THE EFFECTS OF THE WAR ON TERROR ON U.S. AND LATIN AMRERICAN SECURITY POLICIES. A thesis presented to. the faculty of

THE EFFECTS OF THE WAR ON TERROR ON U.S. AND LATIN AMRERICAN SECURITY POLICIES A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Jessica L. Giffin August 2007

This thesis titled THE EFFECTS OF THE WAR ON TERROR ON U.S. AND LATIN AMERICAN SECURITY POLICIES by JESSICA L. GIFFIN has been approved for the Department of Political Science and the College of Arts and Sciences by Hector Perla Jr. Assistant Professor of Political Science Benjamin M. Ogles Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

Abstract JESSICA L. GIFFIN., M.A., August 2007, Political Science THE EFFECTS OF THE WAR ON TERROR ON U.S. AND LATIN AMERICAN SECURITY POLICIES (117 pp.) Director ofthesis: Hector Perla Jr. What effect has the War on Terror had on U.S. and Latin American security policies? Has the War on Terror impacted only the discourse regarding U.S. security policies with Latin America or has it actually altered policy implementation? This thesis argues that the War on Terror has changed the discourse surrounding its policies with Latin America but has not altered its policy implementation. This thesis examines this question by testing two policies, one with Colombia and the other with Mexico. Plan Colombia and immigration are analyzed prior to and after September 11. To determine whether or not the discourse regarding these policies has changed, a content analysis of ial speeches between 1996 and 2006 is performed. In order to ascertain any changes in policy implementation due to the War on Terror, changes in appropriations and the how government money was being spent was utilized. Approved: Hector Perla Jr. Assistant Professor of Political Science

4 Table of Contents Page ABSTRACT...3 LIST OF TABLES...6 LIST OF FIGURES...7 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...8 HYPOTHESIS AND METHODOLOGY...9 FRAMES FOR CONTENT ANALYSIS...11 SIGNIFICANCE OF FRAMES IN DISCOURSE...13 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION...17 CONCLUSIONS...18 CHAPTER 2: THEORY AND PREVIOUS LITERATURE...20 THEORY: REALISM VS. CONSTRUCTIVISM...20 LITERATURE ON INTER-AMERICAN RELATIONS...25 CONCLUSIONS...32 CHAPTER 3: COLOMBIAN CASE...34 DISCOURSE OF PLAN COLOMBIA...34 AN ANALYSIS OF U.S. POLICY AND PLAN COLOMBIA...39 CONCLUSION...46 CHAPTER 4: MEXICAN CASE...49 DISCOURSE ON IMMIGRATION...49 AN ANALYSIS OF U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY...52 CONCLUSION...61 CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS...63 REFERENCES 65 APPENDIX A: PRE-9/11 COLOMBIAN CODING FOR NARCOTICS FRAMES...67 APPENDIX B: PRE-9/11 COLOMBIAN CODING FOR COUNTERINSURGENCY FRAMES...73 APPENDIX C: PRE-9/11 COLOMBIAN CODING FOR TERRORISM FRAMES...79 APPENDIX D: POST-9/11 COLOMBIAN CODING FOR NARCOTICS FRAMES...84 APPENDIX E: POST-9/11 COLOMBIAN CODING FOR COUNTERINSURGENCY FRAMES..86 APPENDIX F: POST-9/11 COLOMBIAN CODING FOR TERRORISM FRAMES...88 APPENDIX G: PRE-9/11 MEXICAN CODING FOR JOBS FRAMES...90 APPENDIX H: PRE-9/11 MEXICAN CODING FOR TERRORISM FRAMES...93 APPENDIX I: POST-9/11 MEXICAN CODING FOR JOBS FRAMES...96 APPENDIX J: POST-9/11 MEXICAN CODING FOR TERRORISM FRAMES...99 APPENDIX K: BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SPEECHES FOR COLOMBIAN CONTENT ANALYSIS102 Pre-September 11 th by Clinton...102 Pre-September 11 th by Bush...106

Post-September 11 th by Bush...106 APPENDIX L: BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SPEECHES FOR MEXICAN CONTENT ANALYSIS...109 Pre-September 11 by Clinton...109 Pre-September 11 by Bush...112 Post-September 11 by Bush...113 5

6 List of Tables Tables Page 1.1 Table of Plan Colombia Frames...12 1.2 Table of Border Security Frames...13 3.1 Table of Colombian Content Analysis Results...35 3.2 Table of Colombian Frames over Time...36 3.3 Table of Distribution of Colombian Assistance...42 3.4 Table of Counternarcotics Battalion Support...42 3.5 Table of U.S. Aid to Colombia in Millions of Dollars...44 4.1 Table of Mexican Content Analysis Results...50 4.2 Table of Mexican Frames over Time...51

7 List of Figures Figures Page 4.1 Figure of US Border Patrol Agents, FY 1996-2005...59 4.2 Figure of US Border Patrol Budget, FY 1996-2005...60

8 Chapter 1: Introduction What effect has the War on Terrorism had on the United States security policies with Latin America? The U.S. has always considered its neighbors to the south a vital part of its own security. The Cold War provided a particular context, which justified making Latin America essential in protecting the United States security, and it became the primary reason for the U.S. active involvement in Latin America. Many dictatorships were supported under this pretext. The War on Terror is quickly becoming the new discourse under which all of the United States security policies are explained. Does the current War on Terror mean that the U.S. will now drastically change its security policies with Latin America or is it simply a discursive shift to justify the continuation of the same ongoing policies? This thesis will examine whether it is just the language and framing of U.S. security policies regarding Latin America that has changed, or has the U.S. actually implemented different policies in an effort to combat terrorism. It is evident from the language used by Bush in his National Security Strategy that fighting terrorism has become a huge priority for U.S. security interests. Are the United States security policies for combating terrorism directed exclusively towards the Middle East or will the War on Terror really have an impact on U.S. policies toward Latin America. The National Security Strategy states that the war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise. 1 The National Security Strategy further ties this link of a global enterprise specifically with Latin America when it states that the U.S. has developed an active strategy to help the Andean nations defeat terrorist 1 National Security Strategy of the United States, September 2002. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/pdf, accessed February 8, 2007, p 3.

9 organizations and cut off the supply of drugs. 2 This study will test whether or not the U.S. has actually implemented a change in policy regarding security in Latin America. To examine the difference between the discourse and implementation of U.S. and Latin American security policies before and after the War on Terror, this first chapter explains this study s hypothesis and the methodology that will be used. An outline and description on how this study will analyze the discourse and actual implementation of U.S. security policies will be provided. The second chapter will discuss the two theoretic paradigms, specifically, realism and constructivism that may facilitate explaining and understanding of national security policy. The next two chapters will provide empirical case studies, which will provide answers to the hypothesis. The first case will test for any changes in discourse and implementation in United States Plan Colombia policy and the second case will test for changes with border security with Mexico. The final chapter will chapter will reiterate the finding from this study and discuss the implications for the theory and the study s overall significance. The proceeding section explains how this study will test for changes in discourse and policy implementation. Hypothesis and Methodology There are two aspects where the War on Terror could potentially impact U.S. policy with Latin America, its policy discourse and implementation. I hypothesize that a change in discourse due to the War on Terror frame will not be correlated with a similar change in policy. If this is the case, then empirically the implications are that it is the same old policies and problems being reframed under the guise of the War on Terror. The null hypothesis would occur if there were either no change in discourse or a change 2 Ibid, 7.

10 in the discourse and actual policy implementation. This would suggest that the War on Terror has had no impact on U.S. policies with Latin America or that both the language and implementation of U.S. security policies will be different due to the War on Terror. The implications of this outcome are that the U.S. believes that there are truly new security problems that need to be dealt with in Latin America. I expect that there will be a greater change in rhetoric regarding U.S. policy towards Latin America then actual policy implementation. To test this hypothesis, I will do a comparative historical analysis of the United States discourse and policy before and after September 11 th in two Latin American countries, Colombia and Mexico. I have chosen a specific security policy for each case study and will perform a content analysis on speeches, remarks, and press conferences by the United States regarding each policy prior to and after September 11 th. The content analysis will determine whether or not there has been a change in or framing of the United States policy due to the War on Terror. After analyzing the discourse of U.S. security policy, this study will test to see if there has been a change in policy implementation by analyzing some of the major legislation and fund allocation for each security policy for both case studies. For the Colombian case, I will examine Plan Colombia and the Andean Regional Initiative. This case was chosen because it is a major security policy that the United States has promoted with Latin America. Plan Colombia was drafted and developed prior to the War on Terror and yet is still a priority post-september 11 th. The U.S. efforts with Plan Colombia have also attracted some attention over concerns regarding narco-

11 terrorists. 3 Colombia provides an interesting case where the U.S. has potentially altered its policies in order to combat terrorism. The United States concern over border security and immigration with Mexico also provides an interesting case to test whether the U.S. has altered its policies due to the War on Terror. Border security and immigration with Mexico is another U.S.-Latin American policy that existed prior to September 11 th and continues to be an issue. The summer of 2006, immigration and border security received quite a bit of attention and the discussion included the concerns regarding terrorists entering the U.S. via Mexico. 4 U.S. border security and immigration policies with Mexico could also be potentially affected by the War on Terror. Both the policies in the Colombia and the Mexico case exist during each time period examined in this study and has the potential to be greatly impacted by the War on Terror frame. Frames for Content Analysis In Colombia, I will examine Plan Colombia and I expect that this policy was originally framed towards the War on Drugs. The content analysis will demonstrate whether or not there has been a shift in this policy s framing and discourse if the frame shifts more towards the War on Terror. I will perform a content analysis on all the speeches, press conferences, and remarks that the United States made 3 See Sharon Behn, Colombia envoy fears cuts to antidrug cash, The Washington Times, 17 July 2003, A17. Bryan Bender, Trained by US, Colombia Unit Gains Reports Successes against Guerrillas, The Boston Globe, 5 May 2003, A1. Juan Forero, Safe guarding Colombia s Oil, The New York Times, 22 October 2004, W1. Howard LaFranchi, US poised to take terror war to Colombia, The Christian Science Monitor, 31 May 2002, 8. Rowan Scarborough, Colombia rebels not in cards, The Washington Times, 29 March 2004, A06. 4 See Karen Hastings and Julia Preston, Threat of Terrorist Crossings is Stressed at Border Hearing, The New York Times, 8 July 2006, A1 10. Lara Jakes Jordan, Senate votes to bolster border security, The Associated Press State & Local Wire, 13 July 2006. Eric Lipton, Congress Passes Major Security Measures, The New York Times, 15 September 2006, A1 19.

12 regarding Plan Colombia between the years 1996 to 2006. I ve selected several words that will indicate either a narcotics frame or a terrorism frame. A change in the amount of narcotics words versus terrorism per speech will suggest whether or not a change in discourse has occurred regarding U.S. security policies in Colombia. I also included a third category of frames, which indicates that the Plan Colombia aid is utilized for alleviating civil conflict in Colombia. Table 1.1 shows the list of words or phrases assigned to each frame used in the analysis. Table 1.1 Narcotics Civil War Terrorism Plan Colombia Frames drug, heroine, cocaine, narcotics, narco-trafficker, counter-drug, and counter narcotics civil unrest, civil war, civil conflict, armed conflict, civil disturbance, guerrilla war, and illegal armed groups terror, terrorist, terrorism, counterterrorism, War on Terror, terrorize, and killers The speeches were selected first based upon the time period of 1996 to 2006. Speeches from 1996 to 2003 were from the Government Printing Office search engine. Any speech that returned containing Colombia in its body or title was used in the content analysis. Speeches from 2003 to 2006 were from the White House search engine and all speeches that contain Colombia were also used. Each time period was analyzed separately for what percentage of the speeches were framed towards narcotics, civil war, or terrorism. For example, pre-september 11 th speeches could be framed 10% towards civil war, 10% towards terrorism, and 80% towards narcotics. Post-September 11 th

13 would also be analyzed separately to determine what percent of its total speeches were framed towards narcotics or terrorism. In the case of Mexico, I will be performing a similar content analysis but on the policy of border control. ial speeches regarding Mexico and immigration will be analyzed as well but I will focus on a shift from words indicating a job frame versus a terrorism frame. I expect that border security and immigration was originally framed predominately towards securing U.S. jobs for Americans. However, I will test whether or not after September 11 th this policy shifted its framing towards combating terrorism. The speeches were selected in the same manner as in the case of Colombia, except any speech that contained Mexico and immigration was used in the analysis. Table 1.2 lists the words or phrases used in the content analysis for the Mexican case for each of its frames. Table 1.2 Jobs Terrorism Border Security Frames jobs, economy, employment, work, workers, working, employers, employees, unemployment, workplace, and employ terrorism, War on Terror, terrorist, terror, counter-terror, terrorize, bioterrorism, anti-terrorist, anti-terrorism, counterterrorism, and war against terrorism Significance of Frames in Discourse In order to understand the significance in a change of framing from narcotics to terrorism in U.S. discourse regarding Colombia or jobs to terrorism in Mexico, we must comprehend frames and it significance. Frames demonstrate the influence communication

14 and information have over human consciousness. Robert Entman provides a clear, concise, and general description of frames and how they work. For Entman, there are two important functions involved in framing: selection and salience. He states that to frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such as way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described. 5 This definition of a frame suggests that the U.S. government uses language and text to make certain problems more salient by using the War on Terrorism frame. This can alter how problems are perceived and the types of solutions and/or policies that are developed because they are understood in a different frame. Gamson and Modigliani define a frame as a central organizing idea for making sense of relevant events and suggesting what is at issue. 6 Understanding frames are essential when analyzing changes in security policies because it is important to know what context the problem exists and how real the threat is perceived to suggest new policies. Nelson and Kinder suggest that it is leaders, elites, and the media that frames issues by shaping the understanding of the sources of the problem and develops possible solutions. 7 While the media and elites often have the greatest control over frames, they too can be affected by their own frames when understanding a problem. 5 Robert M. Entman, Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm, Journal of Communication 43 (1993): 52. 6 William A. Gamson and Andre Modigliani, Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology 95 (1989): 3. 7 Thomas E. Nelson and Donald R. Kinder, Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion, Journal of Politics 58 (1996): 1055.

15 Entman provides an excellent example of how exactly framing works by using the Cold War. He uses this example to demonstrate his definition and it incorporates a source of a problem, a moral judgment, and the preference of a particular solution. The frame of the Cold War emphasized certain events, particularly civil wars. The source of the problem for these civil wars under a Cold War frame is communists. Communism provides a moral judgment that they are atheist aggressors and the preferred solution is to have the United States favor and support the other sides. 8 This specific example is seen in several Latin American revolutions, including Colombia. Framing, particularly issue framing, can affect the importance the public, media, and elites attach to particular beliefs, according to Nelson and Oxley. 9 If there exists currently a dominate framing of the War of Terror, then this frame can influence individuals to believe that the greatest security threat today is terrorism. This idea is demonstrated in the research done by Nelson, Clawson, and Oxley who tested the level of tolerance people had for the Ku Klux Klan when they changed the frame. Their research showed that people had a greater concern for public order when given that frame then tolerance for the Klan when given the free speech frame. They found that issue frames can change and affect public opinion by selectively increasing the psychological importance, relevance, or weight accorded to specific beliefs regarding the issue at hand. However, Nelson, Clawson, and Oxley argue that frames may determine what the leading concerns are but its greatest contribution to opinion is determining which has the greatest 8 Entman, 52. 9 Thomas E. Nelson and Zoe M. Oxley, Issue Framing Effects on Belief Importance and Opinion, The Journal of Politics 61 (1999): 1041.

16 priority. 10 September 11 th provides a frame of putting combating terrorism as a top priority. Frames not only emphasize certain aspects of events and problems but it can also direct attention away from other aspects. This can also have immense implications when deciding which problems require the greatest amount of attention and when developing new policies and solutions. There is the possibility that the War on Terror frame is directing attention from fight narcotics in Colombia or terrorism is becoming a greater priority in Colombia. Frames can have tremendous effects on policy development and its support. The Cold War frame provided a particular understanding on how to handle certain problems. Under this frame communism was the greatest threat and the solution to dealing with this problem included stopping the spread of communism by becoming involved in several civil wars in Latin America. Without this frame, the U.S. might have constructed a very different understanding of the problem and any possible solutions. The War on Terror provides a similar dilemma by framing much of the U.S. foreign policy, especially security policies, towards combating terrorism. This study will see what effect framing U.S. security policies with Colombia and Mexico toward combating terrorism has had on policy discourse and implementation. Understanding the impact framing can have on promoting particular security policies, we must now explore how a change in policy implementation will be tested and its implications. 10 Thomas E. Nelson, Rosalee A. Clawson, and Zoe M. Oxley, Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance, American Political Science Review 91 (1997): 567-583.

17 Policy Implementation Next, I will examine if there is a change in actual policy implementation. If I conclude that there is a change in discourse and that U.S. security policies regarding Plan Colombia and border control have shifted towards terrorism, I will also see if the policies and money reflects this change in language. I will compare the original aid package for Plan Colombia and see if the there have been any major changes in how the money is being spent and directed. The kind of changes I expect to see as confirmation that the U.S. is focusing on combating terrorism is an increase in military spending and a decrease in efforts towards coca eradication. An analysis of general U.S. security policies in Colombia will also be provided to see if the U.S. is stepping up is efforts to combat terrorism in Colombia. The changes in policy action and implementation before and after September 11 th will demonstrate whether or not the U.S. is altering its security policies in Colombia in an effort to combat terrorism. In order to ascertain whether or not the U.S. has refocused its immigration policy and border security policy with Mexico towards preventing terrorists from entering the country, I will examine some of the major immigration legislation during each period to assess any changes in the various elements of the legislation and changes in the allocation of funds. I will compare the major immigration legislation passed during both the Clinton and Bush administrations to see if there are any major changes in the methods to preventing illegal immigration and how the money is being allocated. The type of changes I expect to see as confirmation that the U.S. is focused on preventing terrorist from entering the country is an increase in spending on new machines to detect

18 explosives, nuclear weapons, and an increase in personnel. This paper will examine the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, and the appropriations for the fiscal year of 1996 to determine the U.S. immigration policy prior to September 11 th and how the United States was spending its money towards those policies. The USA PATRIOT Act, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Act, and the Secure Fence Act will be examined for any shifts in policy towards terrorism after September 11 th. This thesis will also examine the level of Border Patrol agents prior to and after September 11 th and also explore how the Border Patrol budget has changed. The changes in policy action and implementation before and after September 11 th will demonstrate whether or not the U.S. is altering its security policies with Mexico in an effort to combat terrorism. Conclusions This research will explore how framing and language is used by U.S. government to justify Latin American security policies and whether the discursive shift towards terrorism has also been accompanied by a change in actual policy or has its implementation remained the same. In the case of Colombia, I hypothesize that this study will reveal that United States Plan Colombia remains a continuation of counterinsurgency policy based on the types of actions it calls for and the amount of funds being allocated. I hypothesize that Mexico s border control and immigration policy will also show that the U.S. has not developed any new border control strategies to prevent terrorists from illegally entering the country. The implications of this study are

19 that the U.S. is merely explaining all of their foreign policy in this terrorism frame but not actually changing its policies with Latin America. The following chapter will explore further some of the theory and literature regarding U.S. and Latin American security policies. The literature and theory will provide a clearer understanding on how and why policy discourse could be different from its implementation.

20 Chapter 2: Theory and Previous Literature Before answering what possible effects the War on Terror has had with U.S. and Latin American security policies, this chapter will examine some of the theory and literature which applies to this question. First, a brief look at the possible insights, if any, that realism and constructivism can provide when examining this question will be given. This chapter will also explore what possible role does frames play? After providing a brief background on the international relations theory utilized, a review of the literature that has examined U.S. and Latin American relations regarding security policies will be provided. Theory: Realism vs. Constructivism Realism is one of the major theories in international relations; however, what insights can it provide regarding the effects of the War on Terror on U.S. and Latin American security policies. One of the principal realists, Morgenthau, gives his theory of foreign policy, which explains how and why states act and behave they way they do. His theory leads to the Waltz s development of his own understanding of the international system. Morgenthau develops six principles of realism; the most significant to this study is his second principle, which argues that statesmen and state think in interest defined in power. This assumption is critical to realist thinking. This rules out the possibility of motives and ideological preferences as alternatives for explaining states actions and provides rationality. 11 The idea that a state s actions and behavior is entirely based on the 11 Hans J. Morgenthau and Kenneth W. Thompson, Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Alfred-a-Knopf, 1985):3-10.

21 sole interest of power has immense implications for our understanding of U.S. actions regarding its security policies with Latin America. This means that neither motives nor ideology influences the decisions of statesmen. Waltz took many of the elements discussed by Morgenthau but with different results. Structure is everything to Waltz s neorealism and political structures are defined by their ordering principle, specification of functions by differentiated units, and distribution of capabilities. 12 Questions on structure deal with how the parts of the system are arranged. The ordering principle focuses on this structural question. Domestic systems are centralized and hierarchic while international systems are decentralized and anarchic. This means that the structure of the international system lacks a sovereign who rules over states. How the units function is the second aspect of structure. Domestic systems possess a differentiation of function. This means that states possess parts of their country that specialize in certain aspects rather then every area being excellent at producing everything. There exists a division of labor in domestic systems. An example of this in the United States is Washington D.C. specializes in government while Idaho produces potatoes. They do not try and do both. The same cannot be said for international systems. States are like units due to anarchy because states cannot afford to specialize. 13 Since the international system is anarchic and lacks differentiation of function between its units, the most important aspect is the distribution of capabilities. The 12 Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979), 79-99. 13 Kenneth Waltz, The Anarchic Structure of World Politics, in International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues, ed. Robert Art and Robert Jervis (New York: Pearson Longman, 2005), 32-37.

22 distribution of capabilities across the units is a systemic concept rather then simply an attribute of the units. Capabilities do not include ideology or form of government because power is only projected by comparing the distribution of capabilities. 14 Waltz s definition of power is one aspect that differs from Morgenthau s claim that power is man over man. For Waltz, power is an attribute while the distribution of capabilities determines which unit possesses that power. If power is defined solely as capabilities then this would have serious implications on the motives and objectives behind the United States security policies with Latin America. Realism not only defines and limits power to material capabilities, but it also provides a structural, systemic explanation as to why states focus on national security. Since states are like units and exist in anarchy, it creates a system of self-help. This forces states to worry about their own survival and this affects their behavior. 15 One behavioral change due to this self-help system is that it forces states to be concerned with the division of possible gains. If power is the division of military and economic capabilities, then states are constantly worried that cooperation may divide the gains in another state s favor. This pushes states to be more independent and strive to not specialize. 16 Waltz captures this idea of state behavior by stating that their imperial thrusts to widen the scope of their control and their autarchic strivings toward greater self-sufficiency. 17 What does this mean for U.S. and Latin American security policies? 14 Ibid, 38. 15 Waltz, Theory of International Politics, 105. 16 Ibid, 106. 17 Ibid.

23 If taking a realist approach, this would suggest that all of the United States aims with its security policies are to receive a better portion of the divided gains and to improve and widen their control over Latin America. The U.S. is focused on national security because the international system is anarchic. This explains why issues such as drug control, border security, and immigration are all viewed as vital national security concerns. However, what if power is more then just material capabilities and what if states have greater control under an anarchical system? For constructivists, power is more then just capabilities and anarchy is what states make of it. 18 Wendt may agree with Waltz s conclusions that the international system is anarchical but that this predicts nothing about state behavior. There is more to how states interact then simply self-help. Self-help is merely one of the intersubjective structures which provide assumptions about the structure of states identities and interests. 19 It is these structures which provide the predictive property to Waltz s definition. How a state will act or behave towards another state or actor depends upon the meanings that the objects or actors have for them. A state will respond differently towards a friend then a foe. It is not enough to determine the difference from anarchy and distribution of capabilities alone. The distribution of power may always affect states calculations, but how it does so depends on the intersubjective understandings and expectations, on the distribution of knowledge that constitute their conceptions of self and other. 20 How 18 Alexander Wendt, Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics, International Organization 46 (Spring, 1992). 19 Wendt, 396. 20 Ibid, 397.

24 states view themselves and others and the rules and norms of the international system dictates their behavior. In the case of the U.S. and Latin America, it is not enough to say that the U.S. is viewing immigration and drugs as national security concerns because the system of selfhelp. However, self-help may be part of the intersubjective meaning that exists between the U.S. and Latin America. Realism would predict that the War on Terror has change U.S. security policies with Latin America and that the change in discourse is merely a reflection of this change in policy. Constructivism, however, is able to explain and explore possible reasons as to why discourse and policy implementation could be different. There is an overall limitation with international relations theory when addressing this research question. Neither realism nor constructivism addresses this research question. Realists do not examine discourse nor do they examine foreign policy formation. However, constructivism is open to the possibility of discourse and policy being divergent, while realism is not. What purpose would a change in discourse serve and what role do frames play? Typically frames are changed to legitimize a policy. This is clear if we look at how others have defined framing as to occur when, in the course of describing an issue or event, a speaker s emphasis on a subset of potentially relevant considerations causes individuals to focus on these considerations when constructing their opinion. 21 If policy makers are trying to legitimize a new policy then they will construct new frames in order 21 James N. Druckman, On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who can Frame? The Journal of Politics 63 (2001), 1042.

25 to emphasize what they consider the relevant aspects of the new policy. However, what if policy makers are not using frames to legitimize new policies but rather are strategically manipulating frames for political reasons? A change in how the discourse is framed without a change in policy might suggest that perhaps the new frame is not to legitimize but to manipulate. Perhaps policymakers are using frightening frames or words regarding old policies in order to manipulate the public, to receive greater support for an old policy that did not have much support, or to give the policymakers more room to take greater actions. While this thesis is arguing that the War on Terror has not altered U.S. security policies only the language with Latin America, other researchers, however, have developed similar and different conclusions. Literature on Inter-American Relations This study makes the argument that policy makers are re-framing old policies for political manipulation. However, some of the following literature that will be examined suggests that U.S. security policies are determined based upon the U.S. hegemonic drive. Others have also concluded that the War on Terror has not really altered U.S. policies with Latin America. Peter Smith uses a realist understanding of state behavior in detailing U.S. security policies with Latin America. He argues that the U.S. has exerted hegemony over Latin America since the 1950s and he uses Waltz s conception of power in his definition of hegemony. Smith disputes the claims made that the U.S. lost it dominance or hegemony over Latin America during the Cold War. Smith asserts that U.S. policies with Latin America have always been a reflection of U.S. national interests, which have been

26 based upon U.S. hegemony over the Western Hemisphere. If one defines hegemony as complete control over the political occurrences within the hemisphere, then the claims that U.S. regional hegemony has declined during the Cold War would be accurate. However, Smith states that U.S. hegemony over the region is evident by examining the distribution of capabilities, particularly when examining the differences in gross domestic product (GDP) and investment levels. 22 He does not dispute that fact that the degree to which the United States has been able to exert its influence on Latin America has changed over time. The distribution of economic capabilities provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate U.S. hegemony over the region. The United States GDP and overwhelming economic influence on Latin America demonstrates its continuous hegemony in Western Hemisphere and provides insight into its political objectives with Latin America regarding security policies. According to Smith s research, the United States GDP was five times lager then that of Latin America overall in 1990. Its GDP was 58 times greater then Argentina, 13 times larger then Brazil, and 23 times that of Mexico during the same year. 23 The U.S. was Latin America s greatest trading partner by 1990 and had the greatest amount of investment in the region, totaling 22 billion dollars. This was twice the amount from Europe and Japan, Latin America s next greatest trading partners. 24 It is this economic dominance based on GDP and investment levels which demonstrates to Smith that the distribution of capabilities is in the United States favor and hence still hegemonic. 22 Peter H. Smith, Talons of the Eagle: Dynamics of U.S.-Latin American Relations, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000): 234. 23 Ibid, 235. 24 Ibid.

27 Smith defines and explains US and Latin American relations based upon the character of the international system, in which a state s policies are dictated upon its interests. 25 According to Waltz, the anarchic structure makes a states primary objective or interest is to achieve hegemony. Hegemony requires power and power is defined by the distribution of capabilities. 26 If the U.S. has achieved hegemonic status within the region, as Smith suggests, then according to realism, the United States policies with Latin America would reflect maintaining hegemony. The War on Terror would not alter this objective and influence U.S. security policies with Latin America. Smith does not directly test to see what affects the War on Terror, but he comes to the same conclusion as Brian Loveman who does examine the specific effects on U.S. security policies with Latin America. Loveman argues that the 1990s has brought about putting many transnational issues, such as drugs, immigration, terrorism, and arms trafficking into national security concerns for the United States. Loveman does not find any real change in prioritizing these transnational issues as security concerns post-september 11 th. This sentiment is clear when Loveman asks: When did urban gangs in Latin America become threats to U.S. national security rather than law enforcement problems? Was the transformation the result - that is, blowback - from U.S. regional security policies since the 1980s? When did the drug traffickers and the guerrillas (who have operated since the 1960s in Colombia) become narco-terrorists? Was this largely the result of rhetorical and ideological spin by U.S. policy makers? 27 Loveman examines the words of the United States official defense and security policy towards Latin America, particularly within the Andean region since the 1990s. Loveman 25 Ibid, 5-7. 26 Waltz, The Anarchic Structure of World Politics, 38. 27 Brian Loveman, Addicted to Failure: U.S. Security Policy in Latin America and the Andean Region, (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2006): xxii.

28 argues that the distinction between domestic and foreign policies became less clear even prior to the War on Terror. After examining the various official U.S. policy documents, Loveman doesn t believe there is any drastic change in the United States security policies with Latin America. For Loveman, there is a shift in policy but its evident post-cold War. The end of the Cold War develops this focus on transnational issues and puts them in a security context. 28 Loveman notes an 1995 Department of Defense (DoD) report on the U.S. security strategy for the Americas, which states that the greatest threats to peace, democracy, and prosperity to be internal conflicts, borders disputes, and transnational threats, such as drug trafficking, terrorism, and international crime. 29 Loveman begins to see how the United States agenda for dealing with these problems become more militarized under this security view. The U.S. security agenda for the Western Hemisphere during the 1990s, according to Loveman, had become predominantly the drug wars, international terrorism, stability, and promoting democracy, supplemented by the commitment to trade liberalization and opportunities for private enterprise. 30 The policy agenda for Latin America has been clearly militarized and securitized for Loveman due to the involvement of the DoD s active involvement in drug eradication. 31 The militaristic approach to transnational problems becomes salient with the development of Plan Colombia at the end of the Clinton administration. Loveman suggests that 28 Brian Loveman, U.S. Security Policies in Latin America and the Andean Region, in Addicted to Failure: U.S. Security Policy in Latin America and the Andean Region, ed. Brian Loveman, (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2006): 2-4. 29 Ibid, 6. 30 Ibid, 10. 31 Ibid.

original intent of eradicating drugs with Plan Colombia had become strangely focused on 29 counter-insurgency and militaristic. 32 Fighting terrorism and a more militaristic approach to dealing with these transnational concerns is evident during the 1990s prior to the War on Terror. 33 Loveman merely sees more of the same after the War on Terror. The latest articulation of the U.S. security agenda for the region after September 11 th was at an Organization of the Americas conference in 2003. Loveman describes terrorism, transnational organized crime, drugs, poverty, social exclusion, trafficking of people, and access or use of weapons of mass destruction as the new threats to security in the region that are addressed at this conference. For Loveman, most of these were hardly new but a continuation of securitization. 34 Perhaps the only change in the language of the official U.S. policy is the blending of the War on Drugs with the War on Terror in the case of Colombia. One example of this provided by Loveman was a 2002 testimony in the U.S. Senate by Major General Gary Speer, who was the commander in chief of the U.S. Southern Command. Loveman quotes Speer saying, the FARC is a terrorist organization that conducts violent terrorist attacks to undermine the security and stability of Colombia, financed by its involvement in every aspect of drug cultivation, production and transportation. 35 This is just one of the many examples Loveman provides where an official is directly linking drugs with the global war on terrorism in the discourse. Overall, Loveman finds several examples of the War on Terror impacting the 32 Ibid, 11-13. 33 Ibid, 6-14. 34 Ibid, 16. 35 Ibid, 19.

30 discourse in U.S. official policy and statements made by U.S. government officials regarding U.S. security policies with Colombia. Loveman s analysis does not really demonstrate any effects the War on Terror on U.S. security policy implementation but some change in the discourse. Loveman argues that the security policies the U.S. has focused on with Latin America has been primarily transnational issues and that their approach in dealing with these concerns has been through military means. Loveman questions the need for securitizing these transnational issues and even doubts that they are truly security concerns. While Loveman argues that the War on Terror is merely a continuation of counter-insurgency, others have suggested that the global war on terrorism had provided necessary justification for the U.S. to directly fight against counter-insurgents. Eduardo Pizarro and Pilar Gaitán examine U.S. security policies specifically with the case of Colombia. They looked at the similarities and changes between Clinton s Plan Colombia and Bush s Andean Regional Initiative (ARI). Pizarro and Gaitán do not find much difference in the actual dollar amounts of aid toward Colombia and both Plan Colombia and the ARI are primarily focused on military aid. 36 However, the most significant change due to the War on Terror was that military aid for Colombia could now be used for counter-insurgency. Counterinsurgency and counternarcotics was no longer attempting to be separate but united under the War on Terror context. 37 For Pizarro and Gaitán, the War on Terror made it possible for the U.S. to 36 Eduardo Pizarro and Pilar Gaitán, Plan Colombia and the Andean Regional Initiative: Lights and Shadows, in Addicted to Failure: U.S. Security Policy in Latin America and the Andean Region, ed. Brian Loveman, (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2006): 64-68. 37 Ibid, 69.

31 officially enact security policies it was already attempting unofficially. Pizarro and Gaitán reach these conclusions only through the Colombian case, but others have found a change in U.S. and Latin American security policies due to the War on Terror. Luis Fernando Ayerbe examines the hemispheric agendas of both Clinton and Bush and finds some similarities and major differences post- September 11 th. He focuses on various Summits of Americas meetings between 1994 and 2005 and analyzes to see what were the primary goals, objectives, and themes for the hemisphere. 38 Ayerbe doesn t focus specifically on the security policies; however security issues were clearly discussed. In looking at security issues specifically, Ayerbe looks at the U.S. Department of State Strategic Plan for 2000 and the State Department and USAID Strategic Plan for 2004-2009. Reducing terrorists attacks is mention in the 2000 document but only under the national interest of law enforcement. The post-9/11 document mentions finding, deterring, and catching terrorists, preventing terrorist financing, and working together internationally to prevent and respond to terrorism. 39 It is clear that Ayerbe views that there is a shift in the hemispheric agenda when he states, an important change of emphasis is verified in relation to the degree of danger in the new forms of conflict. Different from the Strategic Plan 2000, that underlines the absence of immediate and vital threats to national security, there is, on the part of the government of Bush, a growing overexcitement of terrorism as an existential enemy. 40 However, Ayerbe, much like Loveland, acknowledges that even during the Clinton 38 Luis Fernando Ayerbe, The Summits of the Americas: Continuities and Changes in the Hemisphere Agenda of William Clinton and George W. Bush, in The Bush Doctrine and Latin America, ed. Gary Prevost and Carlos Oliva Campos (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007): 67. 39 Ibid, 80-83. 40 Ibid, 83.

32 administration there was a molding of domestic and foreign issues when he states, in addition to regional security issues, an array of threats weapons proliferation, terrorism, ethnic and religious conflict, organized crime, drug trafficking, and environmental degradation challenges U.S. interests and blurs the traditional dividing lines between domestic and foreign affairs. 41 Ayerbe s statement coincides with the view articulated by Loveland that even during the 1990s prior to 9/11 that old domestic issues were being viewed as international security concerns. Conclusions Overall, some of the literature suggests that the War on Terror has not really affected U.S. security policies with Latin America while others have argued that it has pushed policies into new territory. Have the United States and Latin American security policies remained the same despite the War on Terror because of the continuing interest of the United States to maintain its hegemony? Has the United States been striving for a militaristic approach to solving transnational issues with Latin America prior to the War on Terror? Or, are the United States efforts in Latin America really just a continuation of counterinsurgency, particularly with the Andean region? Perhaps the global war on terrorism has had an impact on the U.S. security policies with Latin America because, after all, Latin America is the United States back yard. However, none of the literature fully tested to see the impact the War on Terror has had on both the discourse the United States uses in its policies and the actually policy implementation. Some of the literature mentioned does look at some of the policy documents and summit meeting but doesn t do a complete analysis to see if the language 41 Ibid, 81.

33 regarding the security policies has truly changed after September 11 th. There also lacks any analysis if and how the security policies have possibly changed due to the War on Terror specifically. This research will add to the literature by examining how both the discourse and the actual policy implementation has been affected by the War on Terror on U.S. and Latin American security policies. The next two chapters will be the Colombia and Mexico cases, which will provide the empirical results demonstrating ideational power. These two chapters will test the effects of the War on Terror on both the discourse and implementation of U.S. security policies with the each country. Both the Colombian and Mexican cases will show that the discourse surrounding drugs and immigration has changed since the War on Terror but that the actions and funding around these policies have not.

34 Chapter 3: Colombian Case This chapter will examine the effects of the War on Terror specifically on Plan Colombia. The section will show whether or not the War on Terror has impacted the discourse regarding Plan Colombia through performing a content analysis. Policy implementation will also be examined to determine whether or not U.S. actions and funding towards Plan Colombia shifted in order to fight terrorism. This chapter will demonstrate that the War on Terror has altered the discourse regarding Plan Colombia but that the policy implementation has always been one of counterinsurgency. It will become evident that the War on Drugs became linked to the War on Terror to further suggest by policy makers that fighting drugs is a national security concern for the United States. Discourse of Plan Colombia In order to see if the War on Terror has any impact on the discourse and way U.S. security policies are framed regarding Colombia, we must first see if there is in fact any change in the language. Specific words or sequence of words used repeatedly can signify a change in the way policies are framed by elites. During the Cold War, U.S. policy frequently related back to fighting against communism and the language used to describe this policy to the public often contained similar words. If there is a significant increase in the number of times terrorism is mentioned regarding U.S. security policies in Colombia, then this could signify a change of focus and framing. Framing has a huge impact on prioritizing policies and goals and if political elites are increasingly discussing terrorism,