KEY QUESTIONS Should the United States make it a priority to strengthen its relationship with Latin America? Should the United States consider Latin American concerns when crafting drug policy? Should the United States make its economic relationship with Latin America more inclusive?
INTRODUCTION The United States shares more than a hemisphere with Latin America. The economies of the two regions are inextricably linked, while most communities in the United States have residents with Central American, South American, or Caribbean heritage. As a result, policymakers in the United States have long recognized the importance of building and maintaining relationships with Latin American nations. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, many Latin American countries endured economic decline, civil wars, brutal military regimes, and communist insurgencies. In an effort to deter the spread of communism, the United States spent years sending economic and military aid to many nations in the region. But by the 1990s, Latin America had transformed dramatically; dictatorships fell, governments held democratic elections, and free-market economies began to emerge. Although extreme poverty and high levels of violence remain, several Latin American economies have continued to expand despite the global economic crisis, while poverty rates have fallen in a number of countries. More than a decade ago, the United States largely shifted its focus from interests in Latin America to the War on Terror in the Middle East. During that time, many Latin American nations built new trade partnerships and became more independent of the United States while others, such as Venezuela, have experienced recent political instability. But U.S. leaders, concerned with losing influence in the region, say they have renewed their commitment to Latin America, and are determined to invest further in the region both diplomatically and economically. BACKGROUND The Monroe Doctrine. For years, the United States has enjoyed close relations with many of its Latin American neighbors to the south. But it was President James Monroe in 1823 who declared what would become a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy regarding Latin America. In his seventh annual message to Congress, President Monroe unveiled what became known as the Monroe Doctrine a policy that sought to establish separate spheres of influence for the Americas and Europe. The Western Hemisphere would be the domain of the United States, and in exchange, the United States would avoid interfering in European political affairs. The American continents are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers, President Monroe said. Decades later in 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt expanded the Monroe Doctrine to include what would become known as the Roosevelt Corollary. Under President Roosevelt s policy, the United States would intervene as a last resort to ensure that other Western Hemisphere nations fulfilled their obligations to international creditors, and did not violate the rights of the United States or invite foreign aggression to the detriment of the entire body of American nations. For decades thereafter, the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary were used by numerous presidents to justify U.S. intervention in Latin American affairs. The Cold War and Crisis in Cuba. Throughout much of the 20th century, U.S. presidents and lawmakers attempted to implement policies in Latin America to contain communism and counteract conditions such as poverty that encouraged communist rebellions. As fears of Soviet influence in Latin America grew, President John F. Kennedy in 1961 initiated the Alliance for Progress, an COPYRIGHT BETTMANN/CORBIS /AP IMAGES President James Monroe established the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, protecting Latin American countries from European colonization. 240 2014 Close Up Foundation 241
aid program that pledged $20 billion in U.S. government grants, loans, and military assistance to Latin American nations. But the Cold War era also saw the deterioration of the United States relationship with Cuba, the small island nation less than 100 miles from the coast of Florida. In 1959, Fidel Castro and his band of guerilla fighters launched the Cuban Revolution, successfully overthrowing the authoritarian government of Cuban President Fulgencio Batista. The United States immediately recognized the new regime, but by 1960 the Castro government was displaying increasingly communist tendencies by seizing private land, nationalizing foreign assets in Cuba, hiking taxes on American imports, and establishing trade deals with the Soviet Union. In response, President Dwight Eisenhower cut off diplomatic ties with the Castro government and imposed a near-full trade embargo on Cuba an embargo that was made permanent and expanded to include full economic and travel restrictions by President Kennedy in 1962. The early 1960s saw the first of multiple President Theodore Roosevelt, pictured here with Vice President Charles Fairbanks, established the Roosevelt Corollary, which led to decade of U.S. military intervention in Latin America. American attempts to overthrow Castro the most notable being the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Under the direction of President Kennedy, the CIA sent a