shanghái, de la que Rusia y China son miembros mientras India está en proceso de adhesión.

Más: https://mundo.sputniknews.com/politica/201610141064105618-brics-brasil-politica/

Living in Peru: Peruvian foreign policy will not change under next president

"Peruvian Foreign policy will not change under next President"
W. Alejandro Sanchez
Opinion
Living in Peru
March 21, 2016
Originally published: http://www.peruthisweek.com/blogs-foreign-policy-elections-opinion-109088

The April 10 elections in Peru will not significantly alter the foreign policy of the Andean state, regardless of which candidate wins the presidency or which party (or coalition of parties) gains control of congress. Peruvian foreign policy for the past couple of decades has been fairly predictable and these elections will most likely not bring about major surprises.

Peru’s relations with the rest of the world are not a major issue to the Peruvian electorate; the hot topics of this election are improving internal security and the economy. Obviously, the latter issue has a lot to do with international commerce as the cornerstone of Peru’s growing economy over the past two decades has been the export of its natural resources (such as natural gas, minerals, oil and agricultural goods). Hence, it comes as no surprise that the main candidates have made similar promises, namely to maintain the current trade model. This will include cementing Peru’s role in the Pacific Alliance, a regional free trade bloc (along with Chile, Colombia and Mexico) as well as pushing for new free trade agreements, probably with India and Turkey. Additionally, the next congress will likely ratify the Trans Pacific Partnership which will open Asia Pacific markets to Peruvian goods.

When it comes to foreign policy itself, Peru is not a Latin American powerhouse, and it enjoys cordial relations with most of its neighbors. The only outstanding issue may be the future of the territorial dispute with Chile. Lima already had some success in a maritime dispute with its Southern neighbor via the 2014 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Hence, the next head of state may see the ICJ as an option to solve this dispute as well.

Ultimately, while the Andean nation has witnessed its fair share of internal turmoil over the past decades, its foreign policy has remained generally constant. Arguably, Peru’s internal problems, such as terrorism in the 1980s or political instability in the 1990s due to the Fujimori dictatorship, did not allow the Andean country to focus on the outside world. Nevertheless, some foreign policy stances have been constant and will remain so. For example, Lima has been a close ally of Washington, and this will not change, particularly as the Peruvian government and security forces will look for U.S. support to combat drug trafficking.

It is worth noting that of the remaining presidential candidates, only a few have an extreme-left ideology. In theory, if one of them is elected, we could see a radical foreign policy change. This is already happening in Argentina, as new President Mauricio Macri is approaching Washington; this is an almost 180 degree turn when compared to the foreign policy of his predecessor, President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who was known to be a close friend of Russian President Vladimir Putin. As for Peru, in the 2006 elections then-candidate Ollanta Humala was defeated, in part, because he was regarded as a close friend of the late President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and a follower of his socialist ideology. Nevertheless, the “extreme left” candidates are fairly down on the polls so unless a major surprise occurs in April, Peru’s relations with the global powers will generally remain unaltered. (The next head of state will likely continue to purchase Russian military equipment, which the Peruvian military is used to utilizing, but we will not see Russian bombers landing in Peru à la Venezuela in 2013).

FAME and Peru’s military industry

On a personal note, I would like to see Peruvian presidential candidates address foreign policy. International commerce is an obvious issue, but there are other parts of the country’s foreign policy that should be discussed, such as the future of the Andean Community (which is headquartered in Lima), having a Peruvian citizen elected to head a major international organization (like UNASUR), the significance of Peru’s recent ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty or the future role of the Peruvian military in UN peacekeeping missions.

For over a decade, Peru has enjoyed significant economic growth. Unfortunately, this has not prompted Lima to have a more ambitious foreign policy – coincidentally, I discuss the steps that the Andean country can take to be more influential in regional geopolitics in a working paper for the Argentine think tank Centro Argentino de Estudios Internacionales entitled, Pax Inca: Why Peru is not a Regional Powerhouse in Latin America.

