Mr. Hakim and Ms. Sweig were among the skeptics of the panel who
addressed the limits to US policy in Latin America and the realities
that have to be dealt with before making general suggestions to the new
president.  Mr. Hakim urged everyone to consider the impact of the
current financial crisis on domestic economies of Latin America and
also on the effect of any policy directed toward these countries.  Many
currencies are falling drastically and, although we cannot know the
full extent of the financial crisis, it is more likely than not that
unemployment across Latin America will rise.  This will stress the
Venezuelan economy as the price of oil drops and, as Ms. Sweig pointed
out, put pressure on Washington Consensus economic development
strategies.  Furthermore, with fewer resources as a result of the
economic situation, there will be little if any bite to our bark in
terms of engagement.  Mr. Hakim argued that the US cannot push any
social agenda if the US does not have ample resources to back it up.

Mr. Hakim mentioned an important aspect to US-Latin American relations
in the coming years.  As the other panelists stressed the Summit of the
Americas which will take place in Trinidad and Tobago in April as a
place where the new president can change the course of US relations
with the region, Mr. Hakim said that the best strategy to use at the
summit would be to listen.  The US government cannot assume that all of
its involvement is necessarily welcome; it must hear from the other
governments themselves what they need from the US, in what sectors, and
possibly if these governments are welcome to US intervention at all.

Labor rights in Latin America were mentioned briefly by some of the
panelists, yet none of them seemed to take the same stance about the US
government’s role.  Ms. Olson commented that the next president will
have to “get serious” about labor rights in Latin America, noting that
Guatemala does not have an agency that can punish companies for
committing labor rights violations.  She didn’t include any specific
actions the US could take to get serious about such issues. 

The other panelists all seemed to agree that labor rights should not be
conditions included in free trade agreements.  Mr. DeShazo and Ms.
Sweig were both in favor of ratifying the free trade agreement that is
in the works with Colombia, despite its lax stance on labor rights.
Ms. Swieg argued that since such a high proportion of Colombian workers
belong to the informal sector, any labor rights conditions included in
the free trade agreement would not even affect most of the Colombian
population.

During the question and answer session that followed the panelists’
short lectures, the issue of protecting labor rights in Latin America
was brought up by a representative of the AFL-CIO who was in
attendance.  He conceded that including conditions in free trade
agreements alone would not necessarily have a big enough impact on
labor rights, but that that a comprehensive effort to generate
sustainable development in these areas must also be undertaken by the
next president.  In response, Ms. Swieg stated that labor rights should
be an international norm as part of the set of universal human rights,
but insisted that labor should not be included in the free trade
agreement with Colombia.  She added that the Republicans, from
2000-2004 when they had Congressional majority, missed their chance to
enforce labor rights in Colombia through the PlanColombia program.

While the forum as a whole painted an optimistic picture of the
possibility of better future relations with Latin America, it did not
successfully find a way to improve labor rights in Latin American
countries.  Despite coming from very different backgrounds, panelists
were able to agree upon many succinct strategies that could improve
relations with the region, and yet when it came to labor rights, not
one speaker could provide a viable answer to the issue.