As the British Labour Party under Keir Starmer prepares for its annual conference next week, we ask: does it have a policy towards Latin America? My View, by Gavin O’Toole.
If Latin America were a mythical beast, to the British Labour Party it would probably be a chimera, an implausible figment of the imagination hoped or wished for but in fact illusory.
That is because, on the one hand, the party’s leadership under Keir Starmer has only just found it on the map, yet does not seem fully convinced it is really there. And on the other, the Labour left continues to see in this vast region all its ideological hopes and dreams, yet are unable to come to terms with the fact that their leaders have simply conjured it away.
Indeed, in stark contrast to the party’s position towards Latin America under its previous leader, Jeremy Corbyn, Starmer appears to have little or no take on this region of 660 million people populating 21 countries.
There are few clues to the approach Starmer intends to take in policy terms beyond what can be deduced from his shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy, who offers us a sterile, technocratic vision of policy based on a simple analysis of the challenges Labour will inherit if it forms a government.
This is both curious, but also a disturbing harbinger of a more befuddled approach to the UK’s foreign relations that does not augur well for the “global Britain” Starmer appears to have embraced since Brexit with clenched teeth.
It may also be a conscious effort by his team to create explicit distance from the progressive, ethical concerns of the Labour left that came to the fore under Corbyn, himself an enthusiastic chilli-chomping Latin Americanist. The region has always played a mythical, magical role in the left’s internationalist imagination.
Starmer’s vision of the world
Since 2020, when Starmer took over from Corbyn, in formal policy terms Latin America has been conspicuous by its absence in both Labour’s documentation and deliberations.
Latin American progressive parties should in principle benefit from the party’s programme at the Westminster Foundation for Democracy—the UK public body dedicated to supporting democracy around the world—yet Labour’s WFD stance under Starmer is explicitly aimed at sub-Saharan Africa, the Western Balkans and the Middle East.
Indeed, according to its annual review, Latin America has been absent from Labour’s work with the WFD since 2020. Prior to that, Labour’s WFD programme incorporated young activists from sister parties in the region alongside those from other parts of the world in an annual “training academy” organised by the party in coordination with the Progressive Alliance and Karl-Renner-Institut.
There are few signs under Starmer of an alignment with progressive causes in Latin America, and plenty of signs that Labour may be turning back to the neoliberal positions of Tony Blair in which the region competes for attention in a trade-led agenda.
Blair’s Labour demonstrated little solidarity or enthusiasm for the left-of-centre regimes that came to power during the so-called “pink tide”.
Does invisibility matter?
Of course, the larger question raised by Starmer’s apparent position might be: does it matter anyway whether Latin America is on Labour’s radar? The loss of British influence and prestige in this region has long been lamented, but should it be?
After all, if Starmer forms the next UK government, it wouldn’t be the first to effectively ignore this vast sub-continent, content to let it languish in the orbit of the UK’s superior ally, Washington.
Well, it does matter—not least from the point of view of Starmer’s main ambition for the UK’s ties with Latin America, its commercial potential.
First, even from the Blairite vantage, that small issue of economic advantage is a critical consideration in foreign policy, offering much potential excitement to Brexit Britain.
If we are to take Starmer at his word that he will stick with Brexit for good or ill, then the door remains open to a raft of trade deals with Latin American countries that can only enhance both sides.
With a combined GDP of $6 trillion (£4.9trn), Latin America is an enormous potential market for the UK, particularly in areas such as agricultural exports, financial services and technology.
The consensus has long been that commercial and investment ties between the UK and this region have lagged since the 1970s, and trade remains low—Latin America still represents just 2.1% of UK imports and 2.6% of UK exports worldwide.
In 2024, the UK is set to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) trading bloc which already counts Mexico, Chile and Peru among its members and Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Uruguay having applied to join.
Britain has trade agreements with all of these save Uruguay, either directly or through regional deals such as those with Andean countries and Central America.
