Look South, Not East

The Obama administration is turning to Asia for the defining competition of the next century. But if the United States actually wants to win, it'll need Latin America.

BY PARAG KHANNA | NOVEMBER 11, 2011

With Barack Obama's administration pivoting toward Asia and with the U.S. president now off to Hawaii for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit (and then to Australia and Indonesia), let's remember that the most important trip of his time in office was not east but south. In March, in the midst of the fallout from Japan's tsunami and nuclear meltdown and the brutal escalation in Libya, Obama made an international trip the Western media almost entirely ignored. His destination: Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador. There was pressure to cancel the visits, and photos and media reports revealed that Obama was accompanied by his military advisors and was getting constant updates on both crises from a secure camouflage tent.

Of course, the date for the trip was not movable, especially as it was precisely the 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's declaration of the "Alliance for Progress," which brought about an industrial expansion from Mexico to Argentina. Obama's journey thus had a grand strategic purpose missed by Washington's Mideast- and China-obsessed elites (not to mention previous administrations -- one recalls George W. Bush in 2005 being startled by a map of South America and exclaiming, "Wow! Brazil is big!") By setting out to "forge new alliances across the Americas," Obama has implicitly acknowledged the emerging geopolitical reality that Latin America is nothing less than the third pillar of the West, alongside Europe and North America.

The United States certainly can't take Latin American loyalty for granted, if it ever could. This is an age of multialignment, with most powers playing all sides. South America has rolled out the welcome mat to the new Asian power, with Brasilia and Beijing declaring a strategic partnership years ago and many South American commodities exporters like Chile and Argentina owing much of their recent growth to China's massive appetite for raw materials.

Indeed, the first aim of geopolitics is access to resources, which South America has in abundant supply. Some 30 percent of the world's total biocapacity resides in South America. It may sound cliché to say that the Amazonian rain forest is the world's lungs, but it's true. The continent is also the world's breadbasket. Most of the global supply of bananas, sugar, oranges, coffee, soybeans, and salmon, as well as a major share of beef and pork, come from South America. It also has massive mineral deposits: silver, copper, lead, tin, zinc, iron ore, and lithium.

Perhaps most importantly, Latin America is fundamental to any strategy for energy self-sufficiency. North America's energy future already looks strong with oil and gas deposits under the Arctic seabed, Canada's gigantic oil sands, wells in the Gulf of Mexico, and newfound shale-gas deposits in the United States. Add to this the major discoveries of oil off Brazil's Atlantic coast, plus Venezuela's abundant reserves, and you have a comprehensive solution for total energy independence from the turbulence of Eurasia and Africa. There is also a sustainability angle here. Brazilian sugar cane-based ethanol is four times more efficient to produce than North American grain-based ethanol.

According to energy expert Daniel Yergin, the new Western Hemispheric energy axis runs from Alberta, Canada -- from which the United States gets another 1 percent of its oil imports each year -- through Texas and the Gulf of Mexico down to Venezuela, French Guiana, and Brazil. U.S. energy policy should be increasingly Western Hemispheric -- just as China's energy policy is increasingly Middle Eastern. In this context, the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to Texas can be delayed (as it just was), but it is nonetheless inevitable.

Building a new hemispheric economy is crucial to tackling not only energy independence but also industrial competitiveness. Latin America's 900 million people (about 12 percent of the world's population) represent a $6 trillion economy -- equal in size to China's. Furthermore, Latin America is younger and more urbanized than Asia, making it a highly productive partner for the United States. Additionally, Latin economies now feel the Chinese economic threat as much as the United States does. China has dumped everything from clothing to cell phones onto the region, threatening an estimated 90 percent of Latin America's manufacturing exports (which account for 40 percent of all its exports) and undercutting trade. Almost half of Brazil's manufacturing exports go to other Latin American countries, and two-thirds of those markets (in everything from shoes to cars) are at risk from Chinese competition.

