The Chinese Dragon Sweeps Through Latin America
Obama has yet to unveil any original Latin American initiative of similar size and scope. Beijing, by comparison, is brimming with ambitious plans for the region. For example, it has proposed building a $7.6 billion “dry canal” (a railway line) that would stretch across Colombia and connect the Caribbean with the Pacific Ocean. Such a project would obviously have enormous economic and strategic consequences. The competition for influence in Latin America is not a zero-sum game, but it’s still worrisome that Chinese influence is surging at a time when U.S. influence appears to be stagnating or perhaps even declining. Beijing’s rapidly expanding regional footprint threatens to hurt the diplomatic interests of Taiwan, which has spent decades cultivating partners in the Western Hemisphere.
While dollar diplomacy has boosted Beijing’s image in the region, the concurrent influx of low-wage Chinese workers has generated tensions. The Chinese government seems to harbor a quasi-colonial attitude toward developing countries, and its heavy-handed approach has produced a considerable backlash. On the “soft power” side, moreover, the U.S. still holds a significant edge over its Asian rival.
Hopefully, the U.S. will use China’s increased hemispheric activity as motivation to reinvigorate its own engagement. When it comes to Latin America policy, the Obama administration has largely wasted its first 27 months in office. Across the region, as Beijing continues its aggressive outreach, patience with U.S. dithering is wearing thin.
* * *
El dragón en América Latina
Por Jaime Daremblum
Si algún decisor político estadounidense tuviera alguna duda sobre la importancia estratégica y económica de América Latina, solo debería pasar unos pocos minutos conversando con sus contrapartes de Pekín.
Durante la última década, China se lanzado a una escalada de adquisiciones en el Hemisferio Occidental que ha incluido minerales de hierro de Brasil, cobre de Chile, zinc del Perú, soya de Argentina, petróleo de Ecuador y Venezuela, carne de Uruguay, litio de Bolivia y otros recursos industriales. China ha inundado la región con sus inversiones y con mano de obra barata (de la que me ocupo más adelante); está también financiando una central hidroeléctrica en Ecuador, un satélite espacial en Bolivia, y mucho más. Pekín ya ha construido un satélite espacial en Venezuela, que se puso en órbita en 2008, y un estadio de fútbol en Costa Rica inaugurado este año. En marzo de 2010 la Compañía Nacional de Petróleo Submarino de China anunció que había comprado el 50 por ciento de la firma argentina Bridas, e inmediatamente después, Bridas compró una participación de USD 7100 millones en la compañía Pan American Energy con sede en Argentina. En octubre, Sinopec, otra compañía gigante de energía de China, acordó invertir más de USD 7000 millones en las operaciones de la firma española Repsol en Brasil.
El rápido crecimiento de la economía china requiere un suministro masivo de petróleo, por lo que no debería ni sorprendernos ni alarmarnos el hecho de que Pekín haya comprado abundantes reservas de petróleo y de combustibles en América Latina. Pero lo que sí debería alarmarnos es que, frente a la creciente presencia de China en la región, la administración de Barack Obama siga tratando a América Latina como algo que no reclama particularmente su atención. A principios de abril, en un discurso pronunciado en la Universidad de Brown, el presidente colombiano Juan Manuel Santos, que es un firme partidario de los Estados Unidos, criticó esa aparente falta de interés de Washington: “Mientras el resto del mundo, mientras Europa y Asia están fortaleciendo sus lazos con nuestra región, los Estados Unidos se mantienen pasivos y distantes”, dijo Santos. El vacío de liderazgo hemisférico lo ha llenado China, y también Rusia, que está haciendo posible la masiva acumulación de armas de Venezuela, y, por supuesto, Irán, que ha establecido una asociación estratégica con Venezuela y se está haciendo amigo íntimo de los gobiernos populistas de Bolivia, Nicaragua y Ecuador.