Trade with Central America has been governed by a bilateral deal since Britain quit the EU, and in 2021 London also signed a joint financing arrangement with the Central American Bank for Economic Integration to build on this.
Nonetheless, trade deals such as the CPTPP are no magic bullet: while Tory Brexiteers rub their hands with glee at such agreements, behind the enthusiasm the CPTPP is subject to potential geopolitical strains, with discord likely to emerge over China’s bid to join.
And past reasons for the UK’s neglect of the Latin American market have more to do with longstanding ignorance about the region than formal barriers.
Corbyn and the left
The second reason why the absence of Latin America on Labour’s radar is important relates directly to the integrity and credibility of the Labour Party itself.
Starmer’s myopia is even more disconcerting given the focus Latin America gained in the Corbyn years.
The former Labour leader is an enthusiastic supporter of progressive Latin American causes and has a detailed knowledge of the region. He speaks fluent Spanish, is married to a Mexican, and has three sons to a former wife who was Chilean.
Like many on the Labour left, Corbyn is a longstanding supporter of the Cuban Revolution, the cause of refugees from the Chilean coup, and the merits of the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela. He has been active in British solidarity campaigns and initiatives to support struggles for democracy, justice and human rights, and is a regular fixture at the annual Adelante! conference in London. Mexico holds a particular fascination, and he has formed a personal friendship with Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the current leftwing president.
Corbyn is far from alone. The Labour Left has always taken a keen interest in Latin America, and Corbynistas such as John McDonnell and Diane Abbott are among leading party figures to share this. Young Labour luminaries such as chair Jess Barnard are also vocal supporters of progressive movements across the region, and Labour Friends of Progressive Latin America brings together MPs, members, trade unionists and activists building solidarity with groups there. Last year, LFPLA spearheaded a “Latin America’s 2nd Pink Tide” online rally in support of progressive movements that attracted thousands of activists. The group attracts considerable support through Labour Outlook, the go-to online source for internationalist voices within the party and driving force of the Arise festival of leftwing ideas.
Trade unions have also taken a close interest in Latin American affairs, and the TUC hosts the annual Adelante! conference. The organisation is a forthright supporter of vulnerable trade unionists in Colombia, the world’s most deadly place to be a unionist, and has made building international solidarity with sister trade unionists in Brazil a priority. TUC Aid, a charity providing financial support and solidarity for working people around the world, helps to combat gender-based violence in Brazil and the wider Latin American region. Other union officials have taken a prominent stand in support of Latin American issues, such as National Education Union joint general secretary Kevin Courtney, who has spearheaded efforts to circumvent the US blockade of Cuba in order to supply schools with equipment.
While critics of leftwing Labour interest in Latin America claim this often fetishises socialism and can ignore authoritarian tendencies, it is clear from an ideological point of view where this interest originates.
The UK Labour movement has always been strongly internationalist and members such as Corbyn see progressive causes in Latin America as responding to core socialist values: the extension and defence of democracy, human rights and equality.
Latin America has also been a critical laboratory of neoliberalism and, hence, resistance to it. In a now memorable phrase, for example, Chile’s leftwing president Gabriel Boric promised: “If Chile was the cradle of neoliberalism, it will also be its grave.”
Anti-imperialism is also a strong reflex on the Labour left and was much in evidence in support for the Bolivian president Evo Morales after he was forced from power in 2019, prompting Momentum among others to condemn an “imperialist coup”.
Finally, the British Labour left sees the non-alignment of Latin America as a global force for good, with regional figures such as President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil taking a fiercely independent line on conflicts such as the Russia–Ukraine war.
These values were much in evidence in last year’s National Policy Forum which, in principle, is meant to influence the Labour leadership in formulating policy.
The annual report of Labour’s NFP was taken to conference in September 2022—allowing the entire party to have its say on policy development. It delineated clear objectives in terms of development assistance and democracy promotion that would have obvious relevance for Latin America.