Hopefully Peru’s next president, whoever he or she may be, will be interested in boosting the country’s foreign policy.

You can follow W. Alejandro on Twiter @W_Alex_Sanchez

Blouin: Beat: Despite rocky start, L. America on board with the TPP

"Despite rocky start, Latin America on board with the TPP"
W. Alejandro Sanchez
Blouin Beat: Business
August 11, 2015
Originally published: http://blogs.blouinnews.com/blouinbeatbusiness/2015/08/11/despite-rocky-start-l-america-on-board-with-the-tpp/

There has been much discussion about the recent round of negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which took place in Hawaii at the end of July. This is not surprising, as the attempt to create an ambitious free trade area that would bring together 12 nations of the Asia-Pacific and Western Hemisphere has yet to reach a final agreement. Despite the current setback, the White House can rest assured that the TPP’s three Latin American members – Chile, Peru, and Mexico – remain firmly interested in this initiative.

For Washington, this bloc is geo-strategically important because it will further increase U.S. influence in the Asia Pacific at a time of tensions with Beijing. Moreover, President Barack Obama has around a year and a half left in office, and his objective is to cement his legacy regarding foreign policy issues, in the vein of recent successes like historical agreements with Cuba and Iran. Hence, a successful TPP agreement would be the proverbial cherry on the cake for the Obama presidency’s foreign policy.

Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether the TPP will be signed before the end of 2015. After failing to reach a final agreement, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and the representatives from the other TPP states released a neutrally worded statement in which they stated, “We have made significant progress and will continue to work on resolving a limited number of remaining issues.”

Clearly every country has its own set of national interests, and while the TPP’s three Latin American members are generally in support of the partnership, it is worth stating their interests and concerns. For example, the Andean nation of Peru is particularly interested in biodiversity. For all its economic growth over the past decade and a half, Peru remains a developing nation and a pillar of its growth is its natural resources. Hence, it is critically important for Lima tocombat biopiracy in order to retain ownership of plants, vegetables, fruits, and other products that are indigenous to Peru. Apart from securing control over its biodiversity, Peru hopes that TPP nations will open their markets to foreign goods (to this end, Lima had a strong presence in the recent FODEX Japan 2015 fair). Case in point, Peru would like to see Japan relax restrictions over agricultural imports so that Peruvian products like quinoa and asparagus can more easily enter the Asian nation’s market. As for concerns regarding the TPP, the Peruvian media has focused in recent months on how the agreement could increase the costs ofpharmaceutical drugs, since the agreement would potentially limit competition.

As for Chile, Foreign Affairs Minister Heraldo Muñoz, who travelled to Hawaii for the TPP meeting, has declared that his country has concerns regarding “intellectual property, financial issues, and how the agreement itself will be implemented.” Nevertheless, sectors of the Chilean population believe that the TPP will be detrimental to the country. For example, Sara Larrain, the director of the Chilean think tank Chile Sustentable, has argued that the TPP would force Chile, and other countries, to change their domestic legislation regarding property rights and natural resources. She went on to attest that the TPP would signify the loss of Chilean national sovereignty.

In regards to Mexico, a recent commentary in the National Interest by economist Samuel Rines of Chilton Capital Management argues that the TPP would help Mexico City as it would A) give Mexican products new markets and B) “potentially provide the administration of Peña Nieto with the necessary cover to enact politically difficult changes to labor markets and state-owned enterprises.” Nevertheless, Mexican entrepreneurs are concerned about intellectual property rights and whether some TPP nations (i.g. Vietnam) will flood the Mexican market with cheaper products, like textiles, shoes, and meat products, among others. The Mexican dairy industry is particularly concerned that the TPP will bring imports from dairy nations like New Zealand and Australia, which would severely hurt Mexican dairy producers.

