We can expect some real, if limited, improvements in U.S. policy towards Latin America from the 110th Congress. Latin America is hardly top of the Democratic leadership’s agenda—finding our way out of the Iraq debacle and securing some improvements in living standards for low- and middle-income Americans will come first. And the new Congress will still be reading out of the Administration’s playbook, since the White House provides the point of departure for the budget. But we can expect, and we should insist upon, some real changes in Latin America policy and programs.

The most significant change is not the makeup of the full Congress. Many of the new Democratic members were recruited by the party for their appeal to more conservative voters, and while they may take a stance on the Iraq war, they may not have formed many opinions about U.S. foreign policy to other parts of the developing world. But in the new Congress, many congressional leaders and chairs of committees with jurisdiction over foreign affairs have a record of commitment to human rights, concerns about training abusive foreign militaries, and an interest in fair trade and alleviating poverty in developing countries. The commitment of the new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the House Appropriations Committee chair, David Obey, to these issues is unquestionable. Rep. Nita Lowey, chair of the House foreign operations subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, is interested in development aid to poor countries. On trade, Rep. Charlie Rangel, with strong ties to labor, assumes control of the Ways and Means Committee—and kicked off with a hearing on “Trade and Globalization.” The House member most personally committed to human rights causes in Latin America, Rep. Jim McGovern, has an important position within the Rules Committee, which sets the guidelines for debate.

On the Senate side, the most significant change is that Senator Patrick Leahy, a champion for human rights, becomes chair of the foreign operations subcommittee. Even in the minority, Senator Leahy exercised a powerful influence through insisting on checks on training for foreign militaries. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair is now Joseph Biden, a realist about the use and overuse of U.S. power, while the ranking member (leading minority party member) is the moderate, internationally-minded Richard Lugar.

The line up of power will mean different strategies and potential for our issues.

Colombia. Plan Colombia was a bipartisan aid package initiated not by a Republican White House but by the Clinton Administration. There will still be bipartisan commitment to continuing support for the Colombian government. However, the committees are now led by precisely those members who have had the most concerns about the human rights record of the Colombian military and the most skepticism about whether this is an effective counter-drug policy. In addition to the leaders mentioned above, the new House Armed Services Committee chair, Ike Skelton, and the new Senate Appropriations Committee chair, Robert Byrd, helped to set and keep in place the “troop cap” limiting U.S. personnel in Colombia. Along with the growing scandals in Colombia and U.S. preoccupation with Iraq, this could mean that we have already reached the high-water mark of U.S. involvement in Colombia’s civil war.

The foreign operations subcommittees are likely to shift some assistance from military to economic and human rights aid, finally responding to our demand since the start of Plan Colombia. Despite a dismal record of failure in limiting drug availability on U.S. streets, international counter-narcotics policy is extraordinarily impervious to criticism, so changes will likely be gradual. We will strongly advocate for an end to the aerial spraying program and an increase in alternative development programs shaped by and implemented with local community participation, and we hope that the Congress will take a real step in this direction.

The human rights conditions on Colombia’s military aid will be enforced more strongly. This is significant, especially considering that the State Department was not able to certify on FY06 aid that Colombia met the conditions in law, and as of early January 2007, none of the tied aid from 2006 had been released. Certification hinges on increased concerns about the behavior of the military, such as numerous cases in which the army was alleged to have killed civilians, dressed them in guerrilla clothing and counted them as enemy dead.

Together we should focus on improving the aid package, cutting military aid and toughening the human rights conditions before the foreign aid bill is finalized by the committee chairs in subcommittee, rather than needing to focus on an amendment when the bill reaches the floor. Therefore, if your member is on the foreign operations subcommittee, you can play an important role in demanding an improved policy. Subcommittee members can be found at: http://appropriations.house.gov/Subcommittees/sub_sfo.shtml http://appropriations.senate.gov/subcommittees/foreign/topics.cfm?code=foreign

If you have a new member, now is the time to educate him or her about your concerns about Colombia. See our how-to on arranging a meeting with your member of Congress at http://www.lawg.org/countries/colombia/alert1-23-07.htm. We will be letting you know about other important opportunities throughout the year to make human rights matter to Congress, the State Department and the Colombian government. Sign up for LAWG’s Colombia policy alerts at: www.lawg.org

Cuba. Cuba policy advocates are using the phrase “tempered optimism,” coined by our partners at the Washington Office on Latin America, in describing our joint analysis for prospect for change in U.S. policy towards Cuba with the new Congress.

Why we are optimistic:

1. A new mood of skepticism in the public about Iraq and about the conduct of U.S. foreign policy overall opens opportunities for debates on U.S.-Cuba policy.

2. The changes in the leadership of Congress will likely assist our efforts. Three years ago we were winning favorable Cuba votes in the House with 250-plus votes. Our problem wasn’t a lack of votes on our side; our problem was the Republican leadership, which used its influence and its control of parliamentary procedure to remove Cuba provisions before the final legislation went to the President for signing. Now, our prospect for keeping Cuba provisions in the final version of bills has increased.

3. Members who support changing U.S. policy toward Cuba will control important committees and subcommittees. All subcommittee assignments are not yet finalized, but we know that those who support a change in Cuba policy are well positioned.

Why we aren’t dancing in the streets:

1. President Bush is not going to change Cuba policy without great pressure; he will threaten to veto any pro-engagement initiatives that Congress approves.

