Staffing for Latin America

The Bush Administration came into office saying the right things about the need to change U.S. relations with Latin America, which had deteriorated so badly under Ronald Reagan. But now it appears that the person to be put in charge of this important relationship will be a veteran of Reagan’s futile campaign against Nicaragua.

President Bush has not yet formally nominated Bernard W. Aronson to be the assistant secretary of state for Latin America. But authoritative sources have confirmed that Aronson is the leading candidate for a pivotal post that was held most recently by Elliott Abrams. The nomination of Aronson, a Democrat who was once an aide to former President Jimmy Carter, would be in keeping with pledges by Secretary of State James A. Baker III to seek bipartisan support for Administration policy in Central America. Presumably a moderate like Aronson could help persuade Democrats in Congress, always mistrustful of the combative Abrams, to support the Administration’s efforts in trouble spots like Nicaragua and El Salvador.

Unfortunately, Aronson’s expertise in Latin America is recent, and it was developed in the course of efforts to help Reagan justify the war against the Sandinistas. Although he never held an official post in the Reagan White House, Aronson was active in a small circle of Democrats who spoke out on behalf of military aid to the Contras, Reagan’s surrogate army in Nicaragua. A former speech writer for Carter, Aronson contributed to one of Reagan’s more effective speeches on behalf of the Contras.

Aronson’s support for the Contras is not pointed out to stain him by using a broad brush stroke. Although he cooperated with Abrams, and occasionally came into contact with Lt. Col. Oliver L. North’s buccaneer operation in support of the Contras, Aronson seems to carry no taint from the Iran-Contra scandal. In fact, compared to the arrogant Abrams and the cowboy North, Aronson would probably bring a breath of fresh air to discussions about Nicaragua in the State Department and on Capitol Hill. But the undersecretary of state for Latin America deals with 32 other countries besides Nicaragua--most of them bigger and far more important than that sad, impoverished little nation. Aronson’s career includes service in the American labor movement, on Capitol Hill and in the White House, but not in Latin America. Surely, somewhere within the State Department, Bush and Baker could have found a career diplomat knowledgeable in Latin American affairs to oversee such an important policy arena.

But perhaps not. It is worth noting that, among all the appointments that Bush has made to his National Security Council staff, no one has been named to handle Latin American issues there, either. One must wonder if Reagan’s obsession with the Sandinistas is still having some bitter after effects. Did Reagan leave so many other Latin American problems unattended, from regional debt to drugs to rampant environmental pollution, that no one in his right mind now wants to tread into a potential mine field? Or is it possible that Abrams and other ideologues made life so difficult for career diplomats with expertise in Latin America that many of them simply left the Foreign Service? Certainly the roster of capable diplomats who left government during the Reagan years because their ideology was not quite “right” is disturbingly long.

Whatever the reason for the apparent dearth of impressive candidates to rebuild the U.S. government’s relations with Latin America, Bush and Baker must not settle for newcomers or second-raters. Given the closeness of the region and the effect that it will continue to have on the United States, relations with Latin America cannot be allowed to drift or focus solely on Nicaragua. Bush must find top-notch candidates for both the State Department and the National Security Council who can deal with Nicaragua in the proper context: a small part of a large and important region. Aronson does not appear to be such a candidate.