Interview
A win-win approach to Latin America

Shipping containers in Hants, UK, November 7, 2021. (Photo by Amani A via Shutterstock)

When Washington thinks about Latin America – if it does at all – it tends to focus on a few issues: migration, drug smuggling, and trade (in that order). And most U.S. attention goes to Mexico (apart from the recent debate over the Panama Canal). But the region is much larger and more complex than just one country. Not only would Latin America benefit from a more sustained and sophisticated U.S. involvement – but so would the United States. That’s one of the arguments that Antonio Garza – former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico who now serves as a member of the Bush Center Board of Directors and Chair of the Bush Institute’s Advisory Council – made in a recent conversation with The Catalyst’s Jonathan Tepperman. [Note: they spoke before the Trump Administration began imposing tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China.] Their conversation has been edited for length and clarity. For more on the topic, please see the Bush Institute’s new policy brief on the Western Hemisphere, which you can find here.

When you look at Latin America today, is the overall situation there – in terms of violence, democracy, corruption, and other sources of instability – better or worse than it was a few years ago? 

One of the things that we in the United States have to appreciate is that it’s very much in our interest as a country to have safe, secure, stable, and prosperous neighbors. Between the year 2000 and about 2010, Latin America made great progress in terms of advancing democracies and seeing relatively modest but very consistent economic growth. People moved away from extreme poverty and developed a sense that they could make a living. And it wasn’t just the economics that were improving – security was as well. 

Since about 2010 or 2012, however, there’s been a general deterioration. In the United States, we see it on our southern border; in Latin America, they see it in their communities across the region.  

If you ask what that means for the United States, the answer is that it’s both an opportunity and a challenge. An opportunity to engage more in the region. And a challenge because of the deterioration, as well as the increased presence of China and our own reluctance to engage. 

Let’s come back to China in a minute. But first, let me ask you something else. In the last few years, Washington has talked a fair bit about helping to improve governance in Central and South America – both for its own sake and as a way to deal with the migration problem. Has this talk actually translated into progress on the ground? 

I don’t think we’ve done much, and I don’t think that was simply the last couple of years. We have never been terribly engaged in Latin America. And whatever modest engagement you’ve seen was primarily with Mexico, and to a lesser extent with Brazil and Argentina. I can appreciate that Washington has been distracted by the situations in the Middle East and in Ukraine and by the ascendancy of China. But those issues should be arguments for more engagement in Latin America, not less. 

But you asked me about the last couple of years, and I would give the United States modest to poor grades for its level of involvement. And because of the other conflicts around the world, that absence was not appreciated.  

As the United States took its eye off the region, has the involvement of China, Russia, and Iran grown significantly? 

Let’s start with China. In 2003 or 2004, their overall trade with the region was between $15 [billion] and $20 billion. These days, the number’s closer to $500 billion. That’s a significant uptick. 

China is also increasing its investment and infrastructure spending. The example you read about the most these days is Peru, where China is helping build a port. [Chancay, a $1.3 billion project.]  

As for Russia and Iran, the shift is not as visible. But you’ve got Venezuela, where bad actors go to play. Russia and Iran have historically been involved in Cuba and Nicaragua as well. While China’s involvement is more economic, they’re positioning themselves well in the region. And Russia and Iran are never too far behind. 

Port of Chancay, Peru, October 29, 2024. (Photo by CRIS BOURONCLE/AFP via Getty Images)

As the new Trump Administration formulates its Latin America policy for a second term, what should be its primary areas of focus? 

Well, the first overarching thing to say is that the United States needs to remind itself of its values, and to lead with them. Those include the notion that safe, secure democracies are a good thing, that rule of law should be respected, and that individual and human rights should be at the forefront of our agenda.  

Second, as the new administration prepares its agenda, it needs to have a good sense of what tools it has in its toolbox. And we can talk about those in a second. 

But the third thing to stress is that Latin America is not amenable to a one-size-fits-all-approach. Because Mexico is our neighbor, U.S. policy there has led to an impressive level of economic integration. But it has also created some challenges, and I hope we have the channels in place to address those. 

As you move beyond Mexico to Central America and South America, the approach needs to shift. The importance of multilateral organizations grows, whether you’re talking about the Organization of American States or others. I think President Trump would also be well served by traveling, by being more personally visible in the region. He has opportunities in Argentina and El Salvador, where their leaders seem to be kindred spirits. And you’re probably going to see another two or three governments move to the right – maybe in Chile, Colombia.  

I also think there are opportunities for investment in the area. And I’m not just talking about private sector investment, but also through international institutions. The United States should encourage institutions like the Inter-American Development Bank or the Millennium Challenge Corporation or others to become more engaged in the region. 