brigade of anti-castro exiles to invade the southern THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS coast of Cuba, but they were quickly defeated by Cuban armed forces within three days. The relationship between the United States and Cuba deteriorated even further by October 1962, when U.S. spy planes discovered that the Soviet Union was building missile bases on the island nation. For 13 days, as President Kennedy ordered a naval blockade of Cuba, the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in a high-stakes nuclear standoff. As the threat of nuclear war loomed over negotiations, the so-called Cuban Missile Crisis only came to an end when the United States agreed to remove its missiles from Turkey in exchange for the dearming of Cuba. As of 2014, the embargo in place for more than 50 years remained a centerpiece of U.S. policy toward Cuba. The embargo was strengthened when Congress passed the Helms-Burton Act of 1994, which stipulated that the policy may only be lifted under certain conditions, including the removal of Castro and his brother, Raúl Castro, from office; movement toward free elections and a free press; and the release of all political prisoners in Cuba. According to a 2013 report issued by Human Rights Watch, Cuba remains the only country in Latin America that represses virtually all forms of political dissent. Raúl Castro succeeded his brother as president in 2008, and has said he will remain in office through 2018. President Barack Obama, meanwhile, has made several adjustments to the trade embargo. In 2009, he eased restrictions on travel to Cuba, allowing visits to the country for religious and educational purposes. The president also allowed telecommunications companies to pursue business in Cuba, and agreed to lift restrictions on remittances, permitting Cuban Americans to send unlimited amounts of money to friends and family in Cuba. A Coup in Chile. The Cold War years also saw the United States take action to avoid another Cuba in Chile, where Salvador Allende, a Marxist, was democratically elected president in 1970. In the wake of failed CIA efforts to prevent him from taking office, Allende implemented a program of radical social and economic reforms. His government seized American-owned copper companies in Chile without compensation. Allende also took steps to nationalize mining, manufacturing, and agricultural operations; authorized large wage increases; froze prices; and printed large amounts of money to fund deficits. Two years into Allende s presidency, Chile was experiencing economic stagnation, 242 2014 Close Up Foundation 243
In 1973, General Augusto Pinochet led the overthrow of the democratically elected Marxist leader, Salvador Allende, in Chile. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS rising inflation, food shortages, and nationwide strikes. On September 11, 1973, Allende s government was overthrown by a military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet a coup the CIA was aware of and did not discourage. As the Chilean presidential palace was attacked by tanks and airplanes, Allende committed suicide, and Pinochet with support from the United States established a brutal dictatorship. Pinochet returned many businesses to private ownership, but over the course of his 17-year rule, his repressive government murdered at least 3,197 political opponents and tortured roughly 29,000 more. In 1988, Pinochet lost a referendum on whether he should remain in power, and eventually stepped down in 1990. The Reagan Doctrine. President Ronald Reagan, who assumed office in 1981 and led the United States during the latter end of the Cold War, oversaw several instances of U.S. intervention in Latin America. President Reagan, who viewed communism as a destructive ideology, believed the United States had a responsibility to combat the spread of regimes backed by the Soviet Union and Cuba. We must not break faith with those who are risking their lives on every continent from Afghanistan to Nicaragua to defy Soviet-supported aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth, President Reagan told Congress in his 1985 State of the Union address. Support for freedom fighters is self-defense. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer described President Reagan s support for anti-communist forces as the Reagan Doctrine a policy that was exercised in several Latin American nations in the 1980s. Shortly after assuming office, President Reagan substantially increased aid to the military government of El Salvador, which was seeking to wipe out Marxist guerillas in a brutal civil war. But some questioned U.S. support for the Salvadoran government after the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero, an outspoken priest who had criticized the Salvadoran military for killing civilians. Romero was gunned down as he said Mass on March 24, 1980 the victim of a plot orchestrated by a former Salvadoran army major. But the most visible focal point of the Reagan Doctrine was Nicaragua, where the left-wing, Cuban-backed Sandinista revolutionaries overthrew the government of Anastasio Somoza Debayle in 1979. President Reagan authorized aid to anti-sandinista rebels known as Contras in the form of money, weapons, and equipment, but in 1984, Congress passed a law prohibiting further financial support for Contra operations. By 1985, the