Regarding the round of negotiations in Hawaii, Chilean Minister Muñoz summarized the current situation well, “We are on the final stretch, but we have not reached a final agreement that is fair and that is obviously beneficial for our country.” For the Latin American members of the TPP, issues like dairy, pharmaceuticals, biodiversity, and intellectual property are major concerns; however, all three governments seem to believe that the TPP will ultimately be beneficial to their respective nations.

There is no such thing as a treaty in which every signatory is a winner (particularly one like the TPP, which has 12 member states), meaning there will undoubtedly be “losers” when it is signed. Hopefully, Latin American industries and the general population will benefit more than suffer when the TPP becomes a reality.

Presentation: "U.S.-Western Hemisphere Relations And The U.S.-Cuba Rapprochement"

"U.S.-Western Hemisphere Relations and the U.S.-Cuba Rapprochement"
W. Alejandro Sanchez
Senior Research Fellow, Council on Hemispheric Affairs

July 15, 2015
American University, Washington Semester Program

VOXXI: Chilean President Bachelet visits Washington

"Chilean President Bachelet visits Washington"
W. Alejandro Sanchez
VOXXI
June 28, 2014
Originally published: http://voxxi.com/2014/06/28/michelle-bachelet-visits-washington/

Chilean President Michelle Bachelet will meet with President Barack Obama on Monday, June 30th, as part of her brief visit to Washington. She will also speak at several organizations while in the U.S. capital.

Consolidating Washington-Santiago relations will apparently be a priority for President Bachelet during her second presidential term. The two governments certainly have plenty of issues that can bring them together.

Points of discussion

One way to view the upcoming encounter is by briefly looking at how the event has been reported in both countries.

On the one hand, the White House released a (very) brief press release on May 8. The document explains how Presidents Bachelet and Obama will discuss “[United Nations] Security Council matters, other multilateral and regional issues, and ongoing negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.” Apart from the UNSC and the TPP negotiations, the press release is vague about specific topics as it simply mentions global security, social inclusion and free trade.

On the other hand, the Chilean media has gone to greater lengths to stress the importance of this meeting and the possible conversation points. A June 26 commentary in the Chilean daily El Mercurio explains that the meeting will allow President Bachelet to discuss her vision of Chile’s future foreign policy, broadly speaking. The commentary also examines the Trans Pacific Partnership, which will “strengthen [Chile’s] relations with Asia on the long term.” Moreover, El Mercurio highlights how, in order to decrease its oil-dependency, Chile aspires to increase import shale gas from the U.S.

Apart from her meeting with President Obama, President Bachelet will have a busy time in Washington.

On Monday, she will appear at the Brookings Institution, a major DC think tank.  The following day, in a keynote presentation at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, she will discuss “current changes in Chile’s economic policies,” as well as Chile-U.S. commercial relations. Additionally, the Organization of American States will host a Protocol Session in its DC headquarters in her honor – she will likely meet with the OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza, also a Chilean national.

Interests and counter interests

President Bachelet’s visit to Washington occurs at an interesting time. At the foreign policy level, Chile could become Washington’s new best friend in South America (Colombia notwithstanding), considering Washington’s tense relations with Brazil since the 2013 NSA revelations.

The Chilean leader recently attended a fairly successful summit of the Pacific Alliance, a group of Latin America’s most vibrant economies. By following up her trip to Mexico with another to Washington, Chile’s international pedigree will only grow.

However, while the U.S. is focused on Russia and the destabilization of Iraq, it would be shortsighted to assume that Washington does not have its own interests to bring up regarding Chile’s role in the global arena.

Chile is a non-permanent member of the UNSC until December 2015 and hence, should the U.S. want to push for a resolution within the next year and a half (i.e. regarding Syria, Iraq, or Ukraine), it would be helpful for Washington to have several UNSC members, like Santiago, on its side.

Additionally, while Chile is interested in the TPP, Santiago has resisted some of Washington’s requirements. Specifically, Chile is concerned about the TPP’s stance on copyright, patents, and intellectual property ownership. The Chilean media speculate that the TPP in its current form could mean more expensive imports of U.S. medicines.