Rather than outsourcing to Asia and accelerating the rise of economic competitors, U.S. firms could look much closer to home, forging joint ventures in energy and manufacturing across the region. This is already happening to some extent, but the opportunities have not been seized. With coastal Chinese wages rising, numerous U.S. companies are relocating to Mexico, which offers logistical proximity, a more predictable exchange rate, and a closer political relationship -- all of which mean less risk and eventually greater profits. Even the $100 billion IT outsourcing industry could be brought back from India into the United States' time zones. In the long run, such a hemispheric industrial policy is the only way for the Americas to remain competitive with an Asia that has caught up in brawn and is catching up in brains.

VANDERLEI ALMEIDA/AFP/Getty Images

 

Parag Khanna is a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation and author of The Second World: How Emerging Powers are Redefining Global Competition in the 21st Century and How to Run the World: Charting a Course to the Next Renaissance.

HURRICANEWARNING

7:50 PM ET

November 11, 2011

Brazil, Colombia, Chile and

Brazil, Colombia, Chile and Argentina are natural US allies and they should be treated as such. We should be aggressive with improving our public image in the south. Also, it would behoove us to create a strong military and economic relationship with Brazil especially. If we are going to focus on China anyways, then we might as well realize that part of countering Chinese influence involves protecting our OWN influence in our OWN back-yard.

 

BING520

10:53 PM ET

November 11, 2011

Latin American Countries

There has always been close relationship between the US and Latin American countries. Chile, Argetina and Brazil have had US trained economists and specialists run their economies for many years. From a cultural standpoint, the US should always have a strong economic tie with Latin American neighbors. While Asian cultures and business practices are vastly different from the US, Latin Americans by comparision are similar to Americans.

But for some reasons unbeknownst to me, Latin American countries have not been the strongest competitors in the North American markets. Maquiladoras were launched long before China was on the horizon. Maquiladoras are now being eclipsed by globalization. There are far more free trade agreements between US and Latin American countries that between US and Asian countries. The total US investments in Latin American countries since 1950 have far exceeded those in Asia.

This article claims that the US has not put more emphasis on Latin American countries. Given the fact that China has become the largest trading partner of many Latin American countries, I find it very strange for the author, PARAG KHANNA, to argue that Latin American countries should slight the Chinese market and pursue US markets and that Latin American countries would have done better here if the Us paid more attention to them.

Have we offered better terms of do business to Asian than Latin American countries? The answer is overwhelmingly no. Has China offered Brazil better opportunities to succeed in China than the US to succeed in China? Another negative.

While so many Latin American countries are pursuing economic opportunites in Asia successfully, there is no compelling reason the US should put more emphasis on Latin America and treat Asia as a secondary priority. Besides, how do we know for sure Latin American countries would even want to redirect their attention and energy from Asia to the US?

"Look South, Not East" is a piece of sentimental writing with weak reasoning and little foresight.

 

MAULIK

12:16 AM ET

November 12, 2011

Parag Khanna: Look South & Not East

Two fallacies in your argument. Foreign Policy of US is distinct & separate from what US MNC Corporations see as their own priorities. Be is China for manufacturing & India for IT.

Second, on bringing back $100bn IT business back to US Time Zone: Well it takes so much time to engineer an engineer & educational infrastructure in Brazil, Argentina, Chile & other major economies of Latin America may succeed but price pressure & competition is super high & India can sustain it with newer workforce entering IT market, not Lat Am.

 

VID

1:40 AM ET

November 12, 2011

Do not forget the 12 hr. time

Do not forget the 12 hr. time lag btw. US and India and it helps the US companies to outsource. With brazil you can keep your day-office alive , with India you can go home and come back refreshed to find your job is done ( i know it is not as simple as it sounds, just an analogy)

 

HIBERN

12:33 AM ET

November 12, 2011

Parag Khanna: Look South, Not East

Don't you mean, "Look South, Not West"?