Reagan administration had circumvented Congress, creating a scandal that would become known as the Iran-Contra Affair. The administration sold arms to Iran which agreed to use its influence to help release American hostages held in Lebanon and the excess profits were diverted to fund the Contras. The Iran-Contra Affair violated the U.S. embargo on arms sales to Iran, as well as the congressional ban on further aid to the Contras in Nicaragua. President Reagan, who was not charged in the affair, acknowledged that he authorized the Iranian arms sales, but he insisted he had no knowledge of the diversion of profits to the Contras. The Sandinista government was voted out of power in 1990, but its leader, Daniel Ortega, was reelected in 2006. The Reagan administration s only military intervention in Latin America occurred in 1983, when U.S. Marines invaded the Caribbean island nation of Grenada. In October, Grenadian Prime Minister Maurice Bishop, a socialist, was deposed and murdered by a faction of his own party. With 800 American medical students enrolled at St. George s School of Medicine in Grenada, and Cuban laborers working to complete a new airport runway on the island, President Reagan decided to intervene. Within days, U.S. troops subdued Cuban forces on the island, and the American students returned home unharmed. The Growth of Free Trade. In the 1990s, several Latin American nations experienced democratic reforms and economic growth developments that many economists attributed to the promotion of free trade. Between 1998 and 2009, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that 244 2014 Close Up Foundation 245
President Ronald Reagan saw Latin America as an important battleground in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. total U.S. merchandise trade with Latin America grew by 82 percent, compared to 72 percent for Asia and 51 percent for the European Union (EU). By 2014, the United States had enacted free trade agreements pacts that eliminate tariffs, quotas, and other trade restrictions with 11 Latin American nations. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Canada, and Mexico went into effect on January 1, 1994, creating the world s largest free trade area. The deal eliminated tariffs in several important industries, including agriculture, textiles, and automobiles. Although economists continue to debate NAFTA s full impact, the agreement has contributed to a surge in intraregional trade, travel, and cross-border investment. Some U.S. corporations moved their operations to Mexico in order to take advantage of lower wages, but many economists believe NAFTA has had a minimal effect on the job market in the United States. In 2013, Canada and Mexico were the United States top two export markets, and its second- and third-largest sources of imports, repectively, according to the International Trade Administration. During his two terms in office, President George W. Bush promoted free trade in Latin America as a method of spurring growth in the region LIBRARY OF CONGRESS and boosting the U.S. economy. In January 2004, the United States- Chile Free Trade Agreement took effect, eliminating tariffs and opening markets between the two nations. After persistent lobbying by President Bush, Congress in 2005 approved the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) between the United States, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. When combined, the CAFTA-DR nations represented the equivalent of the United States 12th largest goods trading partner in 2009, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative. President Bush also pushed for the adoption of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), a pact that would have created a free trade area among 34 nations in North, Central, and South America. But FTAA negotiations collapsed in 2005, as Brazil, Venezuela, and other leftleaning nations argued that the pact would do little to alleviate poverty. In the years that followed, Congress approved a free trade agreement with Peru in 2007 and two more pacts with Colombia and Panama in 2011. Ups and Downs in Brazil. With nearly 199 million residents in 2012, Brazil is the largest country in Latin America by both population and area. For decades, this Portuguese-speaking nation was known for its economic inequality, but the early 2000s saw Brazil experience a dramatic turnaround. Between 2003 and 2011, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva presided over steady economic growth, while pumping billions of dollars into social programs such as the Bolsa Família, a financial grant program for impoverished families. According to the World Bank, poverty in Brazil fell from 21 percent of the population in 2003 to 11 percent in 2009. Between 2001 and 2009, the annual income growth rate of the poorest ten percent of Brazilians was seven percent, while the richest ten percent experienced 1.7 percent annual growth a trend that helped Brazilian income inequality reach a 50-year low by 2011. The nation also became energy self-sufficient with large-scale production of sugarcane ethanol in combination with its growing oil industry. In 2012, Brazil was the world s seventh wealthiest economy with a gross domestic product (GDP) of nearly $2.3 trillion. The country elected its first female president, Lula protégé and chief of staff Dilma Rousseff, 246 2014 Close Up Foundation 247