Es verdad que el gobierno de Obama está preparándose ahora, por fin, para enviar al Congreso los tratados de libre comercio con Panamá y Colombia, que se firmaron hace varios años, durante el gobierno de Bush. Sin embargo, debería haber concluido mucho antes esos acuerdos. Durante 2009 y 2010, Estados Unidos no hizo prácticamente nada para dar impulso a la liberalización del comercio en el Hemisferio y, entre tanto, provocó una innecesaria disputa comercial con México al prohibir la circulación de camiones mexicanos en las rutas del país.
Lo mejor que se puede decir hasta ahora de la política de Obama hacia América Latina es que finalmente ha asumido la posición correcta con respecto al libre comercio, y que también ha asumido la posición correcta con respecto a la crisis política de 2009 en Honduras (después de haber calificado, equivocadamente, de “golpe” al derrocamiento de Manuel Zelaya y de haberle traspasado la cuestión a la disfuncional Organización de Estados Americanos). Obama decidió correctamente viajar a Brasil a mediados de marzo para fortalecer las relaciones de los Estados Unidos con el país más grande y populoso de América Latina. Pero como informó el diario The Christian Science Monitor, al terminar la visita del presidente, el Brasil le dio un “tibio recibimiento” que “contrasta con la callada pero efectiva diplomacia de dinero en efectivo de China en la región”. El gobierno de Obama buscó un acercamiento con Ecuador, pero sus esfuerzos no fueron correspondidos. El mes pasado, el cada vez más autoritario presidente izquierdista Rafael Correa expulsó al embajador de los Estados Unidos en Ecuador en un ataque de ira provocado por los cables de WikiLeaks.
Cada uno de los cuatro presidentes que precedieron a Obama en la Casa Blanca fue autor de, por lo menos, una iniciativa hemisférica de envergadura. Durante el gobierno de Ronald Reagan, Estados Unidos estableció la Comisión Kissinger para Centroamérica y también la Iniciativa de la Cuenca del Caribe [Caribbean Basin Initiative]. La administración de George H. W. Bush puso en marcha las negociaciones que, en última instancia, condujeron al Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte [TLCAN] e inició también la Iniciativa para las Américas [Enterprise for the Americas Initiative]. Clinton concluyó el TLCAN, creó la Cumbre de las Américas, expandió las preferencias comerciales de la Iniciativa de la Cuenca del Caribe y dio impulso a la creación de un Área de Libre Comercio de las Américas. George W. Bush firmó tratados de libre comercio con Chile, América Central, la República Dominicana, Perú, Colombia y Panamá, y creó también la Iniciativa Mérida para la lucha contra el tráfico de drogas.
Obama no ha develado aun ninguna iniciativa de envergadura o alcance similares. En comparación, Pekín está lleno de ambiciosos planes para la región. Por ejemplo, China ha propuesto construir un “canal seco” (una línea de ferrocarril) que cruce toda Colombia y conecte el Mar Caribe con el Océano Pacífico. Es obvio que un proyecto semejante tendría enormes consecuencias económicas y estratégicas.
Competir para tener influencia en América Latina no es un juego de suma cero, pero aun debe preocuparnos que la influencia de China aumente con tanta rapidez en un momento en que la influencia de los Estados Unidos parece haberse estancado o estar declinando. La huella de Pekín, que se extiende rápidamente en la región, amenaza con deteriorar los intereses diplomáticos de Taiwán, que ha pasado décadas cultivando relaciones en el Hemisferio Occidental.
Mientras la diplomacia china del dólar ha dado realce a la imagen de Pekín en la región, la afluencia simultánea de trabajadores chinos de bajos ingresos ha generado ciertas tensiones. El gobierno chino parece albergar una actitud cuasi-colonial frente a los países en vías de desarrollo, y su enfoque de mano dura ha producido una considerable reacción negativa. Además, en términos de “poder blando”, los Estados Unidos tienen todavía una ventaja significativa frente a su rival asiático.
Es de esperar que la creciente actividad de China en el Hemisferio le dé a los Estados Unidos motivación suficiente para infundir nuevo vigor a su propia participación activa en la región. Con respecto a la política hacia América Latina, el gobierno de Obama ha perdido, en buena media, los primeros 27 meses de su mandato. Al tiempo que Pekín persiste en sus agresivos esfuerzos para extender su influencia[IA1] , la región entera comienza a sentir cierta impaciencia frente a los titubeos de Estados Unidos.