Three areas of the NFP’s deliberations in particular had a direct bearing on this region, the need for: UN reform and upholding international law through multilateral institutions; an international development strategy that eschews a short-sighted focus on financial gain; and democracy promotion against a backdrop of rising authoritarianism.
The shadow Foreign Secretary was, of course, among those involved in the NFP’s new Britain in the World commission, yet at first sight it is hard to determine what, if any, influence these consultations have had upon David Lammy.
Lammy’s 2022 Labour Party conference speech, for example, made not one single mention of Latin America other than satisfying himself with a tiresome nod towards his own Caribbean background and the “Windrush generation”.
So far, the little we can deduce about Labour’s perspective derives from Lammy’s statements elsewhere, which suggest he has developed what can only be described as a Blairite technocratic vision of foreign policy recently repainted in a green hue.
Moveable technocratic feast
Outlining Labour’s foreign policy approach in January this year, Lammy trotted out a bureaucratic vision short on nuance and imagination.
This had predictable pillars: Britain is lost and disconnected in a divided and dangerous world and a Labour government will inherit three trends: a new geopolitical age of competition; interdependence that has become “weaponised” with ties that bind also now driving fragmentation; and a blurring of the distinction between foreign and domestic policy.
Labour will respond to these with unifying principles for British foreign policy: to “take back control” by reconnecting with allies; to put pragmatism over ideology, making decisions based on security and prosperity; and to act for “the many, not the few”.
These soundbites translate into goals that prioritise “reconnecting” to thrive in a more regionalised global economy. It’s hardly what might be described as an ethical approach.
Alongside repeated references to his own Caribbean roots, he waxes lyrical about his “transatlanticism”, yet in a Q&A with Chatham House in January Lammy made not one single mention of Latin America or any country in it until caught on the hop by Ana Irene Delgado, former ambassador of Panama. His mediocre reply sounded like an afterthought:
“actually, thinking of the Caribbean region, which is a region I know very, very well, and I just have to say that I am a dual national, I have Guyanese heritage, of which I’m very proud and I’m very frequently in South America and the Caribbean region, and I think there are big issues there around support on climate, where I would hope the UK is present. And, you know, when you think about the Commonwealth and you think about those small island states, both in the Caribbean, but also in the Pacific, we can play a really big role on issues of climate, and I’m not sure we’re there in quite the way that we should be. Instead we get into petty fights about, you know, who should be Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, or whatever. So, I recognise the importance of the region and I don’t want to give a sense that it’s losing out, but I’m weary of the government’s tilt in one direction. A couple of weeks ago we were tilting in relation to Latin America. A few weeks before we’re tilting in relation to the Indo-Pacific. We’ve got to be very clearsighted about where there are important national interests for the UK to be. We’ve got to be smart about the way we use our power, and that cannot be all across the globe. But clearly, there are important countries that we’ve had historic relations with and there are very important countries, like Mexico, that we should be deepening our relations with in the region.”
In June, Lammy repeated to the Financial Times that he was critical of talk of “tilting” towards any region such as Latin and South America, but in coded language in the same breath seemed to suggest that if there were to be a tilt, it would be towards the Indo-Pacific.
Since then and perhaps in response to potential criticism of his threadbare attitude, Lammy has begun to play up links with the “rising power” of Brazil as Labour’s main landing stage in Latin America.
Brazil may not in fact be the best launchpad for Labour’s commercial ambitions: despite its economic promise, it accounted for only 0.5% of UK trade in 2022, and the EU is much better placed to profit from its development, having signed a deal with Mercosur.
Clearly, the outlook of President Lula da Silva aligns in many respects with Labour’s, and like its British counterpart his Workers’ Party is a member of the Progressive Alliance international grouping of centre left and social democratic parties.
Yet at the same time, there are important differences of opinion—not least on Ukraine—and a clear risk of shifting ground: although the rightwing populist Jair Bolsonaro is unlikely to fight the next election, the Brazilian right can count on far more potential successors than Lula.
