Al-Ahram Weekly takes stock of the Summit of the Americas in Monterrey, Mexico
Who loves the US?
The show of harmony at the Summit of the Americas barely masked underlying tensions, writes Hisham El-Naggar from Buenos Aires
The meeting of leaders at the Summit of the Americas in Monterrey, Mexico, took place in an atmosphere of general tension. The overwhelming reason for that tension was the perception, widespread south of the Rio Grande, that the United States has lost interest in its southern neighbours.
The clumsiness with which US diplomacy has been conducted in the region of late has resulted in the rise of actors the US perceives as hostile to their interests -- notably Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and the Bolivian opposition leader, Evo Morales. Making matters worse is that there are not too many faithful allies around to rectify this imbalance.
Venezuela and Bolivia are two focal points of what the US administration perceives as "trouble", in addition to the persistent challenge presented by Cuba's Fidel Castro and the Colombian guerrillas.
Superimposed on this turbulent chessboard is the Bush administration's dream of an economically integrated hemisphere, guaranteeing free movement of goods and capital "from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego". That, in a nutshell, is what the Free Trade Area for the Americas (FTAA) is all about according to the neo-cons.
Recent events also conspired to make the Monterrey meeting particularly tense. The most recent crisis arose over a seemingly trivial issue. A few weeks ago, the US started taking photos and fingerprints of all visitors coming to the US from countries that require entry visas, including Latin American countries. Most governments in the region shrugged it off, but not Brazil. A local judge ordered that reciprocity be invoked and so Brazilian officials began photographing and fingerprinting US visitors to Brazil.
The issue quickly strated to get out of hand. Without adequate equipment, most Brazilian airports had to carry out the identification process manually, which resulted in lengthy delays and frayed tempers. Since this threatened the flow of tourists to Rio de Janeiro, where carnival season is about to begin, Rio de Janeiro's state government appealed to the justice system to waive the requirement that US visitors be identified. No sooner had the appeal been accepted, than the federal government in Brasilia decided that it did want to keep the identification requirement in force, after all.
It looks now like the Brazilian government is planning to use "fingerprinting" as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the US to exempt Brazilian citizens from similar requirements in the US.
If Washington is in favour of the free movement of goods and capital across borders, Brasilia reasoned, the US should show the same enthusiasm for the free movement of people -- in both directions.
Critics on the left of Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (Lula), however, commented wryly that the conflict over airport photographs and fingerprints was simply a smokescreen allowing the government to seem anti- American while adopting economic policies that repeatedly earn the praise of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Despite agreement on key economic policies, however, relations between US and Brazilian diplomats seemed quite strained at Monterrey.
All of this proved to be beneficial to Argentina, which was on the verge of having its own mini-crisis with the Bush administration in the buildup to the summit. US State Department official Roger Noriega criticised the Argentine government for "veering to the left", by which he meant flirting with Fidel Castro.
Noriega's comments were not well received in Buenos Aires and sharp words were exchanged at the very moment when the IMF began voicing disapproval of Argentina's economic performance. IMF officials were particularly critical of the government's attitude towards holders of non- performing Argentine bonds and to banks clamouring for compensation due to losses suffered in the wake of the recent economic crisis.
Then, providentially, the US publicly threw its weight in support of Argentina. The IMF reluctantly switched from disapproval to approval, and the situation was much improved when Argentina's President Nestor Kirchner met George W Bush at Monterrey.
Kirchner also made clear he was not planning to visit Cuba despite earlier suggestions to the contrary from his foreign minister. In a show of independence, however, Kirchner reiterated that his country would abstain in the upcoming United Nations vote condemning Cuba for human rights violations.
To many, it seemed that the quarrel between the US and Brazil opened a window of opportunity for Argentina which President Kirchner skilfully exploited. On the one hand, Kirchner secured support from the US for his economic policies, but at the same time he refused to succumb to US pressure to distance himself from Cuba.
Nor does this suggest a weakening of the alliance between Brazil and Argentina. In the past, Brazil also played solo when it suited its interests to do so. Argentina seems wont to do the same on occasion and despite occasional differences in opinion, the strategic alliance stands and is, in fact, growing stronger over their shared opposition to the FTAA.
Meanwhile, Rio officials tried to console US visitors -- whose waiting time is being reduced as equipment is being installed in -- offering them flowers and T-shirts saying: "Rio loves you." Perhaps Rio does. But Brazil?
