More Opinions Columnists

• V.B. Price: Preserving our water is greatest challenge the city, state faces
• Jeffry Gardner: End of The Trib is part of the demise of serious journalism
• Katherine Augustine: Time with friends from Japan provides treasured memories

MOST RECENT TRIB STORIES

• ABQTrib.com to remain available
  08:48 a.m., February 25, 2008
• Congressman is indicted
  08:37 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Series of attacks target Green Zone
  08:36 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Iran is defying U.N., agency says
  08:35 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Waterboarding approval probed
  08:34 a.m., February 23, 2008

TRIB IN THE BLOGOSPHERE*

• Albuquerque Old Town
• Ty Murray Invitational thrills fans in Albuquerque
• Is Rome Burning?
• Ominous Skies
• The Road to Invalidation

*Note: The Tribune does not create and is not responsible for the blogosphere's headlines and stories. These links to blogs talking about ABQTrib.com are automatically generated. Use them at your own risk.

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• Comments
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

SHARE THIS STORY [?]

After paying scant attention to the region for most of his presidency, George Bush decided to spend some time in South and Central America last week. His reception in most of those countries was not unlike what a Baby Ruth bar's reception would be in a public swimming pool.

Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators greeted Bush at nearly every stop. If not for his State Department translator, Bush might have thought "Fuera Yanqui" - Yankee, go home - was a Latino term of endearment.

Part of Bush's problem is that like most of the rest of his foreign policy, the president has no coherent agenda vis-a-vis the region. The war on terror has replaced the necessity to think through how the United States will engage with important regions such as Latin America. That's too bad, because most modern presidents, including Bush the elder, have had an active policy of Latin American engagement.

Eisenhower's and Truman's Latin America policies focused on containing communism, and their economic and military aid was less about engaging Latin America than keeping the Soviets out. But almost every president since has had a real plan for the region.

President Kennedy's Latin America policy, the Alliance for Progress, was drafted in part by New Mexico's own former U.S. senator, Dennis Chavez. As the only Hispanic in the Senate, Chavez became the U.S. emissary to Latin America and a key adviser to Kennedy. Chavez brought a healthy respect to U.S. policy in the region, even supporting Mexican nationalization of its oil industry in 1938. Unlike Bush, Kennedy was greeted by thousands of fans in an appearance that rivaled visits by the Pope to Latin America.

The elder Bush used his Enterprise for the Americas Initiative to try to engage major Latin trading nations in a closer trade relationship with the United States. While controversial in the United States, NAFTA, which was later implemented by President Clinton, was seen as the biggest step the United States had taken toward economic integration with a Latin American nation. Clinton's many visits to Mexico and Central and South America were also greeted with glee that has not been seen since.

Which brings us back to the current President Bush and the Baby Ruth tour. While Bush never mentioned Hugo Chavez's name, Bush's central theme seemed to be that Latin American leaders should avoid the Chavez doctrine of confronting the United States and instead embrace reform and the free market. Not exactly new, but for most of the countries in the region, including the five he visited, the message was lost in the messenger. Most see Bush as the poster child for U.S. imperialism.

The Bush visit was supposed to promote the moderate voices in Latin America, such as Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Brazilian socialist-turned-economic-pragmatist Lula da Silva. Bush sounded conciliatory on immigration in Mexico and downright environmental in his support for renewable energy in Brazil.

But overall, the Bush visit offered little more than a promise to keep working on the broken U.S. immigration system, a future Western Hemispheric Summit, some token foreign aid and a few new exchanges for students and experts. Not exactly the stuff that makes a presidential legacy.

Judging by the huge demonstrations throughout the region, most Latin Americans prefer the benign neglect that has been the hallmark of this foreign policy to the token whistle-stop diplomacy Bush's recent visit demonstrated.

In the post-9/11 world, we need more than photo ops and token initiatives. America needs a comprehensive Latin America policy that addresses the social, economic and security issues we share. Maybe a look back at history could help the Bush foreign policy team put a little meat on the bones and avoid another Baby Ruth Latin America tour.