Green fog
However, there is no doubt Brazil offers Labour one valuable resource in its effort to distinguish itself from the Conservatives.
Lammy has spent much of the past six months pushing a “green foreign policy” clearly intended to defuse accusations that he has failed to delineate an “ethical” direction driven by values and not just trade. In a Fabian pamphlet in March, he talked about the impact of climate change in the Global South which, in a refrain, he noted includes Latin America.
He now employs Brazil as a green hook on which to hang the emperor’s new clothes, and took his “green diplomacy” for a test drive during his visit to the country in August in the hope that “climate justice” can become a visible tie that binds, but also a characteristic that distinguishes Labour’s otherwise uninspiring strategy from the Conservatives.
From a purely political point of view, Starmer clearly has work on his hands to distinguish himself from the Tories, who have historically been more consistent about what they want from Latin America even if they have been deeply complacent about achieving it.
It is almost painful to admit, but the Conservatives have always had a clearer idea about what they want from the UK’s relationship with this region—largely shaped by their ideological hostility to progressive causes.
That vision was given its clearest form in 2010 by the then Conservative foreign secretary William Hague when he lamented the loss of British prestige in Latin America and set out a plan, the Canning Agenda, to restore it.
This neo-colonial project, based on the familiar priorities of trade and security with extractive industries at its core, was a purposeful ideological snub to the by then stuttering “pink tide”—characterised among other things by the resurgence of resource nationalism—and early signs of a conservative backlash.
Indeed, ideology still lingers at the heart of Conservative engagements with Latin America, which build on longstanding links between rightwing politicians on both sides of the Atlantic.
In May, for example, during the first visit by a foreign secretary to South America since 2018, James Cleverly chose Chile to outline an “ambitious” vision of future relations—a visit that may have been painful for President Boric in the 50th anniversary year of the Chilean coup, given that Margaret Thatcher counted the murderous Augusto Pinochet as a personal friend.
Why ideology matters
It is this ideological undercurrent of so many Conservative engagements with Latin America that makes it doubly important that a future Labour government go beyond reproducing the pick-and-mix, gimmick-heavy Blairite engagement with the region. On the one hand, Blair hectored Latin America about the virtues of neoliberalism, and on the other, his profile was largely rendered impotent by the invasion of Iraq.
That is because, as Corbyn understood so instinctively, values must be at the heart of the UK’s Latin American policy, and not merely a transparent appendage to pragmatic water-treading on trade and security.
Indeed, Britain has an historic duty to support democratic change in the region, having traditionally been an obstacle to it.
The long-term effects of UK government policy towards Latin America, and its acritical subservience to Washington, have been to undermine democracy and support those responsible for abusing human rights. Labour itself has at times been guilty of this, historically harbouring pro-US—and by extension, pro-military—attitudes.
Yet there are few signs Starmer intends to do much that is different, even after 12 years of Conservative failure that has left Britain isolated on the world stage.
Instead, there are signs of confusion, with Lammy appearing to contradict himself in the Financial Times by offering support to the Labour left engagement with Latin America: “And I think Britain is in a unique role to obviously understand the past that’s about colonialism, but actually to stand up for human rights, to stand up for modern multiculturalism, to stand up for countries’ individual sovereignty today because of that past”.
So, with the clock ticking towards the election and Labour’s left offering a clear template for a meaningful Starmerite engagement with Latin America, it would appear that the leader is faced with a fairly straightforward choice.
Does he let himself drift on currents of Blairite revivalism through a policy based on trade and security focused mainly on Brazil—albeit with a splash of green de rigeur—or does he send Lammy back with his pompous tail between his legs to listen to his grassroots?
Which is it to be?
Read this article by subscribing on Substack
Categories: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Caribbean, Central America, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Europe, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, International, Mexico, Nicaragua, North America, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, South America, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela