Relations with Latin America have, are and will be important to the U.S. The reality of this is not at issue moreover a trip there. A better question to as is what is most important to the U.S. right now? With the world crises taking place at this time, isn't a leader to address them earnestly, and more proactively? Relations with L.A. have suffered for many, many years - distrust of the U.S. is there. Wouldn't trust in the U.S. be also furthered now, by playing a more pivotal internationally e.g. with the Middle East, Japan?

The text's sole purpose seems to be to justify Obama's visit -- for insights on US-LatAm relations, it certainly brought none. No one, not even in Latin America, believes the character of this visit will be anything but symbolic. The author appears to think LatAm is spreading its legs wide open, only waiting for the US to reassert its influence in the region yet again. He is ignoring the extent to which many countries in the region - most notably Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela - have been acting to reduce US presence in the region. Fortunately many of those holding government positions in South America know what US interference has meant for the region in past decades: gunboat diplomacy, United Fruit, right-wing coups, military dictatorships, and so forth. They know it and, I hope, will thus not be passive in face of any US advances toward the region.

Hopefully this Obama visit will bear no fruits. The author speaks of the importance of the US-Brazil relationship as a means for the US to retain influence in South America. Well, the Brazilian media has reported how their govt is increasingly angered by signs the US has given that it will not endorse Brazil's bid for SC permanent membership, not in this trip, not in the foreseeable future. And hopefully that will mean Brazil will cease flirting with the US like it has done since Ms. Rousseff has stepped into power.

Then lets start talking about permanent SC membership.

Instead of seeking allies in instable regions, like Middle East, USA should look at your neighbours in its own continent. But we cannot deny that US policy to Latin American have always been marked by imperialism and snobbery. In order to keep its interests safe, not seldom Washington used the "big stick" during 19th century. Throughout last century, United States didn't change its posture to American hemisphere: when any far-left-party were about to take power, American politicians drew upon "the threat of communism in our backyard" and sent friendly troops to protect local populations of these enemies of democacry. However, the time we Latin-Americans only obeyed is over. Nowadays we give the cards. US cannot anylonger order in an arrogant tone like in the past and we passively fulfill its requests. If Washington wants to set up a watershed in the ties with American Latin , it will also have made concessions.

But in fact, Obama's trip south is important for long-term U.S. interests, and long overdue. In today's economic order, where the G-20 is essentially a board of directors with only minority shareholders, the United States needs strong allies. Brazil is the ideal partner: netsikis large among the emerging countries, democratic, free of internal tensions, and without enemies. Cultivating that relationship is essential if Washington wants to continue to exercise leadership in the region. The recent turmoil in the Middle East also reminds us again of the fragility of energy security in the United States, and the importance of Latin America porno as a reliable source of renewable and nonrenewable energy
woow great! : )

Those countries are already strong enough to discuss, negotiate, arguee with other powers, and it's simply ludcrious to say "Well, by doing that we can start talking about this or that" as if Brazil or India were little children or poor workers who depend absolutely on their mother or on their boss, respectively. Attitudes and words - they also matter in internationa relationships - like those are what made Latin America so distrustful of US presence in the region, especially because the US has always been very "effective" stavkove kancelariein realizing what they say in very concrete - and tragic - ways. For example, "detaining communism in Latin America" very soon turned into the very practical mania of the US establishing right-wing dictatorships that either killed thousands of people or left many institutional and economic problems to the future generations - in general both.As for Brazil "dicking around" with Iran, you should come up with more facts about those reprochable and close ties with Iran, because as far as I know (and I do know) stavkove kancelarie all that people have called "Brazil's ties with Iran" means that Ahmadinejad visited Brazil (and Lula visited Iran), Brazil made some trade agreements with Iranian companies, Brazil and Turkey got a deal with Iran that was remarkably similar to what Mr. Obama had suggested Brazil should try to do in an official letter sent to President Lula; and, finally, Lula offered Sakineh Ashtiani refuge in Brazil, but refused to intervene directly in the issue inside Iran.