Agency (NSA). Rousseff roundly criticized the United States in a speech before the United Nations (UN) General Assembly later that month. Tampering in such a manner in the affairs of other countries is a breach of international law and is an affront of the principles that must guide the relations among them, especially among friendly nations, Rousseff said. The right to safety of citizens of one country can never be guaranteed by violating fundamental human rights of citizens of another country. Brazilian President, Dilma Rousseff is the leader of the seventh largest economy in the world. in 2010, while its second largest city, Rio de Janeiro, was selected to host both the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympic Games. Yet Brazil is still plagued by social problems and economic imbalances that will continue to create some degree of instability. According to the World Bank, the annual growth of the Brazilian economy slowed significantly to 0.9 percent in 2012 a far cry from the 7.5 percent GDP growth the nation experienced in 2010. As prices and demand for Brazilian exports such as soy, iron ore, and ethanol have decreased, Brazil has lost much of its external economic engine. Thanks to a burdensome tax code for the private sector the World Bank in 2011 placed Brazil 126th out of 183 countries in its Ease of Doing Business rankings. Meanwhile, the government is still at war with drug traffickers for control over the nation s slums. And in June 2013, massive street protests over economic inequality, political corruption, inadequate public services, and excessive government spending on World Cup and Olympic Games preparations erupted in cities across Brazil. The relationship between Brazil and the United States also took a hit in September 2013, when Rousseff canceled a scheduled state visit to the White House amid reports that she was one of several world leaders whose personal communications were tapped by the National Security AGENCIA ESTADO VIA AP IMAGES Unrest in Venezuela. Between 1999 and 2013, Venezuela the nation with the largest oil reserves in Latin America was ruled by President Hugo Chávez, a fiery, anti-american socialist. During his time in office, Chávez made a number of bold moves that concerned the international community, including publicly aligning himself with Cuba and Iran; expelling U.S. diplomats from Venezuela; and assembling a bloc of leftleaning Latin American nations to challenge the United States political and economic role in the Western Hemisphere. While Chávez supporters claimed he spoke for the poor, critics assailed him for his increasingly autocratic rule. Chávez passed away from cancer in March 2013, and his handpicked successor and protégé, Nicolás Maduro, was narrowly elected president the next month. Maduro s razor-thin margin of victory signaled to some political observers that hard-line leftist and anti-american policies had lost some appeal to the Venezuelan people. Less than a year after Maduro s election, nationwide protests erupted in February 2014 over record levels of inflation, food shortages, and the need for increased freedom of speech and security measures. According to the Venezuela Violence Observatory, a total of 24,763 homicides occurred in the country in 2013 a rate that had quadrupled since 1998. Many of the earliest demonstrators were students, but prominent opposition politicians also took to the streets amid complaints of excessive violent force used by security forces and the detention of hundreds of protestors. Many Venezuelan government officials accused the United States of attempting to destabilize the government, and Maduro expelled three U.S. diplomats in February 2014, accusing them of conspiring against his government. In response, President Obama said, Rather than trying to distract from its own failings by making up false accusations against diplomats from the United States, the government ought to focus on addressing the legitimate grievances of the Venezuelan people. 248 2014 Close Up Foundation 249
A NEW POPE On March 13, 2013, two weeks after the retirement of Pope Benedict XVI, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected to serve as the next leader of the world s 1.2 billion Catholics. Pope Francis, as he chose to be called, was an extraordinary choice by the College of Cardinals to serve as the 266th pope. A native of Argentina, Pope Francis was the first Latin American pope; the first Jesuit pope; and the first non-european to hold the position in 1,272 years. In his first year as pope, Francis won accolades for energizing Catholics around the world and earned widespread praise for his man-of-the-people ways. Immediately following his election, Pope Francis opted to stay in a simple suite at a Vatican guesthouse, rather than moving into the luxurious papal apartments. He has pushed Catholics to dedicate themselves to helping the poor above all else, and has struck a more conciliatory tone toward gays and lesbians than his predecessors. Although he has not separated himself from Catholic doctrine opposing homosexuality, Pope Francis said of gay priests, If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge? The pope has also drawn new attention to Latin America, which is home to more than 40 percent of the world s Catholics. Immigration to the United States. For