LOW PROFILE IN LATIN AMERICA

(3 of 3)

Emotional Facet. The President approached no issue more gingerly than that of U.S. private investment, one of the most emotional facets of U.S.-Latin American relations. Many countries view U.S. investment as a form of economic colonialism that extracts more than it puts in. "We will not encourage U.S. private investment where it is not wanted or where local political conditions face it with unwarranted risks," Nixon said. "But my own strong belief is that properly motivated private enterprise has a vital role to play." Nixon plainly had in mind Bolivia's recent nationalization of the U.S.-owned Bolivian Gulf Oil Co. and Peru's seizure last year of the International Petroleum Co. —both so far without compensation. The President said nothing about the use of such punitive weapons as the Hickenlooper Amendment, which provides for suspension of aid in case of nationalization of U.S. property without speedy and adequate repayment.

While Rockefeller hailed the President's statement as "an impressive start on a 'policy of good partners,' " the initial reaction from Latin America was distinctly mixed. Said former Argentine President Arturo Illia, who was deposed by the military in 1966: "It is a concrete diagnosis, but not a cure. The situation is more serious than is expressed by Nixon." Brazilian Economist Roberto Campos was pleased with Nixon's approach, which was less condescending than past U.S. attitudes. "The U.S. today is much less certain that it understands the realities of life in Latin America," said Campos. "That is a healthy recognition." More characteristic, however, was the complaint aired by the Chilean paper Clarin, which claimed that "frustration was the sentiment after the speech."

Plainly, the speech signaled a lower profile for the U.S. south of the border and a determination to require Latin American nations to assume from this point on a more active role in guiding their own development. Did it also signal a U.S. desire to disengage? Said a high Administration spokesman: "the answer is no—not disengagement, but re-engagement." Nor would the new policy imply economic isolation, he added. "What it does mean is that we would like to dispel the myth that the U.S. is the instant messiah for miracles." The question remains whether Nixon's proposed partnership asks enough of the partners —either the Latin American lands or, for that matter, the U.S. itself.