 

BIG BOY

1:02 AM ET

November 12, 2011

Funny

It's actually quite weird that China resides in WEST Pacific whereas the US resides in the EAST Pacific.

But then again what is "East" and "West"? There are merely ideas that people invent.

 

HIBERN

7:38 AM ET

November 12, 2011

Parag Khanna: Look South, Not East

I have no problem with the fact that we in the US have adopted the British convention of saying that Asia is "the East" or "the Orient". After all, the whole world measures degrees of longitude relative to the meridian through Greenwich in London. However, the title of this article does something much more weird than following a long-established convention. When Parag says "Look South" as a way to refer to the US relationship with Latin America, he is definitely telling the reader to place herself geographically in the US and look south. Then if you pivot to "look east", you see Europe, not Asia.

 

JOHN MILTON XIV

8:45 PM ET

November 12, 2011

@AlanChristopher, insightful and succinct post.

Obama will be visiting us here in Australia on this latest tour of his.

The central reason for his visit will be to ratify the treaty commissioning a new US military base in our NT, or alternatively to ratify increased US troop deployment and circulation through current US bases on Australian territory/waters.

Majority Australian public opinion toward this is, so we say, "pragmatic".

Minor (though still strong) public opinion is to question both the necessity and wisdom of putting all our eggs in the American basket.

(see eg. the papers written by Hugh White who is a defense and strategic analyst at the ANU)

It always personally gives me, for it's worth, a certain grim satisfaction that there exists rigorous questioning concerning the long run strategies - both domestic and geopolitical - within America as well, as can be seen in AC's above post.

 

BING520

9:17 PM ET

November 12, 2011

US military base in Australia?

Why do we need a base in Australia? Why does Australia need a US military base? Whom are we jointly defending against? Tahiti?! The french are coming?!

I hope Aussie is going to pay for it.

 

JOHN MILTON XIV

2:35 AM ET

November 13, 2011

ANZUS

It's all part of the two nation's - plus New Zealand - Pacific alliance arrangements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS

(Cf eg Hilary Clinton's recent article for FP magazine)

Australia's defense forces are relatively weak - we don't have nuclear - to the size of our territory and we have a smallish population. And so we have tended to rely on first the British and then the American alliance for security.

The downside to these alliances is our continuing engagement in wars that have absolutely f*uck-all to do with us. Eg. WW1; WW2 in Europe (though we were under threat from Japan on our shores); Korean War; Vietnam; Iraq I; Iraq II; AfPaK.

(In addition, our closeness to USA means that we have vassal state status in some diplomatic cases. Eg. voting against Palestinian statehood at the recent UN assembly. This despite the fact that our foreign minister Kevin Rudd is *privately* - though he never says so publicly - majorly pissed off at Netanyahu. So are Sarkozy and Obama, it would seem.)

But what happens that now a very large part of our trade is with China, resulting in closer diplomatic ties?

Amongst others Hugh White, mentioned above, has been publishing papers on this topic.

 

JOHN MILTON XIV

2:42 AM ET

November 13, 2011

Payment

Apologies BING520, only just saw the last sentence in your post about the question of payment.

No, Aust. won't be paying for it, at least monetarily.

If you're American, it is *you* who will be footing the bill. I believe that that is generally - though not universally - the case with the massive network of American military bases around the world.

Something that at least one American - Chalmers Johnson - isn't totally thrilled about.

