Commentary: U.S. unlikely to change policy orientation toward Latin America soon

Despite its seemingly active role in mending long-strained ties with Cuba, the United States is unlikely to change soon from treating Latin American countries as tools for its own interest.

Regional leaders attending the 7th Summit of the Americas here may have found traces in remarks of U.S. President Barack Obama that the United States is reluctant to bid farewell to the Monroe Doctrine, the practitioners of which have in past decades viewed Latin America as the U.S. sphere of influence or, a "backyard".

The 5th U.S. President James Monroe established the doctrine in 1823 with an aim to keep European colonial powers out of the region. However, the tenet has later been invoked by various U.S. presidents to exert dominance in the region and to meet the country's voracious desire for resources at the expense of Latin American nations.

In 2013, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told the Organization of American States (OAS) that his country was opting to abandon the long-prevailing Monroe Doctrine in a major policy shift, but he was met with collective silence among Latin American leaders, who had seen Uncle Sam's dubious history of delivering promises.

Back to 1994 when the 1st Summit of the Americas was held, then U.S. President Bill Clinton proposed jump-starting the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) so as to "revitalize the economies in Latin America."

Not to mention that the real aim of the proposal was to counter the European Economic Area (EEA), then the largest trade bloc, the initiative failed to make any progress at the 2nd summit in 1998 and was shelved at the 3rd summit, as then U.S. President George W. Bush shifted his focus to the Middle East and his war on terrorism.

The 4th summit was a diplomatic banality, but the 5th turned out to be an authentic expression of inter-continental cooperation, as the United States helped lift several key Latin American countries out of the quagmire of the global financial crisis, especially Mexico, its immediate neighbor to the south.

Had the situation in Mexico not been repaired with outside help, the United States would have been directly affected due to their shared border.

The logic is clear: Uncle Sam only cares to extend a helping hand to countries in Latin America when a potential spillover could hurt himself.

Since taking office as U.S. president, Obama appeared even more eager than his predecessors to convince his Latin American partners that they would enjoy a life of abundance if they dance to the tunes of Washington.

With his presence, the 6th summit in 2012, however, raced to an end without reaching any declaration to buttress development of countries in the region, at a time when they were suffering from a widespread economic crisis prompted by plummeting prices of resources.

It was just another disappointing summit, which again proved that the "backyard" was merely meant to serve U.S. interests. Even if destitution prevailed in the region, Uncle Sam would be unlikely to take any real interest. Common prosperity was nothing but a lie.

Starting from the 1st summit, U.S.-Latin American ties have grown increasingly complicated, as the United States imposes one after another unpopular policies despite resistance from Latin American countries.

If the United States is a true believer of "Prosperity with Equity," the theme of this year's summit, the FTAA would have already taken shape, benefiting member states, and the summit would serve as a friendly forum, rather than an arena for Uncle Sam to exert authority. Endi