Jaime Daremblum fue embajador de Costa Rica en los Estados Unidos de 1998 hasta 2004 y es ahora director del Centro de Estudios de América Latina en el Instituto Hudson en Washington DC.
*Traducido al español del original en inglés, por Inés Azar
[IA1]Esta es la mejor versión de “aggressive outreach” que he podido pergeñar después de casi una hora de darle vueltas a la idea.
Jaime,
My friends in Mendoza have been talking about this for some time as well. They feel there is less and less U.S. relations with their stronger producing South American countries as well.
Admittedly I’m frighteningly ignorant in this area but will definitely research and do my homework so to speak on the subject.
Thanks for introducing some new blood to PJM.
ENGLISH ONLY! My Spanish friends, do you remember hearing that from Conservatives? I guess they’re your friends now and translate what they write since they want you to listen to their crap.
Ignorant comment indeed.
English Only movement refers to official use of the language.
While Latin American countries insist that official transactions be conducted in Spanish (or Portuguese), the U.S., a true melting pot, has no such official language.
What you refer to as “conservatives”, thinking perhaps in Latino “derechistas”, is nothing more than American citizens who have tired of the cascading ambiguities caused by covetous newcomers. Read your history. America always welcomed all comers but rejected the rapacious among them.
There lies a certain taint of racism under your remarks, and certainly an ignorance of American history.
Jimmy, you’ve got it backwards and upside down. We must have NO “free trade agreements” if we want Americans to have jobs. I’m not going to explain why, but any intelligent twelve year old can tell you all about it.
We don’t want ANY Mexican trucks cruising our roads, defective, unlicensed, uninsured, and carrying tons of drugs and illegal aliens.
An excellent article, and one that highlights China’s signature methods of strategic foreign engagement. Wherever China goes, you see the extraction of mineral resources and investment in transportation and warehousing infrastructure. These sectors guarantee lots of revenue (and minerals needed by China), but they also position China to move big things like industrial equipment around without raising third-party eyebrows.
It’s worth noting a couple of other things. China sent navy ships for port calls in several Latin American nations in late 2010 — not a first, but very unusual. Such port calls had been conducted only once before, nearly a decade earlier. The 2010 voyage occurred in the same period as China’s new naval foray into the Mediterranean, with her ships dispatched on the anti-piracy mission off Somalia. China is really “busting out” in terms of naval deployments — and one of her first, high-priority stops was Latin America. The Chinese have also been hawking arms in Latin America and signing military cooperation agreements left and right.
China’s not the only one, of course. The Russians continue their engagement — including massive arms sales — with the worst actors in the region, and Iran is best buds with Hugo Chavez and Rafael Correa (and reportedly working on a similar relationship with Daniel Ortega).
Mr. Daremblum is right: Obama has shown little initiative in Latin America. I am concerned about the trend of US relations with long-time friends like Colombia, Honduras, Costa Rica, and even Panama. Frankly, it should have been no contest which of the US or Venezuela got Walid Makled from Colombia. The decision of traditional, pro-US conservative Juan Manuel Santos, that it was smarter to throw a bone to Chavez, is very informative about the perception of Obama’s America south of the border. This comes at a particularly bad time, too, when much of Latin America is bustling as never before with economic success and optimism. I can’t count the number of times I have heard in the last couple of years, from Americans who have occasion to travel there, that the energy level and sense of promise are markedly higher in Latin America than in the North.
Again, thanks for an excellent piece. I recommend including Mr. Daremblum’s credentials in English as well as Spanish.
Makled was sent here in exchange for the payment of the huge debt Venezuela has with Colombia and perhpas ubder pressure for the revelations by Makled abouut narcotraffic and the data in Reyes laptop.
China has invested in Latinamerica but not in Venezuela. Oil is the guarantee of usurary loans that Chavez government has asked China to fuel his reelecction effort.bassically Venezuela is paying China for the venezuelan oil
China has left the investing in Venezuela to Iran.