 

A11242408

4:30 AM ET

November 15, 2011

Since most governaments have

Since most governaments have leftists in power with massive support from its population(Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela and Equador), it's a huge mistake saying cooperation will be easily done, althogh it is not impossible. But for that Americans will have to attend all demands in the possible treatys to come, because with economic development we have more sovereignty than ever. So US will not be policymaker in latin america, but it'll be the follower.YouTube Converter Mac

 

A11242408

4:55 AM ET

November 15, 2011

Bill Clinton himself, turned

Bill Clinton himself, turned up in Brazil, with Arnold Schwarzenegger to propagandize against the project. Does Hillary know about it ? Does the author know about that the U,S, is spending hundreds of millions each year - through USAIDS, or funneled through "foundations" to paralyse the national development projects in Latin America under the guise environmentalism, or protecting ethnic minorities, and to finance internal opposition groups against all elected centrist and leftist governments ? SWF Converter Mac

 

A11242408

4:55 AM ET

November 15, 2011

This focus has since changed

This focus has since changed gradually. Evangelical Christian’s that in the 19th Century supported what was then the Democratic Party, was not interested in the Christian Western Hemisphere, but in converting the souls of the Asia Pacific People.YouTube Converter Mac

 

MAREO2

10:08 PM ET

November 12, 2011

I think that s not "fashionalble", is "pragmatic"

First, most latin americans have a negative feelings about the US: because the memories of the Cold War when the US unofficially backed Coup d'etats and military dictatorships torturing civilians is still fresh.

Second, latin america infrastructure is in worst shape than Asia and require a higher level of investment capital for development.

Third, latin america demographic is far smaller meaning a smaller market for the US compared with Asia

Fourth, Asia partially evolved in to export parts and finished products, while latin america still is mostly on the export of food and natural resources.

Conclusion:

It require a lot more diplomacy, a lot more capital for development and the profit is smaller.

 

MICAH

1:00 AM ET

November 13, 2011

Population of Latin America

While with the importance of having strong bonds with Latin America is crucial to American success in the future, the role of the Asia still far eclipses the importance of Latin America. In terms of sheer population (work force) and energy resources (including the Middle East as part of Asia), Asia holds many keys to our future. Also, I am not certain where the author got the statatics that Latin America has a population of 900 million, but according to other sources its less than 600 million. Kind of hard to believe that Latin America has a population of 900 million, when the entire Americas has about 900 million. Maybe the author considers that the US is already in Latin America since Spanish is so widely spoken here!

 

JEANPOMEL

10:07 AM ET

November 13, 2011

Too idealistic for a realistic

I'm a latin amerian(brazilian). Saying that Argentina and Brazil are "natural allies" of US interests is a huge mistake, i mean HUGE one. Anti-american sentiments are profound and growing evereyday, even in between academics.
Seriously, take a look at the background history, Americans backed harsh dictatorships on latin american soil, and most of the military officials who have been involved are stiil FREE(though in argentine some have been trialed and convicted), so memory is FRESH. 2002's US backed coup d'etat in Venezuela too!!
Since most governaments have leftists in power with massive support from its population(Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela and Equador), it's a huge mistake saying cooperation will be easily done, althogh it is not impossible. But for that Americans will have to attend all demands in the possible treatys to come, because with economic development we have more sovereignty than ever. So US will not be policymaker in latin america, but it'll be the follower.
As for China x Latin American relations, the continent is divided. Brazil is watching their technological capabilities running out, because of the flood of cheap technological products from China. That's why we need some isolacionists policies to produce our own technologic products, create, design and etc. But for that we'll need a Latin American bloc, though Brazilian policies are going against that, since Brazil is acting like a micro-imperalistic power in the region.

 

NIGHTGOOD8081

10:12 AM ET

November 14, 2011

http://www.chic-goods.com/

Wonderful.

Share a website with you ,

( http://www.chic-goods.com/ )

Believe you will love it.

We accept any form of payment.