years, Latin America has been a major source of immigrants to the United States. According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), more than 1.03 million people became legal permanent residents of the United States in 2012, 14 percent of whom were born in Mexico the leading nation of origin. Although the United States has always been a nation of immigrants, Americans have grown increasingly concerned in recent years about illegal immigration. The Pew Research Center Hispanic Trends Project used data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau to estimate that 11.7 million undocumented immigrants lived in the United States in 2012. Whether they crossed a border illegally or stayed in the United States beyond the limits of their visas, DHS estimated that 77 percent of the nation s undocumented immigrants were from North America in 2011. Mexico was the country of origin for 59 percent of undocumented immigrants that year, followed by El Salvador at six AP PHOTO/LUCA ZENNARO, POOL percent, Guatemala at five percent, and Honduras at three percent. Despite U.S. laws that forbid employers from hiring undocumented workers, the Pew Research Center estimated that undocumented immigrants made up more than five percent of the U.S. labor force in 2010. These immigrants often possess few specialized skills and work for lower wages, filling jobs that some business leaders say American citizens are reluctant to take. Their low-wage work helps companies keep production costs and prices low for many goods and services. However, some policymakers worry that undocumented immigrants are taking jobs from American citizens at a time of economic fragility, while also depressing wages by working for so little. Others believe undocumented workers pay too little in taxes to compensate for the burden they place on public and social services. Although the estimated number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has fallen from the peak level of 12.2 million in 2007, it has risen from the 11.3 million undocumented immigrants believed to have been in the country in 2009. As a result, the debate over immigration reform in the United States remains fierce. Policymakers have consistently decried a system that is full of holes, yet politicians have faced a great divide over how to best deal with both border security and the millions of undocumented immigrants already living in the United States. Meanwhile, business leaders and labor interests have often disagreed over whether to encourage the hiring of foreign workers. The War on Drugs. Over the course of the last several decades, organized crime and violence related to the illegal drug trade have been on the rise in Latin America. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Colombia produces roughly 90 percent of the powder cocaine derived from coca leaves grown in Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru that reaches the United States. In 2013, the State Department found that more than 90 percent of cocaine bound for the United States passes through Central America and Mexico a nation that also accounts for approximately seven percent of the world s heroin supply. In 2011, a report by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) cited estimates that the Mexican drug trade employed nearly 500,000 people, and contributed to as much as four percent of the nation s GDP. And Honduras, a major transit country for cocaine, suffered from the highest murder rate in the world in 2011, at 82 murders per 100,000 inhabitants according 250 2014 Close Up Foundation 251
President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is the first elected female president of Argentina. Maria Peron took over the presidency when her husband died in 1974. AP PHOTO/DOLORES OCHOA to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). The United States, meanwhile, is a vast marketplace for illegal drugs because of its economic power and large population of individuals with disposable income. Ever since President Richard Nixon declared an all-out global war on the drug menace in the early 1970s, Latin America has been a central front in the War on Drugs. In December 1989, the United States invaded Panama and ousted its military dictator, Manuel Noriega, who was later convicted and sentenced to prison for eight counts of drug trafficking and racketeering. Several years later in 1993, DEA agents worked with Colombian police to track and kill Pablo Escobar, the infamous Colombian drug lord. As several drug organizations rose to power in the years following Escobar s death, President Bill Clinton in 2000 authorized $1.3 billion in aid to Plan Colombia, an effort to decrease cocaine production and offer assistance to the Colombian military. With drug violence on the rise in Mexico in the 2000s, Mexican President Felipe Calderón assumed office in 2006 pledging to eradicate trafficking organizations. In an effort to fight police corruption, Calderón deployed tens of thousands of military personnel to assist or replace local police forces. The United States and Mexico also joined forces under the Merida Initiative in 2008, to which the United States appropriated $1.6 billion in training, equipment, and technical assistance to strengthen Mexico s judicial and security systems. Under the Calderón administration, the Mexican military killed or captured 25 of the 