Jimmy Ibn Nablus Carter gave up the Panama Canal. Who controls it now? The Chi-coms.
One takes that this scene is analogous to when your dowdy ladyfriend who you’ve been seeing on and off forever is suddenly hit upon by some dude with a fatter wallet.
Still, the author makes a good case that America could be a better neighbor and neglect has its costs.
If the US (not only Obama but his predecessors also) would’ve paid to Latin America the same attention and treasure lavished to Europe and the Muslim countries there would be no red Cuba or Venezuela, and the communists would’ve never made any inroads.
American neglect is responsible for turning a continent of friends into a clearly unfriendly continent. To undo that damage it will take many many decades.
More accurately, Latin America is a continent containing some friends of the U.S.
“American neglect is responsible for turning a continent of friends into a clearly unfriendly continent.” This is overstated as a general principle, but is no doubt more in evidence with the Obama administration. They simply have more than they can handle. We must never again allow ourselves to be so snookered at election time.
The U.S has always had rocky commercial relationships with Latin America. In time they will learn these same lessons apply to the Chinese business pratices. Only the native language of these new capitalists has changed.
The author did not pay attention to the fact that the U.S. is still the largest source of Foreign direct investment in Latin America. He mentions the investment of the Chinese government, but when have the U.S. government invested in rails, minerals or things like that anywhere? That’s usually done by private companies, something that escape the author.
A brief look at the web site of the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (eclac.org) will have taught him that; the information is in a .PDF file and you need to register, so I can’t post a link here. It shows that the U.S. is the main source of investment in the Latin America (the Dutch are 2nd and Chinese third).
Another point that the author ignores is that some of those Chinese “investments” don’t seems to make sense at all. Take the train in Colombia, the “dry channel” that would compete with the Panama canal. What’s the business sense of it? If it’s such a great idea, why it have not been proposed by private investors? What’s the business case for unloading a boat in Colombia, putting everything in a train and then loading everything back up on a Caribbean port?
A friend of mine who was commander of a U.S. navy supply ship tells me that it takes at least four hours to unload a big container ship. Let’s say that it takes about the same time to load it back in and add whatever it will take to move the containers by train. Will it be faster than the 9 hours that it takes on average to cross the Panama Canal?
Chinese want to spends their money on that? I say… let them…
Regards,
Ulises
One economic incentive for a trans-Columbia rail line might be the physical limits of the Panama Canal.
The largest ships that can transit the canal are called “Panamax” ships. Container ships and oil tankers that do NOT have to transit this canal are certainly economical on other runs as economies of scale apply to commercial shipping.
One could make a business case for ports on either end servicing container ships larger than Panamax and that this bimodal system could pay off. However, I’m not a shipping expert.
One of the easiest ways to get in good with Brazil would be to eliminate our sugar tariffs and start importing sugar cane for both fuel and food purposes.
God forbid we should tap into our own vast abundance of fuel resources.
We brazilians don’t need any kind of “special treatment”. Just the end of the high tarif barriers would be OK…
The US still has the power but has lost the will under Obama, good bye South America. If you don’t control who is in your backyard its impossible to dictate the rules. You lose eventually if you lose either the will or the way to protect your interests. I think a future classic example will be Britain losing the Falkland islands to Argentina now that they no longer have the means to protect them, scraping of their only air craft carrier, the Arc Royal. Does it really matter how you lose them? Neglect, disinterest, or lack of power. Time will tell.
Britain seems to be losing Britain the way things are going there, so for ordinary Brits the Falklands will be of far lesser importance.
If Iranian hegemony gets, with current Chinese backing, to control the Arabian peninsula and Red Sea Europe is going to be a sorry mess and people will look to Brazil for a “first” world country.
Why does America these days exhibit such a suicidal, reckless disregard for self-interest? It didn’t start with Obama, although he is magnifying the level of recklessness almost exponentially.
