President Bush, knee-deep in his visit to Latin America, has pledged loyalty and assistance to a region that despite improvements in the last few decades, is still entrenched in rampant inequality, inferior social institutions and serious governance problems. The President has renewed the US’ commitment to working with its neighbors toward social justice for the citizens of the Americas, reinforcing the significance of the partnership for security and peace. Latin Americans on the whole, will, without a doubt regard Bush’s visit with a grain of salt and a bitter murmur of “too little, too late.”

Bush compared his March 5 speech to President John F. Kennedy’s remarks 46 years ago, which introduced the Alliance for Progress, an initiative aimed at helping Latin American governments meet the basic needs of their citizens. Citing progress on poverty and freedom since then, Bush aimed to convey that the US views its role in the region responsibly as a historic partnership and its relationship with the region as a “community linked by common values and shared interests in the close bonds of family and friendship.”

Bush listed evidence of US assistance to the region, including forming Millennium Challenge Account agreements with four countries, building a law enforcement academy in El Salvador, encouraging transparency at the local government level in Paraguay; as well as general help in improving education, access to medical care, housing and debt relief to governments. In his remarks Bush announced a plan to convene a White House conference of representatives from the private sector, NGOs, faith-based groups and volunteer associations working on Latin America, “to share experiences and discuss effective ways to deliver aid and build the institutions necessary for strong civil society.”

Given the lack of attention the administration has paid to the region since September 11, 2001—aside perhaps from keeping afloat a strategic partnership with key ally on counterterrorism President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia—Bush’s record and promises sound a hollow note.

Adam Isacson at the Center for International Policy, and a Washington Post analysis piece today highlight the ways in which the administration has played with aid numbers in order to make the claim that it has doubled economic assistance to the region since 2001. The budget Bush sent to Congress last month proposed an 8 percent reduction in aid, cutting it from $1.6 billion to $1.47 billion.

The bottom line and strategic objective of Bush’s five-day trip to the region is countering Hugo Chavez. Ostracizing the Venezuelan dictator and firebrand allows the US to demonstrate its own commitment to reduce the region's dependence on oil and improve social conditions, claims on which Chavez so far has a monopoly. The truth is that the US needs Venezuelan oil, which comprises around 15 percent of its supply and is the US’ fourth-largest provider.

Bush, in a direct rhetorical hit to Chavez, invoked the name and legacy of revolutionary and liberator, and Chavez’ hero Simon Bolivar in his remarks earlier this week:

“Like Washington, he succeeded in defeating a much stronger colonial power, and like Washington, he belongs to all of us who love liberty. One Latin American diplomat put it this way: "Neither Washington, nor Bolivar was destined to have children of their own, so that we Americans might call ourselves their children.

“We are the sons and daughters of this struggle, and it is our mission to complete the revolution they began on our two continents. The millions across our hemisphere who every day suffer the degradations of poverty and hunger have a right to be impatient. And I'm going to make them this pledge: The goal of this great country, the goal of a country full of generous people, is an Americas where the dignity of every person is respected, where all find room at the table, and where opportunity reaches into every village and every home. By extending the blessings of liberty to the least among us, we will fulfill the destiny of this new world and set a shining example for others.”

This same verbiage used by Bush could have been uttered in Venezuela by that country’s president to his people—in conjunction with perhaps an injection of populist gusto. Bush’s words have demonstrated an empty, late, insincere commitment to cozying up with the Latin Americans. We will see whether his actions and handshakes in the region follow suit.

Bush's real challenges will come after his trip, when he will have to come through on promises that really matter right now—working with Congress to implement comprehensive reform of immigration policy and renewing his authority to negotiate free-trade agreements, particularly with Colombia, Peru and Panama.

As blogger Boz points out, Latin America is not the US’ “backyard;” it is our neighbor. Such a relationship demands the US act not as a repentant bully bearing gifts and barely asking for forgiveness after years of neglect, but rather like a real friend with shared social, security and trade goals.