When asked by the Washington Post about her stance on the TPP, the Chilean head of state remarked, “we don’t have much information on the process regarding the scope and limitations of the TPP…. We will protect all the agreements we already have established with the U.S.”, reflecting a diplomatically neutral answer.

Timing is not on the side of the White House as mid-term elections are set to occur this November. It would be ideal for the Obama administration to send a TPP agreement to Congress before then. In other words, President Obama will likely pressure the South American leader to support the TPP when they meet on Monday.

Finally, it will be interesting if President Bachelet discusses more sensitive issues during her time in Washington, besides U.S.-Chile relations. These include ongoing protests from the Mapuches, an indigenous group of Chile, the territorial dispute with Bolivia, or the situation in Venezuela.

Lots of praise

President Bachelet will receive a VIP treatment during her upcoming trip to Washington, including a meeting with President Obama, numerous engagements and a reception at the OAS.

Moreover, there is a positive attitude towards Chile’s current situation. For example, the Center for Strategic and International Studies explains, “Chile is one of two Latin American countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and is poised to become the first developed nation in South America.”

With this ideal momentum, President’s Bachelet trip to Washington will hopefully conclude with some positive agreement. Bolstering her country’s image is always beneficial, but it is not necessarily enough.

VOXXI: Latin America continues to be far away from the White House

Latin America continues to be far away from the White House
W. Alejandro Sanchez
VOXXI
February 3, 2014
Originally published: http://voxxi.com/2014/02/03/latin-american-state-union/

It is not a big surprise, but once again Latin American and the Caribbean continues to be out of the radar and the agenda of the White House, and the most recent State of the Union (SOTU) address is proof of this.

President Barack Obama barely mentioned U.S. foreign policy towards the Western Hemisphere during his SOTU) speech last week. In the same line, the Republican responses were focused on U.S. domestic policy. In other words, there was not even a hint of a new doctrine regarding the future of the inter-American system. This is not a surprise.

The Facts of SOTU

The American Presidency Project, maintained by the University of California Santa Barbara, has broken down President Obama’s 2014 SOTU: his speech contained 6923 words and lasted 1 hour and 5minutes.

In spite of the hour-long speech, the U.S. leader only commended commercial and educational partnerships in the Americas, without mentioning specific allies or initiatives. He did pledge to close the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, but he has promised this for years.

Looking back at President Obama’s recent SOTUs, we find that he has not traditionally focused on Latin America or the Caribbean. In his 2012 speech he solely declared, “Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever.  Our ties to the Americas are deeper.” Meanwhile, 2013 he stated, “In defense of freedom, we’ll remain the anchor of strong alliances from the Americas to Africa […].”

This should not be surprising, as the U.S. government currently is mostly focused on domestic issues, while its foreign policy is centered around Asia and Iran, as well as ending a very unpopular war in Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, as a Latin Americanist, I certainly would have liked to see more about the Western Hemisphere in future State of the Union addresses.

The Republican Response to SOTU

After President Obama’s speech, Florida Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen gave a response in Spanish. The Republican also did not break ground regarding a new inter-American system.

Representative Ros-Lehtinen explained how her “family fled the tyranny of Cuba in search of freedom, democracy and opportunity.”

Nevertheless, her proposals for the future were focused on domestic issues, such as the economy and a vague statement about “permanently [fixing] a broken immigration system.”

A Latin Americanist Staff

As an analyst of Western Hemisphere issues, both President Obama’s State of the Union and the response by Representative Ros-Lehtinen do not provide policy statements or proposals to analyze in order to create a concise analysis of the future of U.S. relations with the rest of the continent.

Certainly, the U.S. leader and one member of congress are not the sole individuals that formulate U.S. foreign policy. In a January 2013 commentary for VOXXI, I discussed that President Obama’s cabinet members should not just be of latino descent; they need to include Latin Americanists, meaning experts on Western Hemispheric affairs. Despite this, some senior policymakers have carried out significant initiatives to improve Washington’s stance in the Americas.

