U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson met with Peruvian President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski during his trip.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson concluded his five-country trip through Latin America and the Caribbean on Feb. 7, during which time he sought to shore up support for further U.S. sanctions against Venezuela’s oil sector and President Nicolás Maduro’s government, as well as to strengthen ties with allies in the region. Did the United States get what it wanted out of Tillerson’s trip? How strongly have the countries of the region embraced the latest U.S. push for stronger sanctions on Venezuela? A year now into the Trump administration, are U.S. relations with Latin America improving generally?

Cynthia Arnson, director of the Latin American Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: “Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was walking into a potential minefield as he headed to five Latin American and Caribbean countries, given the souring of U.S.-Latin American relations in President Donald Trump’s first year. The foreign policy discourse has been dominated by the president himself, with the border wall, immigration, violent gangs and protectionism the frequent subjects of Trump’s tweets and public rallies. These issues have inflamed regional public opinion against the United States. In Tillerson’s opening address at the University of Texas at Austin, he struck many notes reminiscent of the Obama administration. In contrast to the broadsides against NAFTA, he underscored the $14 billion U.S. trade surplus with the region. He openly admitted the United States’ role ‘as the major market for illicit drug consumption,’ calling for ‘shared approaches’ to addressing transnational crime. Before indicating concern over the spike in coca cultivation in Colombia, he spoke of the strong U.S. partnership with Colombia and support for the peace process. He praised the Lima Group and the Organization of American States for their leadership in opposing Venezuela’s ‘slide into dictatorship.’ Unfortunately, Tillerson’s off-script remarks shaped perceptions and dominated much of the press coverage. In responding to a question about the Monroe Doctrine, he affirmed its continued relevance to U.S.-Latin American relations. Similarly, his references to China as a new ‘imperial’ power seeking only its own benefit smacked of ignorance of the United States’ own history of regional intervention, or the ways that most Latin American governments see China has an enormous opportunity for trade, finance and investment. Overall, the trip helped inject nuance and complexity into U.S. bilateral relationships with governments who seek positive relationships with Washington. Whether that effort can survive President Trump, and Tillerson’s own role in defunding diplomacy and foreign assistance, is an entirely open question."

Fernando Cepeda Ulloa, professor of political science at Universidad de los Andes in Bogotá and former Colombian interior minister: "Some have considered Tillerson’s demeanor during his tour of Latin America to be considered amiable and constructive, not confrontational. But anyone who says that missed his resurrection of the Monroe Doctrine. Likewise, they must not have heard him promote a possible military coup in Venezuela. In Colombia, we shouldn’t expect the same attitude that other Latin American countries can adopt following the visit. Colombia’s border is more than 1,200 miles long and very porous, which is leading to a lot of problems for the country. The closeness between the Colombian ELN rebel group and the Venezuelan government, as well as the worrisome rumors that their relationship has brought about, have led to a low level of confidence, amid the suspension of negotiations between the ELN and the Colombian government, and significant terrorist attacks by the rebel group have resumed. It goes without saying that the Venezuelan government’s distrust in Colombia has been magnified daily and that the aggressive rhetoric coming from the governments is chipping away at a relationship in which the countries do not even have ambassadors in each other’s countries. It is vital that the situation is fully understood. And the efforts by the Colombian governments for decades to control the scourge of rebel groups in the country should not be underestimated or forgotten, though as Tillerson says now, the situation appears to have gotten out of control. Tillerson recognizes the importance of shared responsibility, and it’s advisable that the responsibility be shared collectively. A regional agreement with the United States, Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, Colombia and Peru would be indispensable. Venezuela is a key piece, but I don’t see how it could enter into such an agreement with the rest."

Jacqueline Mazza, professor in the Latin American Studies department at the Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies: "Rex Tillerson’s recent trip to Latin America had all the pageantry and scope of a trip that could have begun to restore U.S. leadership and credibility in Latin America and the Caribbean. It was a six-country swing to the United States’ still strongest allies. But Tillerson seems to have forgotten to bring knowledge of the region and the United States’ role with him. Nor did he think to bring any initiatives that would have demonstrated new leadership on the growing crisis in Venezuela, which could, without restoration of Venezuela’s economy, led to a migration crisis in Latin America and the United States. On democracy, Rex Tillerson left his sense of irony at home, whether it was over the Trump administration’s lost credibility after U.S. silence over November’s undemocratic elections in Honduras, its calls for a military coup in Venezuela (a military with no democratic credentials), or President Trump’s own anti-democratic tirades against a free press. Where was the obvious irony in Tillerson advocating for free trade when the United States has pulled out of the TPP and can’t settle on a credible negotiation position on NAFTA? Tillerson’s message of ‘maybe asking the president’ to up oil sanctions against Venezuela was missing both irony and basic knowledge, as even the proposal will be well-used by Nicolás Maduro to keep alive his domestic support through anti-Americanism and help him seek even more Chinese and Russian support. It was an opportunity squandered for a region gracious enough to still smile through the ironies."

The Latin America Advisor features Q&A from leaders in politics, economics, and finance every business day. It is available to members of the Dialogue's Corporate Program and others by subscription.