Background/"Why Now" Info
AMERICAN GRAND STRATEGY FOR LATIN AMERICA IN THE AGE OF RESENTMENT https://www-jstor-org.peach.conncoll.edu/stable/pdf/resrep11197.pdf?ab_segments=0%252Fbasic_SYC-5187_SYC-5188%252Ftest&refreqid=excelsior%3A3176b8028dece9d31a19b35d34fb9c88 Gabriel Marcella, 2007
-
The Effectiveness of Soft & Hard Power in Contemporary International Relations https://www.e-ir.info/2014/05/14/the-effectiveness-of-soft-hard-power-in-contemporary-international-relations/ Jan-Philipp N E Wagner, 2014
-
CHANGING DYNAMICS OF US INFLUENCE IN LATIN AMERICA https://www-jstor-org.peach.conncoll.edu/stable/pdf/45242398.pdf?ab_segments=0%252Fbasic_SYC-5187_SYC-5188%252Ftest&refreqid=excelsior%3Ad10297368cea59302bb2908f0f67433c Irum Abbasi, 2007
- Taking into consideration the prevailing situation in the Americas, it would only be fair to state that the primary concern of both the hemispheres is the intensifying problem of drugs, a problem that has provided the ground for terrorism, insurgencies, and predicate offenses. Both Latin America and the US have been victims of drugs for decades, though in different dimensions. (104) -Although the US had acknowledged the problem long ago and had also tried to extend assistance to Latin America for its anti-drug campaign,4 its drive to battle drugs took on new contours with the introduction of "Plan Colombia" in 2000.5 Plan Colombia was an aid initiative, proposed by exColombian President Andres Pastrana Arango, and signed into US legislation by ex-American President Bill Clinton. The plan had three fundamental objectives: • Social and economic revival • Termination of armed conflict • Formulation of a counter-narcotics plan (105), plan later percieved as part of WoD -It was expanded in 2001 by the Bush administration as the "Andean Counter-Drug Initiative" that incorporated development assistance to other Andean nations, i.e., Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela.6 The plan was based on a two-pronged strategy of "interdiction" and "eradication", in order to control the production and flow of drugs within and across Latin America. Interdiction implies attempts to impound drugs at the borders or while they are on the way to the US, whereas eradication aims at destroying coca plants and fields primarily through aerial fumigation (106) -Figures illustrate that, with a decline in coca cultivation in Peru and Bolivia, there has been a significant increase in the cultivation of coca in Colombia. In 2005, reduction in Peru and Bolivia was offset by an eight per cent increase in Colombia by 6000 hectares (106) -In trying to manage the flow of drugs in the region, the US has only instigated aggression, disorder, insecurity, and corruption. A ban on drugs has created a huge illicit market for drug production and supply through which criminals, rebel groups, and military factions have benefited. (108)!!!!!!! less the anti-drug strategy incorporates a comprehensive economic pattern that would offer better financial incentives, alleviate poverty, and improve the living standards of people, the US cannot make drug control a reality. !!!!!!! A parallel may be drawn from the failing US drug policy in Afghanistan, where 172,600 hectares of poppy were cultivated during the crop season in 2006-an increase of 61 per cent from the 2005 (107,400 hectares) level. -is so because the matter is not being addressed at the core, which entails social and human elements. The US is providing billions of dollars in military aid to Latin America, whereas economic aid is becoming stagnant (108) -Hence, the solution to the soaring drug problem is not the eradication of coca but its proper use, as well as better alternatives to its cultivation (109) -
Christenson, Gordon A. Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 1, 1989, pp. 160-167. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/761938.
- in substantive themes, realism combines with style to augment the argument that US foreign policy in Latin America is deeply flawed and ought to be revised to serve strategic interests with less hostility -Nevertheless, in showing the practical difficulties of dealing with a powerful private sector of oligarchies allied with the military even when elections are held, Farer reveals more contradictions within liberal policy. Favoring democratic elections without cutting the bonds of private power linked to military and puppet rule by revolution does not ensure democracy and human rights (161) -If formal authority and effective power do not coincide (civilian authority often must defer to the real power of the military), how can outside pressure upon a government in a state of emergency (or otherwise) produce greater good than harm? When should context and cultural relativism matter? His essay on the terrorist's response shows why every circumstance is considered a special exception justifying repression (162)... . What duty do governments have and what means can they use to maintain a minimum order needed for practical protection of human rights and welfare.... !!! humanitarian crises should be evaluated on a case by case basis!!! -Sham formal elections may also deprive people of their power to organize and choose authentically. Hidden coercive methods or apathy may elicit manipulated outcomes. Informal censorship by the private press may reinforce the power of governing elites. The forms of liberal society do have differences when cultures differ. But power hides everywhere, especially under the cover of democratic forms justifying interventions, direct or indirect, from major powers who then influence through "free institutions" access to the media, to government services, and to government power (162)... Farer is against intervention styles and pro letting the gov work it out the way they want with their own people -Democratic elections, by this reasoning, may be more effective under revolutionary regimes than under the old authoritarian regime (163)!!!! distinction btw regimes bc different types need different interventions !!!! -His ultimate conclusion easily follows: US policy in Latin America is both morally and strategically empty save to prop- agate private economic interests and to maintain the status quo by responding to the threat of an external enemy. Neither is sufficient to support a long-term strategy of military support for authoritative regimes and military support for revolutions against the totalitarian regime (165)
War on Drugs Strategy https://scholar.umw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1238&context=student_research The U.S. War on Drugs in Latin America: What is the Method to the Madness? Kendall Parker, 2018
-At the conceptual level, the War on Drugs is a U.S. governmental campaign aimed at reducing significantly the production and availability of illicit drugs via policies of prohibition (Youngers & Rosen, 2005, p. 1). Domestically, the preferred methods against the production, distribution, and use of illicit drugs include strict laws, improved law enforcement, and increased incarceration (Youngers & Rosen, 2005, p. 3). Overseas, these prohibition policies have generated extensive military aid and intervention to curb drug production and intercept transnational shipments, in order to reduce the supply of illicit drugs (Youngers & Rosen, 2005, p. 3). The majority of federal funding has been spent on the supply side, based on the economic theory that limiting supply makes narcotics trafficking costlier, thereby driving up prices for American consumers and making a drug habit harder to maintain... In reality, however, prohibition policies do not achieve the intended goals both domestically and overseas. This paper focuses on continual supply-side efforts that are specific to countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, which have not only proven to be ineffective, but also produce negative consequences (3) -U.S. policy in Latin America and the Caribbean aims to reduce supply by subduing illicit drug production. Eradication, or physical destruction, of crops is a strategy used by the United States to decrease the production of illicit drugs in source countries. Eradication may occur by force or be encouraged voluntarily by the following three methods: manual plant removal, the use of herbicides, or biological control using pathogens or predators (Crop Control Policies (Drugs), 2001). The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) provides assistance to Colombia, Peru, and Guatemala for their own aerial and manual eradication programs (U.S. Department of State) (4) -The "National Drug Control Strategy 1991" recommends that manual or herbicidal eradication efforts, crop substitution, alternative income options, and developmental projects that heighten living standards and produce income take place when feasible (Crop Control Policies (Drugs), 2001). U.S. government officials assert that eliminating drugs at the source through eradication is the most cost-effective supply-side strategy. (4) -U.S. policy also aims to reduce supply through interdiction. Drug interdiction involves attempts to interrupt illegal drugs in the process of being smuggled by land, air, or sea from 5 producing countries into the United States (Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2010). The U.S. Army, Air Force, and Navy, along with Coast Guard counternarcotics teams, are regularly deployed to track down and capture drug smugglers (The Associated Press, 2013). Modern technology aids in their efforts. For instance, the Coast Guard uses drones to locate vessels transporting drugs (Lopez & Goodman, 2017). The U.S. military also trains Latin American militaries and law enforcement agents, in order to build a large, well-equipped network to stem the flow of illicit drugs coming into the U.S. from Latin America (The Associated Press, 2013)... Interdiction aims to make the drug business costlier for traffickers. Increased costs to drug traffickers result in higher retail prices, which should, in turn, decrease consumption by Americans (5) -The Andean Initiative allocated $2.2 billion over five years to limit the production of drugs in the Andean region. Its main goal was to empower Latin American military and police forces to perform counterdrug initiatives, by providing U.S. training and support to those willing to do so (6)... PLAN COLOMBIA: The militarization of counterdrug policies that began with the Andean Initiative significantly increased throughout the 1990s. Joint efforts by the U.S. and Colombia managed to break down the Medellín and Cali cartels, but smaller DTOs surfaced and insurgents became involved in drug trafficking -Additionally, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for a wide array of counternarcotics assistance programs for Latin America and the Caribbean. The DOD provides training and equipment to security forces participating in anti-drug efforts through the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) and the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), which are regional combatant commands (Seelke, Wyler, Beittel, & Sullivan, 2011). (9)
COVID/econonmic and humanitarian relief atm https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/02/28/the-rapidly-deteriorating-quality-of-democracy-in-latin-america/ The rapidly deteriorating quality of democracy in Latin America Daniel ZovattoFriday, February 28, 2020
-COVID 19: The region has over 10.4million cases which is about 26% of cases worldwide and 379,000 deaths about 34% of deaths worldwide. According to a study conducted by the U.N. after the pandemic an estimated 45 million people will move into poverty in the region. Living on less than one dollar a day
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R46258.html Latin America and the Caribbean: U.S. Policy and Issues in the 116th Congress
-COVID-19 pandemic is having widespread economic, social, and political effects in the region is currently surging in infections and deaths in some countries. As of September 2, 2020, the Specialist in Latin region had almost 280,000 deaths (almost 31% of deaths worldwide). -Under the Trump Administration, U.S. relations with Latin America and the Caribbean have generally moved toward a more confrontational approach from one of engagement andSpecialist in Latin partnership during past Administrations. Since FY2018, the Administration's proposed foreign American Affairs aid budgets for the region would have cut assistance levels significantly. To deter increased unauthorized migration from Central America, the Administration has used a variety of immigration policy tools as well as aid cuts and threats of increased U.S. tariffs and taxes on remittances. Among trade issues, President Trump strongly criticized and repeatedly threatened to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); this led to the negotiation of trade and Finance the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). The Trump Administration also has imposed strong economic sanctions on Venezuela and has shifted U.S. policy toward Cubaaway from engagement toward increased sanctions -
Combating Corruption in Latin America: Congressional Considerations May 21, 2019 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R45733.pdf
-Corruption of public officials in Latin America continues to be a prominent political concern. In the past few years, 11 presidents and former presidents in Latin America have been forced from office, jailed, or are under investigation for corruption -Several analysts have suggested that heightened awareness of corruption in Latin America may be due to several possible factors: the growing use of social media to reveal violations and mobilize citizens, greater media and investor scrutiny, or, in some cases, judicial and legislative investigations. Moreover, as expectations for good government tend to rise with greater affluence, the expanding middle class in Latin America has sought more integrity from its politicians. U.S. congressional interest in addressing corruption comes at a time of this heightened rejection of corruption in public office across several Latin American and Caribbean countries. -why and how?? : The 2017 U.S. National Security Strategy characterizes corruption as a threat to the United States because criminals and terrorists may thrive under governments with rampant corruption. Studies indicate that corruption lowers productivity and mars competitiveness in developing economies. When it is systemic, it can spur migration and reduce GDP measurably. The U.S. government has used several policy tools to combat corruption. Among them are sanctions (asset blocking and visa restrictions) against leaders and other public officials to punish and deter corrupt practices, and programming and incentives to adopt anti-corruption best practices. The United States has also provided foreign assistance to some countries to promote clean or "good" government goals. U.S. efforts include assistance to strengthen the rule of law and judicial independence, law enforcement training, programs to institutionalize open and transparent public sector procurement and other clean government practices, and efforts to tap private-sector knowledge to combat corruption -Recent congressional support for anti-corruption efforts includes: training of police and justice personnel, backing for the Trump Administration's use of targeted sanctions, and other efforts to condition assistance. Policy debates have also highlighted the importance of combating corruption related to trade and investment. The 116th Congress may consider the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which would revise the NAFTA trade agreement, and contains a new chapter on anti-corruption measures -The 2017 U.S. National Security Strategy maintains that corruption of weak governments, especially those cowed by criminals and terrorists, poses a serious national security challenge. It asserts that reducing violence should be a priority in countries that are U.S. trade and security partners because extreme violence is economically and socially disruptive and creates instability. The range of corrupt practices is broad and solutions to control public corruption are quite diverse as the case studies in this report indicate. Police and justice systems are open to corruption when morale and integrity are low and external pressures high, which may allow abusive prosecutorial practices to prevail, such as the use of torture or efforts to destroy or fabricate evidence. Weak rule of law subverts justice systems, and diminishes political systems and participatory democracy. For several years, U.S. foreign assistance has been provided to fight corruption and enhance the rule of law in Latin America (including judicial training), to improve law-enforcement techniques to conduct investigations, make arrests and properly handle evidence, and enhance oversight of civil society for better accountability. U.S. assistance has supported whistleblower protections and other measures to allow private citizens to be more effective watchdogs of public officials, disrupt abuses, and prevent corruption from taking hold again (19) -One example of the U.S. approach is the new proposed trade agreement signed by the United States, Canada, and Mexico in late 2018. 69 U.S. trade talks with Mexico and Canada to replace the North Trade Agreement (NAFTA) resulted in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, (USMCA), which includes a chapter on anti-corruption. The main purpose of the chapter is to "prevent and combat bribery and corruption in international trade and investment." The accomplishment of dedicating a full chapter to reinforce the trilateral commitment to combat corruption is significant, but success would be achieved as the provisions are translated into action. This is especially true in Mexico, where significant gaps remain in implementing anticorruption regulation. 70 Some scholars have identified the various anti-corruption requirements in the chapter as some of the most comprehensive in any trade treaty, though largely drawn from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement from which the Trump Administration withdrew in 2017. The USCMA chapter includes measures to combat corruption, which are legislative, administrative, and promotional.71 (19) -The U.S. government's primary manager of foreign assistance is USAID and the closely linked U.S. State Department. The two organizations are the main funders of programming for increasing transparency, rule of law, and good government, and often use NGOs to implement their programs. (20) !! example of Liberal organizations/strat -U.S. Treasury Department programs, including sanctions, listings, and asset seizures in cooperation with police also address corruption. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in Treasury administers and enforces economic sanctions that target foreign entities and persons for their activities related to terrorism, narcotics trafficking, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy, or the economy of the United States... The 116th Congress has paid close attention to the turmoil in Venezuela and is likely to continue to consider the steps to influence the Venezuelan government and a return to democratic rule. The humanitarian crisis in the country has caused an exodus of Venezuelans—reportedly the largest outflow of refugees and migrants ever in the Western Hemisphere—which has tested the capacity of receiving countries to respond. For the United States, Europe, and others, the conduit of narcotics through Venezuela has had immediate ill effects. The Maduro government, that is widely considered to be the region's most corrupt, has caused suffering within and beyond Venezuela's borders.75 The effectiveness of sanctions on members of the Maduro government and on the vital oil sector, along with consequences for a destitute and undernourished population, are still to be seen. Should a transition to democracy occur in Venezuela, some observers speculate that what may be revealed would be multi-jurisdictional and massive corruption. It would far exceed the scope of what the State Department identified in a mid-April 2019 fact sheet. (22) -
https://www.history.com/topics/crime/the-war-on-drugs#:~:text=The%20War%20on%20Drugs%20is,and%20is%20still%20evolving%20today. War on Drugs info History.com editiors, 2017 (updated 2019)
-In June 1971, Nixon officially declared a "War on Drugs," stating that drug abuse was "public enemy number one."
U.S. Foreign Policy Towards Latin America Under Trump: Beyond Business as Usual Madrid, de la Fuente, July 2017 https://ideas.llorenteycuenca.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/07/170720_DI_Report_Foreign_Policy_US_LATAM_ENG-1.pdf
-In the absence of specific initiatives involving the region, as well as President Trump's administration's clear "America First" strategy, this paper will argue that this administration's foreign policy toward Latin America will be influenced by its specific positions on issues that have served as the main three pillars driving U.S. foreign policy in the region since the late 1980's: free trade, democracy & governance (soft power) and security. -Exceptions to these positions within these key pillars are only likely to occur when the White House considers it necessary to court a member of the U.S. Congress -especially a U.S. Senator- with an interest in a foreign policy matter regarding the region. We should be particularly attentive to the foreign relations and intelligence committees, as well as the Western Hemisphere's sub-committees both in the House of Representatives and the Senate -President Trump rarely referenced Latin America during his campaign, outside of using NAFTA as his main punching bag when debating against multilateral free trade agreements and focusing on illegal immigration coming from the US-Mexico border. (4) -Nominating an Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere affairs, the top U.S. diplomat for the region, has also not been a top priority, as other key U.S. State Department posts needed to be filled first. (4) -While the current top diplomatic post for the region remains vacant, it is worth noting that the administration has named individuals with strong Latin American expertise to key government positions, although primarily in security and defense. (5) ! tends to be our focus! -(Soft Power) propagates U.S. culture, language, traditions and values to the world, popularizing the "American Way" and influencing opinions and policies. (9)... . Its main vehicle has been the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), founded in 1961 to promote economic development and social programs via international assistance. Since the 1990s, USAID's focus in Latin America has turned to promoting democracy and good governance, with notable programs in Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean and the Andean region. Colombia specifically has been a key country, given that the military assistance through Plan Colombia was closely accompanied by programs aimed to strengthen the ruleof-law and good governance in areas the government was recovering from guerilla forces during its decades of Civil War -President Trump's "America First" motto, with regard to foreign policy, translates into placing what he views as contributing to American economic prosperity and security back home above all else. (10)... The Trump administration's 2018 budget calls for cutting the State Department and USAID budgets by 32 percent, including U.S. aid to Latin America by 36 percent. U.S. assistance to Mexico would be cut by 45 percent, while aid to Guatemala would be reduced by 38 percent, to Honduras by 31 percent and to Haiti by 18 percent. The proposed cuts would affect a number of assistance programs globally, with areas like educational and cultural exchanges being reduced by more than 50 percent. -
Soft Power cont. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/20/the-rise-and-fall-of-soft-power/ Eric LI, 2018
-In the decades between the 1980s and 2010s, the number of liberal democracies (as defined by Freedom House) grew from around 100 to close to 150. The number of free market capitalist economies, based on rankings published by the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation, grew from over 40 to close to 100. Never before in human history had so many countries given up so many old political and economic arrangements for one new system. Never before in human history had so many countries given up so many old political and economic arrangements for one new system. Nye might have called it soft power. I call it the great conversion... In the realm of international relations, just as Nye advocated, the United States led a drive to establish and enlarge international institutions that would support its new order, such as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. It also expanded its system of alliances to bring former competitors further into the fold. -For an entire generation, the world watched in astonishment as scores of countries voluntarily gave up increasingly large portions of their sovereignty to subject themselves to shared sets of rules based on the same liberal values -
Democracy/Anti-Corruption atm https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/02/28/the-rapidly-deteriorating-quality-of-democracy-in-latin-america/ NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/29/world/americas/latin-america-democracy-pandemic.html By Anatoly Kurmanaev July 29, 2020
-Over the past several years, the quality of democracy in the region has diminished in many counters. Evident with the dictatorship of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, and Nicaragua ruled by an authoritarian government repressing the political opposition -The region is also in third place, after Africa and the Middle East, on corruption; it has the highest levels of crime and violence in the world; and despite numerous reforms, weak rule of law continues to be an Achilles' heel of democracy in the region -There are now five Latin American and Caribbean nations with recent democratic histories — Venezuela, Nicaragua, Guyana, Bolivia and Haiti — where governments weren't chosen in free and fair elections or have overstayed their time in office. It's the highest number since the late 1980s, when the Cold War receded and several countries in the grips of civil war or military dictatorships transitioned to peace and democracy... Most of these leaders were already bending the rules of democracy to stay in power before the pandemic, but seized on emergency conditions created by the spread of the virus to strengthen their position. President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela has detained or raided the homes of dozens of journalists, social activists and opposition leaders for questioning the government's dubious coronavirus figures. In Nicaragua, President Daniel Ortega released thousands of inmates because of the threat posed by the virus, but kept political prisoners behind bars, while in Guyana, a lockdown prevented protests against the government's attempt to stay in power despite losing an election. In Bolivia, a caretaker government has used the pandemic to postpone elections, tap into emergency aid to bolster its electoral campaign and threaten to ban the main opposition candidate from running -American support for democracy initiatives in Latin America fell by almost half last year to $326 million, according to preliminary figures compiled by the United States Agency for International Development. "In the last few years, we have not only abandoned our role as a democratizing force in Latin America and the world, but we have promoted negative forces," said Orlando Pérez, a political scientist at the University of North Texas. "Our policy is now: 'You're on your own — America first.'" -Yet in most Latin American nations, the coronavirus accelerated a pre-existing democratic decline by exposing the weakness and corruption of governments in the face of the catastrophe. "When confronted with an existential threat, countries that did not already have deep democratic systems are choosing tactics that help leaders consolidate their power," said John Polga-Hecimovich, a political scientist at the United States Naval Academy in Maryland -The political tensions gripping the region in the pandemic could be just the beginning of a longer wave of unrest and authoritarianism, said Thomas Carothers, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "It will drag the region down into poorer economic performance," he said. "It also means poorer treatment of human beings, their dignity and rights."
Venezula and Nicolas Maduro
-Since 2010, Venezuela has been suffering a socioeconomic crisis under Nicolás Maduro (and briefly under his predecessor, Hugo Chávez), as rampant crime, hyperinflation and shortages diminish the quality of life. -2019: Maduro inaugurated... the National Assembly released a press statement saying that Guaidó had assumed the role of acting president.
War on Drugs https://ips-dc.org/militarization_of_the_us_drug_control_program/ October 6, 2005 Gina Amatangelo
-Since the 1970s, U.S. spending on the drug war has risen from less than $1 billion to more than $19.2 billion annually -President George Bush announced his Andean Initiative, a $2.2-billion, five-year plan to stop the cocaine trade at its source. Although U.S. military personnel had been involved in training, equipping, and transporting foreign antinarcotics personnel since the early 1980s, the Andean strategy opened the door to a dramatic expansion of this role and to a significant infusion of U.S. assistance to police and military forces in the region. The Andean Initiative placed the spotlight on Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia. Yet the vast majority of the Pentagon's international drug spending still went into its detection and monitoring operation in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico transit zones, the cost of which, according to a September 1993 General Accounting Office report, eventually swelled "out of proportion to the benefits it provided." In late 1993, President Clinton shifted the emphasis of military operations, at least in terms of strategy if not spending. The focus shifted from interdicting cocaine as it moved through the transit zones into the U.S to dismantling the so-called "air bridge" that connects coca growers and coca paste manufacturers in Peru and Bolivia with Colombian refiners and distributors. As a result, drug traffickers quickly abandoned air routes in favor of the region's labyrinth of waterways. The Pentagon responded by supporting interdiction operations that targeted the waterways in both source countries and neighboring nations. Coca cultivation in Colombia has risen sharply in response to recent declines in Peru and Bolivia, earning Colombia the dubious distinction of being the world's number one coca source. In 2000, the U.S. significantly escalated funding for militarized counternarcotics programs in the Andean region with a $1.3 billion supplemental for Colombia and neighboring countries. Seventy-five percent of the funds allocated for Colombia went to security forces, and nearly 50% of the funds allocated for neighboring countries were directed toward military and police forces. The Bush administration has requested $730 million in the FY 2002 budget to expand counterdrug, alternative development, and government reform programs in the Andean region. Today, the vast majority of Washington's international antinarcotics spending goes to Latin America and the Caribbean, where thousands of U.S. troops are annually deployed in support of the drug war, operating ground-based radar, flying monitoring aircraft, providing operation and intelligence support, and training host-nation security forces. Despite this militarization and the massive funding for Washington's drug war, illegal drugs still flood the United States. In fact, illegal drugs are more readily available now, at a higher purity and lower cost, than they were when the drug war was launched. IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS: Militarization of counternarcotics efforts in Latin America undermines recent trends toward democratization and greater respect for human rights while threatening regional security. Resources and training provided to the region's armed forces to support their new role in domestic drug control operations often circumvent congressional oversight and human rights restrictions. U.S. military personnel work side by side with armed forces, some of whom are implicated in human rights violations and drug trafficking.
The Future of U.S. Policy Toward Latin America https://www.georgetownjournalofinternationalaffairs.org/online-edition/2017/8/16/the-future-of-us-policy-toward-latin-america Gregory Weeks, 2017
-Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. policies in Latin America have revolved around the broad goals of promoting democracy, development, and cooperation. Over the past eight years, the United States has been successful in achieving its policy goals in the region. Engaging Cuba has reduced Latin American criticism of U.S. policy and improved cooperation. Support for the Colombian peace process has contributed to reduction of terrorist violence in that country. Dialogue with both the Venezuelan government and its opposition has played a role in seeking a peaceful resolution to the political crisis there. Furthermore, newly negotiated free trade agreements such as the ratification of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement in 2012 have encouraged economic growth -OBAMA: In the history of U.S.-Latin American relations, there have been too few moments when the region saw the United States as a true partner. However, the Obama administration came closer than most administrations in breaking the tension. Repeated U.S. invasions, covert operations, and instances of intimidation made leftist leaders across the region highly sensitive to U.S. political pressure. The reason for the Obama administration's success was its understanding of the differences between hard and soft power. While use of force or the threat to use it have run into a brick wall of Latin American resistance, persuasion has proven to be a more effective tactic -Hard power, which entails using or threatening military and economic measures to compel certain actions, has been the norm in U.S. policy toward Latin America since the Monroe Doctrine in the early 19th century. An accumulation of negative experiences have made Latin American governments wary not just of U.S. hard power and of intervention, but also of U.S. policy on the whole. In Chapultepec Park in the center of Mexico City, a large monument commemorates the young Mexican soldiers who died defending the country from U.S. troops in 1847. Since then, Mexican political leaders have assiduously resisted U.S. influence, including President Donald Trump's push for making Mexico pay for the construction of a wall on the border between the nations. The memory of hard power does not fade quickly... Because of this troubled relationship, hard power has actually prevented the United States from achieving its stated policy goals in Latin America. Such frustration was evident in U.S.-Latin America relations during the George W. Bush administration. -For example, the Bush administration supported the 2002 Venezuelan coup, which soured relationships with many Latin American leaders. President Bush's efforts at promoting economic development were also consistently blocked. Most prominently, his goal of finally passing a Free Trade Area of the Americas to bring the region together fell apart completely and was never heard from again. By the time President Obama took office, the pursuit of hard power in Latin America had failed. -SOFT VS HARD POWER: Joseph Nye defines soft power as "the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments." Soft power increases mutual trust and creates space for dialogue, especially with states that may be otherwise resistant to policy goals. While hard power's focus on the use or threat of force can sometimes compel other states to comply, the strategy can often backfire. Especially when there is long-standing distrust between two nations, relying on hard power may elicit resentment, which in turn makes states even less willing to follow preferred policy avenues -obama : While on the campaign trail, he made speeches calling for engagement with Cuba and Venezuela rather than freezing relations, arguing that "it is time to pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike, without preconditions." -The turnaround of general attitude towards Latin America is one of the elements of the Obama Doctrine, which involves taking strategic risks to reduce tension with adversaries. It rejects the use of force solely as a means to prove credibility, asserts that the United States cannot fix all problems, and prefers multilateralism to unilateralism. Hard power does not disappear but becomes a secondary tactic behind dialogue and negotiation. -HOWEVER (DRUGS): There are times, though, when dialogue alone is insufficient. The criminal networks that fuel violence, drug smuggling, and human trafficking in Latin America are also a security concern to the United States... This is where a combination of hard and soft power—developed in conjunction with Latin American governments—becomes necessary. Along these lines, U.S. Southern Command cultivates "friendly networks" to enhance mutual trust. Thus, even as it trains Latin American soldiers, the United States Army builds trust by making an effort to share intelligence with its Latin American counterparts and being attentive to the needs of its allies. -HARD POWER: Hard power cannot be the sole answer, but must be accompanied by persuasion and positive example. Whenever hard power is employed, it must be carefully managed to avoid militarization and to ensure that human rights are not eroded. That balance is difficult to achieve. Human rights activists in Mexico and Central America have documented the violence that too often is associated with U.S. military aid in recent years. -President Trump also promised large scale deportations of Latin American undocumented immigrants, demanded changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement, hurled harsh criticism at the Venezuelan government for oppressing its people, and criticized the Obama administration for normalizing its relations with Cuba. -The overall tone of Trump's messages throughout his campaign as well as statements in the days after his election clearly orient U.S. policy in Latin America towards hard power. Most alarming is that the messages are all unilateral and punitive
An Improved Strategy to Fight Drug Trafficking, Organized Crime and Corruption in the Hemisphere https://theglobalamericans.org/reports/improved-strategy-fight-drug-trafficking-organized-crime-corruption-hemisphere/ By Jimena Galindo, 2017
-The U.S. government has spent over $1 trillion on counter-narcotics efforts, both domestically and in Latin America and the Caribbean, since declaring a "war on drugs" in the 1970s. Yet, the structure of demand and production has changed, requiring a holistic approach and a greater emphasis on prevention programs to tackle the drug problem in the United States and the Americas. !!!! talk about failure of "Just Say No" and cont!! -A modernized anti-drug policy needs to focus on ending organized crime and drug trafficking through a broad strategy that includes prevention programs addressed as a public health issue, the strengthening of U.S. capacity to investigate and cooperate with hemispheric partners in tracking money laundering, and expanding targeted sanctions to include officials involved in narcotics trafficking and organized crime. (BOTH GOVS!!!) -At the same time (as marijuana being legalized), an exploding opioid crisis spurred by the misuse of pain medications and the increasing use of fentanyl smuggled from China, which cost 64,000 lives in 2016—doubling in just one year—has challenged the traditional view that U.S. drug use is largely fueled by narcotics trafficking from Latin America and the Caribbean. These shifts in demand and production require a more holistic approach—in terms of both prevention and sanctions—by the United States and its partners in the hemisphere. -By Jimena Galindo IntroductionIn 2017, with support from the Ford Foundation, Global Americans convened a High-Level Working Group on Inter-American Relations and Bipartisanship, comprising former policymakers, business leaders, civil society leaders and scholars, to discuss bipartisan and cross-regional ways that the current U.S. administration can build and improve upon the achievements of the past two decades of inter-American relations. Our group, representing civil society, academia, and the policymaking and business communities in the U.S., Latin America and the Caribbean, has produced an initial series of papers laying out members' consensus opinions on the topics of: Economic integration and trade Combating organized crime and narcotics trafficking Greater U.S.-Latin American collaboration on anti-corruption Expanding and improving education exchanges in the Americas Extra-hemispheric actors Future topics will include rebuilding Venezuela and re-thinking development assistance. The initial set of policy topics addressed by the working group reflects a long-standing hemispheric and bipartisan consensus on the key areas that have helped to secure U.S. and hemispheric economic, diplomatic and security interests. All of these topics are inter-related. But rather than address them collectively, we decided to narrow our focus to specific, constructive, and actionable issues and recommendations. Convinced that the countries of the Americas will be able to solve their shared challenges only through collaboration, the members of our high-level working group have made a series of recommendations on each of the topics outlined above. We urge our governments, members of civil society, the media, the private sector, academia and citizens of the Americas to consider them as a framework for charting the way forward. This paper addresses the multi-dimensional threat to the hemisphere posed by drug trafficking, organized crime, and corruption. The U.S. government has spent over $1 trillion on counter-narcotics efforts, both domestically and in Latin America and the Caribbean, since declaring a "war on drugs" in the 1970s. Yet, the structure of demand and production has changed, requiring a holistic approach and a greater emphasis on prevention programs to tackle the drug problem in the United States and the Americas. A modernized anti-drug policy needs to focus on ending organized crime and drug trafficking through a broad strategy that includes prevention programs addressed as a public health issue, the strengthening of U.S. capacity to investigate and cooperate with hemispheric partners in tracking money laundering, and expanding targeted sanctions to include officials involved in narcotics trafficking and organized crime. Executive Summary The U.S. government has spent over $1 trillion on counter-narcotics efforts, both domestically and in Latin America and the Caribbean, since declaring a "war on drugs" in the 1970s. Between fiscal years 2010 and 2015 alone, drug-war expenditures by U.S. government agencies in the Western Hemisphere amounted to a combined $5.2 billion. Yet the number of cocaine- and heroin-related overdoses in the United States continues to increase. According to a provisional government report of national drug deaths, as of March 4th, 2018, there have been a total of 12,802 cocaine overdoses and 15,358 heroin overdoses reported for the 12-month period ending in August, 2017. This is an increase from the 8,869 cocaine overdoses and 14,859 heroin overdoses for the 12-month period ending in August 2016. As a debate over how and whether to pursue that "war" continues to engage U.S. and hemispheric policymakers, the "drug problem" in the U.S. is changing. Some 30 states and the District of Columbia had legalized either recreational or medical marijuana by 2018, posing a challenge to the U.S. Justice Department in the enforcement of federal anti-narcotics laws and opening an obvious cleavage and contradiction between domestic drug policy and the U.S.' international drug control posture. At the same time, an exploding opioid crisis spurred by the misuse of pain medications and the increasing use of fentanyl smuggled from China, which cost 64,000 lives in 2016—doubling in just one year—has challenged the traditional view that U.S. drug use is largely fueled by narcotics trafficking from Latin America and the Caribbean. These shifts in demand and production require a more holistic approach—in terms of both prevention and sanctions—by the United States and its partners in the hemisphere. -Historically, Washington has focused on supply-side measures, such as the eradication of illicit crops, the interdiction of trans-shipments, and drug seizures. -A modernized anti-drug policy therefore needs to focus on ending corruption through a broad strategy that includes strengthening government institutions, the promotion of human rights, the reduction of impunity, the reduction of income inequality, and the strengthening of education systems... Without addressing these structural problems, the exclusive use of enforcement and interdiction tools can inadvertently aggravate problems such as extortion, kidnapping, and human trafficking that undermine democratic processes, human rights, and trust in government. STRATEGY: To that end, we offer a series of recommendations for U.S. leadership and hemispheric cooperation on this critical issue. Here are some highlights: Step up efforts to reduce demand. The Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), the Training and Certification Program for Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation of Drug Abuse and Violence, both operating under the auspices of the Organization of American States, along with similar multilateral mechanisms, should be reinforced to help all governments in the region expand drug prevention and substance-abuse treatment. Aggressively expand collaborative efforts to counter money laundering and corruption with Latin American and Caribbean governments. U.S. Treasury and Justice Department efforts to track and prosecute money-laundering currently lack sufficient resources, personnel and a coordinated enforcement mechanism to match the scale of the challenge to the hemisphere. Making these efforts a central component of U.S. bilateral relations in the hemisphere should be a priority. Strengthen targeted sanctions on traffickers. Regional governments should increase the use of sanctions on public and private individuals determined to be involved in illicit activities, such as including expanding the discretion of Chiefs of Mission to suspend non-immigrant visas for those individuals and their families. Fund the independent commission created by the 2016 bipartisan Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission Act. The scope of regional anti-narcotics policies requires a broad and multilateral effort directed at the spreading involvement of organized criminal networks into legitimate enterprises. The commission offers an opportunity for Congress to support a thorough, bipartisan evaluation of U.S. drug policies toward the region at this critical time.
The U.S. Policy of Democracy Promotion in Latin America https://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1147&context=honors Steven Gilbert, 2008
-The U.S. policy of democracy promotion in Latin America has consisted of promoting governments that are favorable to U.S. political and economic interests rather than democracy itself. While the U.S. claims to have a tradition of "promoting democracy" in Latin America, justification for U.S. intervention has been questionable and inconsistent... U.S. support for Latin American regimes has coincided with favorable economic policies rather than with the strength of democracy within a country. (1) -Relations between the U.S. and Latin America show that the U.S. has used democracy promotion as cover for U.S. imperialism in Latin America. During the Cold War, the U.S. supported anti-communist regimes that were often undemocratic because they were capable of protecting U.S. interests. Since the mid-1980s, we have seen a wave of democratization in Latin America and an embrace of market democracy. U.S. relations in Latin America since the end of the Cold War reveal that the U.S. is merely changing its means of establishing U.S. friendly governments by promoting low-intensity democracy. (2) -U.S. democracy promotion has two main goals. First, it supports groups aligned with U.S. foreign policy and global capitalism. Secondly, it seeks to suppress popular groups that advocate more thorough democratic transition or change in the economic system. The promotion of low-intensity democracy functions through three levels. The first level consists of the highest levels of U.S. government such as the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA. This level identifies whether political intervention is necessary in a particular country. Billions of dollars in funds are then allocated to a second layer of U.S. organizations and agencies such as USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) along with related groups. These organizations provide support to organizations or groups within the intervened country by providing funding, guidance, and political sponsorship. (18) -
US Foreign Policy in Latin America: An Ideological Perspective https://www.e-ir.info/2013/06/14/us-foreign-policy-in-latin-america/ -Shayda Sabet, 2013
-The predominant interpretation of the Cold War draws from a realist perspective which attributes the Soviet Union and the United States' pursuit for economic, military, and influential superiority over one another as an inevitable characteristic of powerful states seeking hegemony within an anarchic international system. -This paper will argue that anti-Communist ideology shaped the United States' foreign policy toward Latin America during the Cold War, particularly after the Cuban Revolution in 1959. I challenge the neorealist perspective by arguing that such ideological forces drove the United States to implement irrational and costly policies toward Latin America (such as supporting military coups). -POST WWII: Like the Soviet Union, the United States adopted policies toward Latin America that reflect the same vision of exporting values - a vision that was significantly influenced by ideological sentiments. Although the United States' pursuit for economic and military power over Latin America dates back to the 19th century, the Cuban Revolution marks a distinct period in US-Latin American relations, since it is then when American foreign policy fell under the ideological spell.[7] At the 1960 presidential debate, John F. Kennedy accurately expressed American sentiments when he said, "Castro is only the beginning of our difficulties throughout Latin America. The big struggle will be to prevent the influence of Castro [from] spreading to other countries... -He (Dominguez) argues that since the Cuban Revolution, whenever the United States sensed traces of Communism among Latin American governments, it illogically sought their downfall (through military force and other violent means), regardless of whether its economic best interest was truly under threat. -Through the military strategies that accompanied the Alliance for Progress, the United Sates responded to the guerilla movements of the 1960s with unwarranted force... These (guerilla) movements prompted the Kennedy administration to increase the United States' military support for Latin America. American military advisors were assigned to Latin American armed forces with the aim of suppressing the revolutionary movements, and between 1950 and 1970, 54,270 Latin American armed forces were trained under US programs. Furthermore, convinced that poverty breeds revolution, the Kennedy administration proposed a development plan for Latin America called The Alliance for Progress, which it believed was the surest way to prevent a 'second Cuba' in the region. -Salvador Allende: Before his election, the United States tried to prevent Allende's rise to power, and after it failed, US officials ceaselessly sought to destabilize and overthrow his government.[23] Eventually, Allende suffered an American-supported military coup in 1973 -in sum, Like the Soviet Union's revolutionary-imperial paradigm, the United States felt responsible for spreading its values with force and without invitation, as a means of countering the opposing ideology.
Soft Power https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2004-05-01/soft-power-means-success-world-politics By Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Reviewed By G. John Ikenberry May/June 2004
-The reliance on diplomacy and negotiation to solve international problems. -A persuasive approach to international relations, typically involving the use of economic or cultural influence. -Nye argues that successful states need both hard and soft power -- the ability to coerce others as well as the ability to shape their long-term attitudes and preferences. The United States can dominate others, but it has also excelled in projecting soft power, with the help of its companies, foundations, universities, churches, and other institutions of civil society; U.S. culture, ideals, and values have been extraordinarily important in helping Washington attract partners and supporters. Nye acknowledges the limits of soft power: it tends to have diffuse effects on the outside world and is not easily wielded to achieve specific outcomes. Indeed, societies often embrace American values and culture but resist U.S. foreign policies. But overall, Nye's message is that U.S. security hinges as much on winning hearts and minds as it does on winning wars
US Grand Strategy Options https://www.e-ir.info/2013/06/13/us-grand-strategy-options/ Leigh Crowley, 2013
-There are three grand strategies the United States may pursue: primacy, offshore balancing and liberal internationalism -The logic of grand strategy fusion is that liberal internationalism locks rivals into an open and rules based system, whilst offshore balancing allows the United States to maintain an over-the-horizon military posture and use it should the former fail. -LIO: Openness is created when states reciprocally engage in trade and exchange based upon mutual gains.[5] Rules and institutions act as a loose system of governance and are in part autonomous from the exercise of state power. he stability and longevity of the liberal order is sustained through mutual consent rather than a power hierarchy, and the United States subjects itself to operate within the rules like any other member state. whole article rests on the premise that China will not rival US power until 2040 -Primacy: A grand strategy of primacy is firmly placed in the realist school of thought. John Mearsheimer's structural analysis (2001) offers an offensive realist lens to view how the actions of great powers are largely dictated by the international system in which they find themselves... The absence of a central authority that sits above states and can protect them from each other, 2) the fact that states always have some offensive military capability, and 3) the fact that states can never be certain about other states' intentions. Given this fear... states recognize that the more powerful they are relative to their rivals, the better chance of survival. Indeed, the best guarantee of survival is to be a hegemon, because no other state can seriously threaten such a mighty power... Primacy grand strategy is underpinned by the American military capability to act unilaterally, and, if its perceived national interests are at stake, act outside of the liberal order's rules !!!! not worth it, LA is not trying to rival us like China,etc. while we should be wary of them in WoD and gov, we don't need the same realism bc they won't try to take us over -Whereas primacy is based on the belief that the United States is best served by defending its allies rather than having them doing it for themselves, offshore balancers believe a balance of power approach distributes the costs and risks of defending allies -Ikenberry argues that the ideal form of liberal internationalism grand strategy 'creates a foundation in which states can engage in reciprocity and institutionalised cooperation' -In order for the United States to regain support for its authority, it must renegotiate its place within the liberal international order, which will involve the voluntary granting of authority from other states:[27] For this to happen, the United States again needs to search for and champion practical and consensual functioning global rules and institutions. In the twenty-first century, this will involve sharing among a wider coalition of liberal democratic states... it is this liberal complex of states that is the ultimate guardian of the rules, institutions, and progressive purposes of the liberal order.[28]
THE PROMISE AND PITFALLS OF GRAND STRATEGY https://www-jstor-org.peach.conncoll.edu/stable/resrep11597?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=us+grand+strategy+latin+america&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dus%2Bgrand%2Bstrategy%2Blatin%2Bamerica&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_SYC-5187_SYC-5188%2Ftest&refreqid=fastly-default%3A7bf05c84ca45f9334d2d448929e6c11e&seq=12#metadata_info_tab_contents Hal Brands, 2012
-grand strategy involves synchronizing means and ends at the highest level of national policy (British military historian, Sir Basil Liddell Hart) (2) -The best an analyst can do is to strive for a definition that is, in the strategic theorist Colin Gray's phrasing, "right enough." That is, the definition "does not have to meet any and every objection, but it must highlight the core of its subject, and it must not mislead."... "they (policy-makers) are operating in accordance with a more structured and coherent idea of what their nation is out to accomplish in international affairs" (3) -From this intellectual calculus flows policy, the various initiatives—diplomacy, the use of force, and others—through which states interact with foreign governments and peoples. At its best, then, grand strategy represents an integrated conception of interests, threats, resources, and policies.(4) ITS IMPORTANCE -A coherent grand strategy is fundamental to successful statecraft for several reasons. The first of these has to do with the inevitable gap between resources and interests. (7) -Second, even if great powers can avoid this resource dilemma, the diversity of their interests risks exposing them to distraction and confusion. Great powers—superpowers especially—often have interests in nearly every region of the world, and find themselves dealing with dozens of foreign policy issues from day to day. Even if it were possible to address all of these issues on a case-by-case basis, the various solutions would inevitably come into conflict with one another (so should we even really focus on it that much? how much of a threat is it currently??) (8) -"A coherent grand strategy, by contrast, offers what one scholar calls a "conceptual center of gravity," an ability to keep fundamental interests squarely in view in dealing with a range of complex and often contradictory demands" (8) !!!!!!! -defining and prioritizing interests and threats, understanding the extent and limits of a state's capabilities—can provide statesmen with the basic conceptual backdrop against which to formulate a response (9) -
KW: overarching nat'l interest
An overarching national interest in the region is without a doubt trade. Latin America & Caribbean imports from the United States worth US$ 314,055 million, with a partner share of 32.02 percent. The US relies on Latin America for the exports of oil, minerals and other natural resources, and several intermediate and capital goods. In return, the US's biggest exports are machinery, mineral fuels, vehicles, plastics and food (processed and unprocessed). Both the exports and imports are essential to both regions, so upkeep of trade relations is essential. I believe that trade relations should be taking a much more business-like "Hamiltonian" approach, open markets and free trade, and not much other intervention which could harm relationships between the US and Latin America.
COVID in Latin America https://coronavirus.tghn.org/regional-response/latin-america/ The Global Health Network, 2020
COVID 19: The region has over 10.4million cases which is about 26% of cases worldwide and 379,000 deaths about 34% of deaths worldwide. According to a study conducted by the U.N. after the pandemic an estimated 45 million people will move into poverty in the region. Living on less than one dollar a day. -As of November, LAC remains the world´s COVID-19 hotspot, along with Asia. Cases exceed 12.1 million, and deaths have surpassed 425,000, accounting for over 33% of the world´s total deaths. With a wide variation across countries, the two most populous nations, Brazil and Mexico, have seen the highest number of deaths
KW: current policy in the region; working or not
Certain policy issues have recently heightened tensions between the United States and Latin America: isolationist and protectionist immigration and trade policies, the reversal of the Cuban thaw, and the Trump administration's return to a more militant War on Drugs, while others have remained fairly constant over time. Nicolas Maduro (mentioned above), the death of Fidel Castro in 2016 and other governance "issues" in the region. The US has previously intervened in situations of the like, but it is up for debate what will continue to happen. In terms of trade, certains treaties and agreements are always in motion. I know I need to do more research on trade relations, I know it is mutually beneficial and an important flow, however I don't really know enough about if agreements are effective. Trump has withdrawn from the TPP, renegotiated/criticized NAFTA, and signed onto USMCA (with Mexico and Canada). In terms of immigration, Trump has built about 110 miles of his promised 500 mile wall, and Mexico still isn't "paying for it" as he swore they would. With an election coming up, it will be interesting to see how Biden handles the "wall" issue, or Trump if he is re-elected. Unfortunately, undocumented immigrants have been being deported for years, but on the contrary, the custody of immigrants under ICE and CBP is less than humane and demands reform.
War on Drugs atm https://thecrimereport.org/2020/12/09/u-s-needs-smarter-drug-strategy-in-latin-america-commission/
First, the report recommends that the State Department develop and lead an interagency effort to counter transnational criminal organizations and lower the supply of illegal drugs from other countries. Specifically, the State Department should - in collaboration with U.S. Agency for International Agency, federal law enforcement agencies, and the Department of Defense - devise five-year international drug control strategies. To do so, the State Department requires flexible funding and the authority to dispense emergency funds to assist foreign governments, according to the report. Second, the drug certification and designation process should be replaced with more effective mechanisms to evaluate the efforts of other governments and sanction those who stand idly by. For example, the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs should review country efforts to reduce drug trafficking and determine whether existing U.S. sanctions are effective. Third, U.S. ambassadors should devise multi-year agreements with foreign governments that outline shared goals to fight organized crime, strengthen criminal justice institutions, and reduce corruption. The report's fourth and fifth recommendations are to have the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy provide data-driven assessments of domestic and foreign counter-narcotics efforts and to ensure that the U.S. Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network has ample resources to investigate financial crimes, respectively. The Commission believes that these recommendations lay the foundation for a "cost-effective, interagency strategy with carefully targeted policies to curb the flow of dangerous drugs into the United States while addressing institutional weaknesses in drug producing and transit countries." The commissioners agreed that curbing the illicit trade of narcotics was unlikely to be successful without addressing the huge market for addictive drugs in North America. -
COVID relief and allocated budgets https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R46514.pdf Congressional Research Service, December 2020
H.R. 7608 would provide $519.9million to address the underlying factors driving irregular migration from Central America, whereas the Senate Appropriations Committee's draft bill would provide $505.9million; the Administration requested $376.9 million. H.R. 7608 would provide $457.3million to support the peace process and security and development efforts in Colombia, whereas the SenateAppropriations Committee's draft bill would provide $455.4 million; the Administration requested $412.9 million. H.R. 7608 would provide $159.9million to support security and rule-of-law efforts in Mexico,whereasthe Senate Appropriations Committee's draft billwould provide $157.9 million; the Administration requested $63.8 million. H.R. 7608 would provide $30 million to promote democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela, whereas the Senate Appropriations Committee's draft bill would provide $35 million for Venezuela; the Administration requested $205 million. As Congress continues the appropriations process, it may consider how to respond to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on Latin American and the Caribbean and whether to provide additional assistance to the region beyond the $141 million allocated as of August 2020
KW: significance to US Foreign Policy
I am choosing Latin America. As a region very close to the United States, there are strong ties but also stark differences. The governments, economies, lifestyles and resources in Latin America differ greatly from those in the US, however it also promotes a fruitful trade relationship, which must be preserved through positive interactions and diplomacy. There is also a certain source of urgency to the Foreign Policy issues in Laitn America. In the Trump Administration, immigration and trade have been at the forefront of the news, and with an election coming up, it is important to note the current issues. Especially with Trump's attitude towards other nations (and especially his hostility towards Mexicans), I am interested to see how Diplomatic relationships are occurring as a result of his actions. As well, The US and other nations comment on Venezuela's President, Nicolas Maduro, who is debatably an autocrat. While there is debate about whether or not the US should intervene, there is also a contradiction to be noted about intervening in Venezuela while Trump is deporting them and not granting a temporary protected status. In other Latin American countries, their governments are also not democracies, which I know the US (and Democratic states alike) see as a threat. Concerning the election, there is also a set of bipartisan issues to consider, which we noted in class unfortunately tend to attach their stances to parties. Whether or not the American general public invests themselves in Foreign Policy issues will be interesting (and potentially terrifying!) to watch. Therefore, the combination of the issues regarding immigration, the War on Drugs, and nation building/intervention as a result of their governments are all issues pertinent to US Foreign Policy.
