Replies

NAFTA and the proposed CAFTA had very little to offer the US. NAFTA certainly hasn't improved relations between the US and Mexico or Canada. Even with CAFTA, we've got Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Vincente Fox in Mexico, Ignacio Lula de Silva in Brazil, and now Michelle Bachalet in Chile. Granted, all but Fox are South American, but the appeasment strategy doesn't seem to be working.

The forces arrayed against America are not just military. There's an economic war afoot, with as much or more at stake.

"...we've got Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Vincente Fox in Mexico, Ignacio Lula de Silva in Brazil, and now Michelle Bachalet in Chile"

There's a lot of apples and oranges there. I'd throw Chavez and Morales together and call them lefty radicals. Lula de Silva is slightly closer to center, but a leftward shift for Brazil. Bachalet is really not. She's part of the same party that's been in power since Pinochet stepped down (reasonably centrist). Fox is by no means a sign of a lefty movement in Mexico.

The purpose of NAFTA and CAFTA are not to improve diplomatic relations between the member states. The purpose is to integrate the states into a larger market, with efficiencies of scale. It has nothing to do with human rights, security, or immigration. Overall, NAFTA has been successful--or rather, all three countries are equally unhappy with the deal.

One could argue soundly that by providing economic opportunities to Mexico, one stabilizes our southern neighbor. Unfortunately, China has undercut Mexico as a low-cost factory source. Furthermore, it is in Mexico's national economic and political interest to allow unlimited exmigration into the United States, both for the money sent back and to serve as a outlet for frustration with conditions in Mexico.

This is something that economics won't solve. It's a political issue in both countries, though the U.S. can act unilaterally and upset the balance in Mexico. Do we want to do that? Would Mexico in chaos -- as it was in the early 1900s -- be worse than now? I think so.

I don't think Michelle Bachalet is a drastic change to the left with Chile. She had already been in the government as Defense Minister, and she is not going to risk the destruction Chile's well-established free markets for short-term political gain in the same was Chavez is ruining Venezuela and Morales is going to ruin Bolivia. Bachalet is more like Lula de Silva, and Chile's economy (agriculture and mining), like Brazil's, is more diversified than Bolivia's (cocaine) and Venezuela's (petroleum). Stable and mature economies withstand political change better than single-crop economies.

Latin America isn't a united region in detail. We can't apply universal templates to every nation and assume they will be the same. However, we can assume generalities. Free trade improves both nation's economies. However, people who make their living based on the inefficiencies in economies -- tarriffs and labor, transport, and manufacturing costs --are going to be hurt. The adjustment period will be painful. But it will be better in the long run.