For example, in November 2013 Secretary of State John Kerry gave an important speech at the Organization of American States in which he historically stated that the “era of the Monroe Doctrine is over.” Meanwhile U.S. military operations in the Western Hemisphere are in the safe hands of an expert military officer, General John Kelly, the commander of Southern Command.

There have also been progressive initiatives towards the region under President Obama, such as improving– albeit at a snail’s pace– ties with Cuba. Moreover, the President has met with regional heads of state. In 2013 he visited Mexico and Costa Rica while Vice President Joe Biden travelled to Brazil, Colombia and Trinidad & Tobago. Additionally, President Obama will meet with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and Canadian Prime Minister Harper in mid-February in Mexico.

An Ideal Speech for Latin America

In a utopian speech regarding the future of Western Hemisphere affairs, it would have been nice to hear the president discuss the future of U.S. aid to Mexico and Colombia, and to address U.S.-Brazil relations after the NSA scandal.

As for commercial matters, this speech should include the future of CAFTA, NAFTA (now in its 20^th year) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (now in its 10^th year). Finally, the Trans Pacific Partnership would also have to be discussed at length as this potential free trade zone will serve as an umbrella for nations in Latin America, Asia and the Pacific that have U.S.-friendly governments (i.e. Australia, Chile, Singapore and Peru).

Overall, President Obama’s 2014 State of the Union showcased a minimalist approach towards the Western Hemisphere. Meanwhile, the Republican response by Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen was focused on migration, an off-handed remark about Cuba and no discussion about foreign policy towards the region as well.

If nothing else, these recent speeches highlight that Latin Americanist analysts have to continue raising awareness about the plethora of issues in Latin America and the Caribbean that deserve Washington’s attention as they are in the U.S.’s national interest.

VOXXI: The challenges for Michael Froman, new U.S. Trade Representative

The Challenges for Michael Froman, new U.S. Trade Representative
W. Alejandro Sanchez
VOXXI
July 3, 2013
Originally published: http://www.voxxi.com/challenges-for-michael-froman-new-ustr/

Thanks to the ongoing NSA/Edward Snowden controversy and recent landmark decisions in the U.S. regarding gay marriage, one recent development that has gone relatively unaddressed is Michael Froman’s appointment as the new U.S. Trade Representative (USTR).

Froman as President Obama’s former Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs, brings a wealth of experience to the position. This experience will be vital as the White House fashions a new doctrine of how to approach Latin America, with the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) as its flagship initiative, while dealing with other regional crises, like ongoing tensions with Ecuador over the Snowden affair.

But although Michael Froman is qualified for the job, a concern may be that he is not well versed enough in Latin America to properly address the region.

Trade and geopolitics

When it comes to Latin America and the Caribbean, in spite of recent trips by the U.S. President and  Vice President Joe Biden, new trade initiatives are still lacking. In recent years, Washington’s only and major successes have been the ratification of the controversial free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama.

Moreover, there have been stalemates regarding treaties. For example, when President Obama went to Mexico in May, he did so without the U.S. Congress having ratified the Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement– an accord finally passed by the House of Representatives in late June.

The U.S. leader’s trip was not affected by the failure to ratify the treaty, but it would have been a useful add-on to demonstrate that President Obama is interested in further cementing trade ties with Washington’s historical, regional partners. This means that Michael Froman has his work cut out for him.

Furthermore, the developing problem with Ecuador is an example of how seemingly unrelated geopolitical issues affect trade.. As has been widely reported, Ecuador’s head of state, President Rafael Correa, had planned to grant asylum to Snowden, though this support seems to be becoming unstable.

This development did not help the South American state return to Washington’s good graces, particularly as Quito-Washington relations have been tense since Correa was elected in 2006.

The Snowden affair affected trade relations, as Ecuador has decided to leave the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA). Some analysts have argued that the “renunciation of trade benefits was a dramatic but mostly symbolic threat. The U.S Congress was widely expected to let the benefits lapse in coming weeks […].”