Back in November, President Trump threatened to impose 25% tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico. Do you think those tariffs will actually materialize? 

Whether they do or not, the prospect is out there. I think that the threat has less to do with the economic situation than it does with the desire to get action on issues such as immigration and security, in particular fentanyl production and human smuggling. And if you look at what happened during the first Trump Administration, Mexico (which I follow most closely) did respond to threats then by stepping up its activities to prevent or reduce migration. So I would expect to see something like that play out again. 

Now, that doesn’t mean the United States can simply outsource these issues; you can’t simply say to Mexico or to any other country, “Take care of this in-house.” When you have transnational challenges involving security, drugs, or the movement of people, you need transnational cooperation. To the extent that it opens up an opportunity for dialogue, that’s a healthy and constructive thing. 

In other parts of the region, I think the threats of tariffs might be very real. Some members of Trump’s transition team talked about imposing large tariffs on goods coming out of the new Chinese-built port in Peru. To me, that implies more of a national security focus.   

Do you think that President Trump could achieve some of his goals in relation to security, migration, and stability by enhancing trade with Latin America?  

You bet. That’s got to be part of addressing the problem. I think a lot of the migration northward is driven by the economics of the individual countries. Other drivers are instability and insecurity. So if you can increase economic growth and start to address some of the security issues in these countries, it will relieve the pressures on people to go north. I think you have a good foundation and a good example in Mexico. Our economic model there has been a constructive and positive one and should be extended to Central America. It would be healthy, could reduce migration, and also, through nearshoring, help reduce U.S. dependence on China and other parts of the world.  

As for South America, I think there’s going to be some real opportunities for the United States to be more present – not only in Argentina and Brazil and Colombia, but in some of the other countries as well. Trade creates opportunity. In the early 2000s, you saw significant numbers of people in the region move out of abject poverty and start making a living. You saw modest but consistent growth for nearly two decades. So I think that model has shown that it works, and trade has to be a significant part of our migration strategies. 

Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, U.S. President Donald Trump, and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sign the USMCA agreement during the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on November 30, 2018. (Photo by Shealah Craighead via the White House Flickr)

The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) – the successor to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) – will be up for review in 2026. Do you think it should be changed or broadened significantly? 

It’s a relatively young agreement – it only will have been in place for six years at the time of review. I would like to see more of a review than a renegotiation, perhaps of some of the dispute-settlement mechanisms. The agreement was updated from NAFTA to USMCA to address things that weren’t even contemplated 25 years ago, such as intellectual property and some technology-related issues. But fundamentally, I think the agreement’s sound, and I don’t think a full-blown renegotiation would be healthy; it would inject a level of uncertainty that would not be good for investors or growth. 

Several people close to President Trump have threatened to use military force to combat Mexico’s drug cartels if they can’t make progress on the fentanyl problem in other ways. What do you think are the odds that will happen? 

I think the odds are remote. And it’s a bad idea that would seriously undermine the U.S. ability to work with not only Mexico but with other countries in Latin America. The U.S. threat to use military force is taken very seriously in the region, and there are real sensitivities around it. So I’d much rather see cooperation and communication.  

Panama's Foreign Minister Javier Martinez-Acha with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Panama City, on February 2, 2025. (Photo by MARK SCHIEFELBEIN/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

Beyond Mexico, which Latin American countries in particular do you think the Trump Administration should focus on? 

Let’s start in Central America, where you have the opportunity to work more closely with those countries that are sending large numbers of migrants north. That means, primarily, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. President Trump has shown a temperamental disposition toward working closely with the leadership of El Salvador. But there are other possibilities. Costa Rica is trying to build new capacity involving high technology and microchips; they recently had a very large investment from Intel. Expanding what we’re doing with USMCA to encompass some members of CAFTA-DR [the Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement] might be good. 

Further south, President Javier Milei of Argentina has already made a pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago, so there may be some opportunities there. You can’t ignore Brazil, due to the sheer size of the country, and it has shown a disposition to be an interlocutor of sorts in the Global South. And Colombia has some real opportunities. 

As I said a moment ago, I think the Trump Administration should lead with values. Democracy, rule of law, and human rights. And then it should craft its approach around the tools that it has. Use multilateral organizations and personal visits and follow up with investments where you can. On the migration issue, we need more practical solutions – maybe processing centers around Latin America. And we should coordinate closely on security.  

But you have to recognize that each country in Latin America is individual, autonomous, and sovereign. So you need separate approaches. It will take more time, but I think the returns will certainly be there.