Reagan and Central America

REAGAN AND CENTRAL AMERICA David E. Bonior he Reagan foreign policy in Central America has been met with considerable apprehension by many leaders of this volatile region. Instead of building upon the popular themes of self-determination, economic and political democracy, and a respect for human rights, the new administration has negatively defined our relationship to Central America in terms ofan East-West struggle and has clouded our commitment to human and economic freedom in the region. In contrast, Mexico and Venezuela have developed a cooperative policy promoting the stability, independence, and economic growth of the region. Time, oil, and leadership have given them significant new impact in the region. That impact provides a standard for measuring, and an alternative to, U.S. foreign policy. U.S. foreign policy in Central America has always run the risk of being counterproductive, but now the United States faces the new threat ofbecoming an anachronism. Counterproductive foreign policies activate old alienations, isolating the United States. Together with the leadership of Mexico and Venezuela, alienation caused by American policy mistakes can, over time, leave the United States eclipsed in the region. During the short period of time the Reagan administration has been in power, a policy has emerged that clearly deviates from the positive policy elements ofthe last 20 years. Despite area incidents such as the Bay ofPigs or the Dominican Republic crisis of 1965, the previous two decades reflected periods of concern by the United States for the human condition in Central America. David E. Boniar is a member ofthe U.S. House ofRepresentatives. A Democrat, he represents the Twelfth District ofMichigan and is a member ofthe House Committee on Rules. 4 SAIS REVIEW Colonialism was addressed through such actions as the discussion and eventual renegotiation of the Panama Canal treaties. An increase in U.S. foreign assistance to the region, beginning with the short-lived Alliance for Progress, reflected a renewed interest, albeit episodic, in aligning the United States with economic progress. The theme of human rights was raised to new prominence in Carter administration policies. The problem of colonialism, the need for economic growth, the development of basic human rights as a minimal agenda for political institutions—each ofthese fundamental themes had found some articulation in U.S. foreign policy. Now, however, there are clear signs that these approaches are swiftly coming to an end. The new administration has defined its policy by analyzing all events in the region through the prism of East-West struggle, ignoring the more essential North-South questions of economic development. The relationship is defined negatively in terms of the ideologies we stand against rather than the principles we stand for. Secretary ofState Alexander Haig clearly illustrated the new direction ofthe Reagan policy when he spoke ofa Marxist "hit list," noting, "Phase one has been completed, the seizure of Nicaragua. El Salvador is next, followed by Honduras, and then Guatemala." Although the secretary qualified his statement the next day, it nevertheless has raised serious concerns among the leaders of many Central American nations about the depth and level ofunderstanding the new administration possesses concerning them. In Panama, a new spirit of cooperation has come about because of the successful negotiation of the Canal treaties. During the past year, Panama confirmed this new relationship by assisting the United States during the difficult period of the Iranian crisis, joining the United States in the boycott of the Moscow Olympics, and condemning the Soviet Union for its invasion of Afghanistan. This new partnership, however, is already showing signs oftension. The Panamanians well remember candidate Reagan's forceful opposition to "giving the Canal away." They are waiting for an equally forceful pronouncement from President Reagan indicating his willingness to live with the treaties. It is also becoming clear that increased direct involvement by the United States in El Salvador could trigger Panamanian opposition. There is disgruntlement among government leaders and the populace toward the use of Panamanian soil to teach combat techniques to elements of the Salvadoran Army. Like Panama, Nicaragua has historically had a strained relationship with the United States. The 19th century adventurism of William Walker, the occupation by the U.S. Marines in the 1920s and 1930s...