Indeed, Ecuador alone is not a U.S. trade partner comparable to China or Japan, but with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez gone, Correa could become an important leader within the ALBA bloc. Combine that with Ecuador’s natural resources (i.e. petroleum), and it becomes clear that Froman would benefit from becoming knowledgeable regarding  Latin American geopolitics and the multiple ideological and economic blocs in the region.

The TPP

Shortly after Michael Froman was sworn in as the new USTR, the renowned economist Clyde Prestowitz wrote about him for Foreign Policy. In his opinion, Froman will follow the lackluster path of his USTR predecessors.

“There is no reason to imagine that he is now going to break out of the mold,” wrote Prestowitz. In addition, Prestowitz recollected that, during a meeting with Froman, the official “[told me] that [the] TPP is mainly about geopolitics, not trade […] It’s to reassure Asian allies and friends that America will be there to offset the influence of China and it’s about trying to contain China.”

While hailed as examples of an increasingly globalized and interconnected world, we must remember that trade agreements are diplomatic tools made to advance a country’s geopolitical interests. It would seem that Michael Froman has a global view of how the TPP can be used, particularly its effects on ongoing developments in Asia vis-à-vis Beijing.

Nevertheless, the TPP includes Latin American nations too, whose governments may not have the same global-view of how this trade agreement can be utilized regarding China, but which are interested in how this accord could benefit their domestic economies. Just as the TPP includes Washington’s allies in Asia and the Pacific, it also includes close U.S. partners in the Western Hemisphere, namely nations like Chile, Mexico and Peru.

In fact, the recent 17th round of discussions regarding the TPP took place in Lima.

In spite of concerns that the economic growth Latin America has experienced over the past decade is coming to a halt, several regional states continue to enjoy a strong financial market. For example, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru have united to form the Pacific Alliance.

The group accepted Costa Rica as a new member during their recent summit in Cali, Colombia. As a happy coincidence, most of the aforementioned nations are also part of the TPP and have historically been close allies of the U.S.

Michael Froman, don’t forget about us

As the new USTR, Michael Froman will have a full plate of issues that will have to be addressed throughout President Obama’s second term. Understandably, Asia will play a prominent role in the White House’s agenda, along with discussions of a potential free trade agreement between the U.S. and the European Union.

But the USTR would be wrong to not give Latin America and the Caribbean some well-deserved attention, particularly as there are several resource-rich, economically-growing and, most importantly, Washington-friendly governments in the region.

Throughout his nomination and confirmation process, Froman received the support of influential U.S. think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Enterprise Institute. Nevertheless, there is a concern that he may focus too much on the “big picture,” such as the U.S. trade relations with entrenched global economic powers, and not enough with smaller but important and rising powers, like those in Latin America.

Read more: http://www.voxxi.com/challenges-for-michael-froman-new-ustr/#ixzz2Y5ZS02UZ

VOXXI: The Pacific Alliance shows its force as an economic bloc

The Pacific Alliance shows its force as an economic bloc
W. Alejandro Sanchez
VOXXI
May 23, 2013
Originally published: http://www.voxxi.com/summit-of-pacific-alliance-in-colombia/#ixzz2U7GwAzS1

The members of the Pacific Alliance (Chile, Colombia, Peru and Mexico) started today in Cali, Colombia, its for seventh summit with the goal to develop a strong economic bloc. Even though this is still an organization in its infancy as it was created in June of 2012, the Alliance’s summit has gotten significant media coverage as it encompasses four of Latin America’s major thriving economies.

Moreover, Costa Rica is expected to become a full-fledged member of the Alliance at the summit. Parallel to this high-level meeting, negotiations continue in Lima over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an ambitious project that will bring the U.S., the Alliance members and several Pacific/Asian states together in a major transoceanic free trade area.