 

KFIRMENA

6:38 PM ET

November 14, 2011

Bush Admin Policy to Latin America Stronger Bonds than Obama

Two major initiatives from the Bush Administration, were already looking towards South America
1) Bio Fuel Agreement signed by the Bush – Da Sliva Administration in 2007
2) Colombia Free Trade Agreement signed by the Bush Administration on November 22, 2006
In 2007 President George W. Bush and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva agreed to share technology to develop alternative fuels and reduce reliance on oil imports from Venezuela, at time the Bio Fuel Agreement found some criticism from the Bush’s Pundits of the Left, only to be later touted by a Success from the Obama Administration.
Another initiative from the Bush Administration, that focus Foreign Policy attention in Latin America was the Colombia Free Trade Agreement signed by its administration in 2006, ratification of said agreement found reluctance from Democrats in Congress and / or Senate, and from then Candidate Obama in 2008.
America’s Foreign Policy did focus towards Latin America in the 19th Century. Its greatest manifestation is the Monroe Doctrine that pretended to rally all Latin American Countries behind the US, thus preventing European Imperial Powers intrusion in the Western Hemisphere.
This focus has since changed gradually. Evangelical Christian’s that in the 19th Century supported what was then the Democratic Party, was not interested in the Christian Western Hemisphere, but in converting the souls of the Asia Pacific People.
We have seen the focus to change from Latin America to Asia, beginning with the Annexation of Hawaii and Guam, to special relation with the Philippines after the Hispano American War, to the tight relationship with Japan after World War II.
If anything the Obama Administration, continues this trend by continuing to change focus, this time, from the Middle East to Asia Pacific. Recently, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed to expand U.S. engagement in the Asia-Pacific by building trade ties, reinforcing alliances and continuing to press for democratic reforms in authoritarian nations like China and Vietnam.
Latin American countries somewhat harbor anti US feelings, source of Realist Policies during the 19th and most of the 20th century, but they certainly share more of the US ideals and have common interest with the US in their Trade relations with the Asia Pacific Block, than the Asia Pacific Block shares with the US.
President Obama, either, you look at the Pacific, or you look at the South, which is going to be?

 

BING520

2:14 AM ET

November 15, 2011

Latin America & China

If Latin American countries want to reduce their reliance on the US and diminish the US domination, Latin America must have a counterweight to the US. China is a good candidate even though it is far away, but the cultural gap between Latin Americans and Chinese makes a future alliance difficult, if not impossible. China will always be afraid of being used by Latin American countries, and Latin American countries will always be worried if China would lend a helping hand when it is needed most. China would be very hesitant to offend US for the sake of Latin American countries because the payoff to China is uncertain.

But without an ally, Latin American countries would have to stand alone to curb unwanted influence from the US. It is not an easy task.

Besides I have never shaken off the feeling that Latin American peoples actually desire the love of Yankee. Latin Americans may resent the condescending Yankees, but cannot stop looking up to them.

The article - "Looking South, not East" - almost looks like a child craving for attention.

 

ANGELIE

11:49 PM ET

November 15, 2011

Look everywhere

May as well look north, south, east and west for the most benefit. As they say keep your friends close but your enemies closer. england tours

 

LISAJANE64

6:30 AM ET

November 27, 2011

Look East, Not North

This article suggests that the US overlooks its economic intentions in Latin America, but the close economic relationships actually “go way back”, with most results less than pleasant (ie Chevron's dirty job in Ecuador).

And it also suggests that Latin America should stop bro-ing it down with China and look to the USA. It would be a lot wiser for countries like Brazil and Argentina to stop looking north and start strengthening their ties with China, Iran and Russia. Most of these “Southern” folk are not big fans of the USA anyway.

But seriously, despite his credentials, Dr. Khanna’s argument here is a bit superficial and completely missed the point.

Much love folks,
Lisa O.

 

BYTECOMPASS

9:17 PM ET

December 10, 2011

We can't take Latin American loyalty for granted

However for some reasons unbeknownst in my experience, Latin American countries haven't been the best competitors within the United states markets. Maquiladoras were stretching well before China was coming. Maquiladoras are increasingly being eclipsed by globalization. You will find much more free trade agreements between US and Latin American countries that between US and Parts of Asia. The entire US investments in Latin American countries since 1950 have far exceeded those who work in Asia.