Afghanistan supposedly has recently-discovered vast strategic mineral wealth. The discovery was — I believe — made by American geologists. It will be the Chinese who exploit it, using primarily Han Chinese workers.
We also got no special deals on Iraqi oil. All this is sheer, senseless stupidity.
Its very simple – the vast majority of the “Big Money” have decided that it is far better for their egos and sense of security to be “Plantation Owners” in a broke, third world, economy filled with impoverished, desperate slaves than to have so many uppity Middle-Class, armed, free, citizens (who created a the greatest global power the world has ever known) who refuse to bow in obeisance and submit to the whims of their betters.
Part of China’s interest in Central America was that it is one of the few areas where a number of countries still recognized Taipei, not Beijing, as China. Admittedly, that was because Taiwan gave a lot of money to Central America to keep that recognition afloat, but China is starting to roll over some of those countries. Costa Rica just changed to recognizing Beijing and got, for its trouble, a brand new soccer stadium. Of course, Beijing brought in all of its own workers and created pretty much *no* construction jobs or jobs in related trades. Costa Ricans sold them a lot of lunch, but beyond that, they didn’t see much in the way of secondary economic benefits from it.
As in Africa already too. So much for the Monroe Doctrine.
Decent translation – a rarity in America.
Traduccio’n fidedigna, sin anglicismos – cosa inso’lita en EEUU
Don’t be fooled. This neglect is getting the results that those in power want. Do you really believe that your interest and well-being or economic freedom are a priority to the powers that be? It maybe a shame, but it is no accident.
The Obama Doctrine: a blind eye cast upon the really important stuff and idle devilish hands all up in our business.
Will you quit worrying about China, for gosh sakes? China is in a similar position to Japan in 1989, but with less advantages and more burdens, including corruption, pollution, and social/demographic problems. Let China buy all the assets she wants to buy at the top of the market; the market will soon come crashing down and all that money will benefit third-world countries, in the unlikely event that the third-world countries are able to use their gains wisely.
It is a constant source of amazement that otherwise intelligent people can repeatedly convince themselves that the latest economic bubble is for real, and that “this time it is different”. That is a tired old refrain heard serially in the Roaring Twenties, in Japan in the 1980s, in Clinton’s Dot.com Bubble, and in the Democrats’ Unaffordable Housing Project. Look what it has gotten us: trillions of dollars gone with the wind. There is no hope that the China Bubble is different, or that it will differently. So relax.
China is in a similar position to Japan in -1-9-8-9–>1939.
FIFY; US denial of Imperial Japanese access to critical natural resources,
such as ores in South America, was the casus belli for the Pacific War.
I’m not so sure about this analysis: for example, in Brazil (I’m Brazilian) Politically the country has veered sharply to the left. Economically, Brazil is a fascist, state governed type organization (more companies are closing down and quitting,i.e., just leaving the country, due to their share of profits going to feed bloated, corrupt government policies). These two areas of “compatibility” align mostly with Chinese Political/Economic realities than with American Capitalism tenets. Having said that, Chinese (Mandarin – 7,500 characters) is now taught in grade schools…not English. More Chinese “manager-types” are evident, given the large number of long term contracts China’s Central Committee has signed with the Brazilian government and State-run entities. Chinese automobiles are now evident on Brazilian highways. One is most likely to “bump into” an Asian-type representative in almost any sector of Brazil’s economy. Brazil’s President, Congress and Senate are rife with Communists and Socialists. Philosophical, political and economic “parity” is closer to China’s than USA’s. There’s nothing the US can do to change this rush towards State control of Latin America’s largest land mass and population. This started in the ’50′s and ’60′s, was halted…now, it’s back in full force. Has to be shown to be an empty shell…this may take a full generation to come full circle to capitalism. In the meantime, watch Brazil’s wreathing under the weight of full blown fascism.
You do see things clearly indeed.
It’s a pity though, that none of us here now will outlive the “full circle” return to progress. As a Latino industrialist told me about Cuba some time ago, “It took them 50 years to sink this low, it will take them 70 to just get back to the level they had started at.”
cit.: the U.N. list of nations according to ‘penetration of middle class in society’ placed Cuba as No. 4 — that was in 1959, the same year the spoiled upper class brats took over in name of “the collective”.