2. We may be able to keep Cuba provisions in legislation, but we still will have to work hard to win enough votes. We have not won Cuba votes in the last two years, and we lost the votes of most of the new members of Congress elected in 2004. We start 2007 with only 182 House members who have a record of voting consistently to change Cuba policy, yet to win in the House we need 218 votes. We must maintain our current votes and win over at least 36 of the 55 new members or those whose votes we lost in 2005 and 2006. This is doable, but it will take constituents and DC groups working together.

3. We still face some difficulties with committee leadership and key members. Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), who has voted consistently on travel but is not particularly sympathetic to changing Cuba policy overall, is chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, while the Republican ranking member is Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). Representative Eliot Engel (D-NY), chair of the Western Hemisphere subcommittee, has never cast a positive vote on Cuba policy. If you are Rep. Engel’s constituent (part of the Bronx, West Nyack, Mt. Vernon in New York), we need your help in encouraging him. New Representative Albio Sires (D-NJ) will likely champion a hard-line stance on Cuba and might be the voice new members of Congress look to on Cuba policy. In the Senate, Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Mel Martinez (R-FL) support the embargo. And the Senate Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), needs a lot of work to convince him to schedule votes on Cuba bills on the floor.

4. The House Democratic leadership has its own priority agenda, and its eye on winning again in 2008. The leadership may see Cuba policy as controversial, or likely to hurt them with some constituencies. Hearing from constituents like you will push them in the right direction.

We face serious challenges in this Congress, even as we have new opportunities. Our initial major challenge is to reach out early to new members of Congress, especially in the House. As we work with allies and people in the leadership on positive Cuba policy initiatives, none of this will matter if we don’t have the votes to win. Those votes depend on constituents and activists writing, calling, and visiting new members of Congress in the next weeks and months. Sign up for LAWG’s Cuba policy alerts at: www.lawg.org

Immigration/border policy. Despite the heated debate and popular outcry in support of immigration reform that took place during the 109th Congress, the session concluded without a fix for our failed immigration policies. However, hardliner, enforcement-only immigration policies as the election wedge issue that would allow Republicans to maintain control of Congress backfired in the end. Candidates that endorsed pragmatic immigration reform measures fared far better than their enforcement-only counterparts. With the advent of the 110th Congress, many advocates believe that this will be the year to pass sensible and just reform measures. Already, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has shown his commitment to prioritize immigration reform legislation by entering Senate Bill 9 as a placeholder for a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

As in the 109th Congress, border security security and enforcement issues will play a central role in the debate surround immigration reform. Providing a legal and regulated means of entry for future workers is the most effective border security program we can have. Advocates should contact their member of Congress to express support for comprehensive immigration reform, in addition to policies that promote the economic and social well-being of border communities and protect the fragile environment and endangered species of the borderlands. Congress needs to remember that increased militarization of the border region does not help to realize policy goals and exacts a heavy toll on border communities.

The 109th Congress passed, but did not fully fund, the Secure Fence Act, an amendment to the DHS appropriations bill that authorizes the DHS to achieve “operational control” over the border through the use of surveillance technology, as well as physical barriers, including the construction of 700 miles of additional fencing along the southwest border. However, the viability of such projects has now been questioned, following a report from the DHS Inspector General’s office that estimates that a “virtual fence” could cost upwards of $30 billion, 15 times more than the $2 billion initially cited. We will send updates throughout the year to let you know how you can tell Congress that you support comprehensive immigration reform and policies that promote the well-being of border communities. Sign up for LAWG’s border policy alerts at: www.lawg.org.

Trade and aid. One of the most exciting opportunities this year is the ability to reshape trade policy. Fast-track authority expires this year, and the incoming congressional leadership is unlikely to renew it. Widening concerns about the impact of free trade agreements on local economies, including the track record of NAFTA, make it possible to use this moment not just to incorporate some labor and environmental concerns, but to have a free-ranging public debate about what kinds of trade agreements really benefit the majority of people in the United States and developing nations.

The White House has signed a free trade agreement with Colombia, but the change in the Congress dramatically changes the likelihood that it will be approved. Colombia’s status as the country most dangerous for trade unionists will be highlighted, and if the Administration can’t count enough votes in favor, it will not even be brought to a vote.

Stagnating levels of development aid to Latin America will again be questioned by members of Congress, although overall pressures on the budget, including the 110th Congress’s commitment to “pay as you go,” may make it difficult to improve. Advocates for clean water, HIV/AIDS and debt relief will be calling for increased aid for these priorities, with a focus on Africa but some impact on Latin America as well.

The wild card. The wild card is U.S. reaction to the increasing wave of left-wing governments in Latin America, reconfirmed with the recent election of Ecuador’s Rafael Correa. Members of both parties can overreact and perceive populist and left-wing governments in Latin America as threatening to U.S. interests—and more so when nationalization of industry and land reform are on the agenda, as they are in Venezuela and Bolivia. We will encourage U.S. policymakers to perceive the diverse nature of these governments, from Michelle Bachelet in Chile to Chávez in Venezuela, and to recall our obligation to respect the decisions of Latin American electorates in fair elections. We will also encourage policymakers to judge differences in policy carefully and calmly and not to perceive every difference as a security threat. This should include, for example, providing space to the Bolivian government to shape a more humane coca eradication strategy, if it can demonstrate commitment to reducing drug trafficking. And we will encourage policymakers to focus on specific human rights problems in governments left or right. Finally, we will encourage our policymakers to consider the U.S. contribution to our worsening image in Latin America—abuses committed in the name of the war on terror, the real and symbolic damage of detention without access to justice at Guantánamo Bay, U.S. reliance on military power above diplomacy and the lack of emphasis on generous, poverty-alleviating aid and fair trade.

By: Lisa Haugaard, Mavis Anderson, Jennifer Johnson