	Sign In Sign-Up

Conflicting Interests in Inter-American Relations

Conflicting Interests in Inter-American Relations

By William A. Naughton, Ph.D Copyright © 2003

As important as shared interests and values are, the most serious problems in inter-American relations stem from the many divergent and conflicting interests, needs and goals which complicate relations between governments, businesses and people. With each country and group seeking to protect and promote its own interests, it's only natural that such conflicts will exist. But unless we understand how they affect perceptions, attitudes and behavior--and learn how to handle them effectively--we will continue to face serious obstacles to successful relations.

Conflicting U.S.-Latin American Interests and Strategies

The enormous differences in development and power, the U.S.'s global engagement as a superpower, and differences in Latino-Anglo perspectives make it inevitable that important differences and even conflicts in national interests and priorities will exist between the United States and most Latin American countries. Perspectives, goals, and priorities simply differ. Such conflicts should come as no surprise, and most can be accommodated with understanding and goodwill.
More serious and contentious is the conflict over strategies and approaches used in pursuing those differing interests.
In part because of contrasting perspectives, inter-American relations have often been characterized by U.S. efforts to be the dominant leader in the Western Hemisphere, coupled with Latin American resistance to such dominance--especially the U.S. tendency to want to impose its own views and at times engage in interventionist policies.
National interests have tended to converge more in recent decades as priorities in the region have focused on the common goals of democratic governance,social justice, economic development, free trade, and regional integration. The spirit of "convergence and community" culminated in the 1994 Summit of the Americas, where all participating governments committed themselves to negotiate the Free Trade Area of the Americas and to work together to promote democracy and human rights, improve social and economic conditions, curtail drug trafficking and achieve many other shared goals aimed at sustained regional development and social justice.
But important conflicts remain over how to achieve these goals. They are particularly seen in bilateral relations between the United States and Latin American countries.
Which conflicts are the most serious? Based on my own work with Latin Americans and North Americans, I would identify the following:

From the Latin American perspective:

The continued U.S. tendency to want to dominate regional developments and especially to pursue interventionist policies
A U.S. tendency to impose its own views without serious consultation with Latin Americans on their perspectives
Latin American resentment over U.S. pressures on their governments to support U.S. policies--sometimes under penalty of sanctions

From the U.S. perspective:

A U.S. belief that it knows best how to deal with regional problems and that Latin Americans should follow its leadership
A U.S. belief that Latin Americans will not follow through without U.S. pressure
A U.S. insistence on the right of unilateral action when it deems it necessary

Examples of such conflicts:

U.S. regional counternarcotics strategy (Latin American concerns over its unilateral nature, U.S. interventionist tendencies and threats of sanction, especially through the counterdrug certification process)
OAS reform efforts (Latin American concerns over possible U.S. domination)
Cooperative security efforts (Latin American concerns over possible U.S. domination)
The U.S. Helms-Burton law (Latin American concern over the law's international coercive nature)

What is noteworthy is that the conflicts are not so much over the goals involved. All countries want to win the war on drugs, strengthen hemispheric institutions, maintain regional security, and see Cuba transition to a free society. The conflict is over how the U.S. develops and implements its regional policies without sufficient concern for Latin American perspectives. Many Latin Americans see U.S. policies and actions reflecting a U.S. sense of superiority and patronizing attitude toward Latin American countries. Such attitudes fuel historical fears of U.S. domination. The consensus approach being used in post-Summit conferences has promoted a much greater spirit of consultation and accommodation on the regional issues involved, but the U.S.'s approach on bilateral issues continues to be seen as being relatively insensitive to Latin American interests and concerns.

Conflicting Inter-American Business Interests and Strategies

Divergent interests and conflicts also exists in inter-American business relations because of the basic competitive nature of trade, investment, opportunities for national development, and inherent conflicts over promoting and defending national and business interests and goals. Despite the need for expanded trade and widespread promotion of foreign investment, there still remain nationalist concerns over foreign exploitation of national resources and competition with local businesses. Some of those conflicts are being expressed--and openly discussed--in inter-American conferences of business executives which are supporting regional trade ministerials. Many such conflicts can be accommodated with sensitive handling and emphasis on shared goals and benefits.

Conflicting Inter-Latin American Interests and Strategies

Conflicting interests and strategies are not confined to U.S.-Latin American relations. They also exist between Latin American countries. Despite growing economic interdependence and collaboration, lingering distrust persists below the surface between a number of governments over historical animosities and rivalries, the competitive nature of economic development efforts and still-unresolved territorial disputes. The 1995 armed conflict between Peru and Ecuador is a vivid reminder of potential extremes to which conflicting perspectives and antagonisms can lead. And more recent expressions of inter-Latin American resentment and friction over such issues as Brazil's bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council rather than have it rotate among Latin American countries and over Argentina's close ties with the United States remind us that much work remains to be done to ease underlying rivalries and resentment, which can create their own problems in inter-Latin American relations.

What can be done to resolve or minimize such conflicts?

My personal experience convinces me that the first steps must be to understand the issues and perspectives involved--how and why they conflict--and then engage in open and respectful discussion in search of ways to handle the particularly conflicts fairly for both sides without damaging broader beneficial aspects of the relationship.

Sometimes the only solution may be to "agree to disagree" on a particular issue but to cooperate in other areas of importance to both sides. The Argentine-U.K. handling of conflicting sovereignty claims over the Malvinas/Falkland Islands is a good example of this.
Other times, the conflicts may be so basic and irreconcilable at the time that no acceptable solution can be found to deal successfully with them. The conflicts between Cuba and the United States are a case in point. Yet, even in Cuban-U.S. relations there are specific areas of cooperation on issues of common concern, such as migration and humanitarian aid.
But for most issues, including Latin American resentment felt over the U.S. drug certification process and over the Helms-Burton law, ways can be found to achieve mutual acceptance of needed measures without animosity if both sides openly discuss the issues involved with goodwill and empathy for both sides' concerns.

Perhaps what is most needed is a change in attitudes and approach in inter-American relations.

For North Americans:

Better understanding of Latin American perspectives and sensitivity to Latino concerns, especially over U.S. unilateralism and interventionism
More frequent direct consultation with Latin American governments as an input to U.S. policy considerations
Greater emphasis on explaining U.S. rationale for its policies and approaches.

For Latin Americans:

Recognition that U.S. perspectives and approaches are culturally different from those of Latin Americans
Greater emphasis on explaining Latin American rationale for their concerns regarding U.S. policies and approaches
More joint Latin American efforts to influence U.S. policies.

Ultimately, for both sides, the best approach would include recognition that differing perspectives and conflicting interests are an inherent part of international relations and that they can best be minimized or resolved through understanding, open discussion, and fair and respectful treatment.

For more information or to provide commentary, please send an e-mail to Dr. Naughton at WmNaughton@netscape.net:

You may also find the following of interest:
The Need for Greater Understanding in Inter-American Relations
The Importance of Shared Values in Inter-American Relations
Cultural Conflict in Inter-American Relations
Differing Styles and Business Practices in Inter-American Relations
Ten Mistakes to Avoid in Working With Latin Americans
Two Core Studies on Inter-American Understanding :

Working Successfully With Latin Americans
Negotiating Successfully With Latin Americans
About Dr. Naughton
Return to Home Page