PS: the UN list now lumps Cuba in a special group of four at the bottom of the list, which includes Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia, the richest country in Africa).
If the American response to the Chinese surge is electing an incompetent narcisist leftie for president of the country, the Chinese world’s hegemony throughout the 21 century is assured.
While the U.S. gets busy with the likes of Paris Hilton or Donald Trump and waits for its intelectual super-stars Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and Tony Kushners to direct their academic efforts, the Chinese are busy building highways, dams, seaports and factories.
While the U.S. puts an incompetent Charles F. Bolden as director of one of its major scientific and technology agencies, instructing him to go cozy-up to the muslims instead of assembling missions to Mars, the Chinese are investing heavily in science and technology.
While the U.S. universities becomes centers for anarchy and recipients of arab grants destined to reduce their academic value, the Chinese are educating a few tens of millions of engineers, scientists, technicians and professionals.
Guess who is going to be the 21-st century’s world’s “only remaining super-power”?
You’ve pointed out the real difference: the Chinese are serious about advancing as a nation, while the Obama regime is talking about “hope and change”, kowtowing to muslims and trying to grant voting rights to 20 million illegal aliens.
And the Chinese are doing all this, with the trillions of American dollars supplied by US trade with, and investment in China. We capitalists are truly “selling them the rope they will hand us with” as Nikita Khruschev once stated.
That’s “hang us with”.
China has the very large advantage of not having to make a business profit. Because it is a government investment without debt they can make much sweeter deals. Slave labour is a big plus for their strategy.
We seem to have much to learn from China who is unapologetic about expecting something in return for their investment and help. America has become PC and suffers from “guilt” for the past. Screw that! I would far rather have countries respect America than like America. First we must respect ourselves and stop this stupid socialist liberal PC drivel.
The Chinese are not just sweeping south america, they are also vacuming cleaning the USA for ideas. Consider thorium.
Thorium, US energy independence and Obama´s Sputnik moment
By Coach Collins, on May 17th, 2011
When stacked up against the energy costs associated with various sources, thorium is stunning. One lb. of Thorium according to Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia is equal to 200 lbs. of uranium, or a breathtaking 3.5 million lbs. of coal.
Fuel costs for thorium are a tiny $0.00004/kWh versus coal and natural gas at less than 10 cents/kWh; conventional nuclear at approximately 10 cents /kWh; wind appx. 14 cents /kWh; solar thermal about 26 cents/kWh and solar photovoltaic a hefty 40 cents/kWh.
The U.S.G.S.’ estimate of 915,000 tons of high quality thorium ore (just considering holdings in Idaho and Montana) establish the U.S. as arguably the #1 thorium holding nation in the world.
Now if Obama is known for anything it is for his majestic non-sequiturs. His 2011 State of the Union proves the point. He stated: ” At stake is whether new jobs and industries take root in this country, or somewhere else. It’s whether the hard work and industry of our people is rewarded.” Later on, he claimed “This is our generation’s Sputnik moment”.
While Obama curiously mentioned Oak Ridge in his address he did so highlighting efforts to basically tweak existing nuclear technology and ignored thorium reactors and the (if I can plagiarize his speech a bit) hard work and industry of our people (plus the millions of dollars already spent) to develop them.
Obama also seems to be oblivious to the fact that a Chinese delegation visited Oak Ridge in the autumn of 2010 and expressed interest in thorium fuel to scientists there. America’s economic crisis demands a quantum reduction in energy generation costs through thorium based power and the spectacular job creating dynamics these massive savings entail.
Following up, no doubt, on their visit to Oak Ridge, the Chinese announced within days of Obama’s 2011 State of the Union Address that they intend to not only develop a research & development effort to create molten salt thorium reactors, but also to develop and control intellectual property rights to thorium for their own advantage! The Sputnik moment indeed has arrived.
http://www.coachisright.com/thorium-us-energy-independence-and-obama%C2%B4s-sputnik-moment/#