We will have to see if the aspirations of the governments of Alliance are fulfilled or if these integration projects stall, the latter of which tends to be the general rule in Latin American inter-state relations.

The Pacific Alliance

On Tuesday, May 21, the ambassadors to the U.S. from Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica and Peru, along with the head of economic affairs at the Mexican embassy to the U.S. met at an “on the record” conference in the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a renowned think tank located in Washington, DC.

Throughout the gathering the diplomats took turns praising the Alliance and its possibilities, arguing that there are great expectations of what it can do (an audio copy of the conference can be found by clicking here).

They also stressed how several nations and organizations have approached the Alliance and wish to join. For example, as previously mentioned, Costa Rica will also become a member of the Alliance, as Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla has traveled to Colombia to attend the Cali summit.

In addition, the governments of countries like Paraguay and Portugal have all shown interest in achieving observer status, while New Zealand became an observer last November. Given the economic growth and huge resources (particularly mineral-related) that Alliance members enjoy, it seems that there are a plethora of states from all over the world that want to become affiliated with it.

At the CSIS event, one interesting issue that the diplomats stressed is that the Pacific Alliance is an economic bloc, not a political forum. The statement was meant to address the possibility that nations that have been critiqued for their democratic record, namely Venezuela, could eventually apply for membership in the Alliance.

The diplomats also stated there are two major “requirements” for a nation to join the Alliance. First, the government of the aspiring member state must adhere to the charter of the Alliance, which stresses respect for democracy.

Does this mean that countries like Ecuador, Nicaragua or Venezuela, (which are often criticized by Washington for their, depending on one’s point of view, less-than-ideal democratic record) could eventually become members of the Alliance? In theory yes; nevertheless, the Pacific Alliance’s current members all share not just a preference for free trade agreements, but also a willingness to maintain and increase ties with the U.S. (i.e. via the Trans Pacific Partnership and military initiatives).

This may prove to be a deal breaker for Quito, Managua or Caracas, which, incidentally, created their own trading bloc, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), to counterbalance U.S. financial influence in Latin America.

In addition, the second requirement to joining the Alliance is that a new member must have free trade agreements with the other Alliance members before becoming full members. Hence, Costa Rica will only join the Alliance after President Chinchilla signs a free trade agreement with the Colombian government (San José already has FTAs with other Alliance members).

Great Expectations for The Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Alliance

The members of the Pacific Alliance are all part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an ambitious initiative to create a trans-Pacific free trade area, in collaboration with countries like Australia and Singapore (another Asian powerhouse, Japan, also has shown an interest in joining the organization).

At the time of this writing, and parallel to the Pacific Alliance’s summit, representatives of the TPP nations are currently meeting in Lima as part of the 17th round of the TPP’s negotiations.  Similar to the Alliance itself, there are high expectations of what the TPP could become.

Nevertheless, a realistic vision of the Alliance’s members must be kept in mind: as much as the members have enjoyed huge economic growth in the past years, they remain fragile economies. For example, Peru, Latin America’s success story in recent years, is still largely dependent on its mining industry (which is known for being unstable).

Besides well-known protests in 2011 and 2012 against the Conga mine project in the Cajamarca region, there have been other, more recent protests. For example, this past January, there were protests in the Cañariaco mining project in Peru’s Lambayeque region. If Peru wants to remain a prominent member of the Pacific Alliance and the TPP, its economy must not be at the mercy of only one industry.

As previously mentioned, the Pacific Alliance is the new and exciting integration project that Latin American nations have come up with. It now joins other recently created blocs, such as the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), created in 2008, and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), created in 2011.

Like the Pacific Alliance, the aforementioned agencies also started with a great deal of optimism and ambitious projects, and now have joined the alphabet soup of other Western Hemisphere agencies that do not have many success stories to justify their existence. Let us hope that the Alliance and the TPP, if the latter becomes a reality, are more fortunate and prosperous.

Read more: http://www.voxxi.com/summit-of-pacific-alliance-in-colombia/#ixzz2UDTE0iei