37 most-wanted drug lords in Mexico, according to the CFR. Yet illegal drug cartels continue to maintain a large presence in Mexico, where kidnappings and extortion have become commonplace. In 2013, the Mexican Interior Ministry reported that 26,121 people went missing in the nation during the six years of the Calderón administration. Is the United States Losing Latin America? Many foreign policy experts agree that for much of the last 15 years, the United States has placed other priorities ahead of Latin American policy. During that time, Americans faced increased economic competition from China, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea, turmoil in the Middle East, and scores of other issues. As a result, some critics believe the United States has taken a more directive approach when dealing with its Latin American neighbors and these critics worry that the United States may be losing its clout in the region. In recent years, China has made great strides in establishing relationships with Latin American nations. According to the Inter- American Development Bank, Latin American exports to China surged from $3.9 billion in 2000 to $86 billion in 2011. Furthermore, a study published in 2013 by the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean concluded that China in 2016 will surpass the EU as Latin America s second largest trading partner, making it second only to the United States. In early 2014, Brazilian and Chinese officials also revealed plans for Chinese President Xi Jinping to visit Brazil later that year. There is great potential for further oil cooperation with Latin America, said Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. We would like to set up long-term partnerships, especially with Venezuela and Brazil. Both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden visited Latin America in 2013. Emphasizing trade relationships during his visit to Costa Rica and Mexico, President Obama said, If we do not have effective integration in our hemisphere, if we don t have the best education systems, the best regulatory systems, if we don t coordinate our activities, then we re going to fall behind other regions in the world. On the heels of his trip to Brazil, Colombia, and Trinidad and Tobago, Vice President Biden wrote in a newspaper op-ed, The Obama administration has launched the most sustained period of U.S. engagement with the Americas in a long, long time. The Road Ahead. Many Latin American nations have become more economically and politically independent during the last decade, and some countries have established themselves as global leaders. Following the collapse of FTAA negotiations, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru formed the Pacific Alliance, a trade bloc encompassing a 252 2014 Close Up Foundation 253
market of 210 million people and a combined economic output equal to 35 percent of the total GDP of Latin America and the Caribbean. The alliance, founded in 2012, deepened an ideological and economic split between the Latin American nations that embrace free trade and open markets, and others such as Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela that have given the government a larger role in their economies. According to estimates by Morgan Stanley, the economies of the Pacific Alliance were expected to grow by 4.25 percent in 2014, while many economists believed Argentina would enter a recession and Brazil would see only minimal economic growth. Politically, some Latin American nations such as Chile, Costa Rica, and Uruguay ranked among the world s most free countries in 2014, according to Freedom House. Of the 34 nations in Latin America and the Caribbean, only Cuba was designated as not free by Freedom House, while Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and Venezuela were categorized as partly free. Despite recent economic and political gains, Latin America is still plagued by economic inequality, several unstable governments, and widespread violence. According to data released in 2014 by UNODC, Latin America is the world s most violent region, accounting for nearly 31 percent of global homicides in 2012, despite being home to only eight percent of the world s population. Latin America s per capita homicide rate in 2012 was nearly twice the rate in Africa, while Venezuela was the only country in the region with a homicide rate that had consistently risen since 1994. CURRENT ISSUES Should the United States Make It a Priority to Strengthen Its Relationship with Latin America? As the United States draws down many of its overseas military commitments, some policymakers believe it is time to prioritize relationships in Latin America. Proponents of increased engagement believe that treating Latin America as an equal partner will draw the region and its people closer to the United States. Brazil, for example, was the world s seventh wealthiest economy in 2012 with a GDP of nearly $2.3 trillion. Advocates of increased Latin American relations argue that Brazilians want to be treated as U.S. trade partners not subordinates whose president is spied on by the NSA. Many supporters believe that if the United States strengthens its economic relationships in Latin America, such policies would contribute to widespread economic prosperity, creating climates less susceptible to a violent illegal drug trade. During his 2013 visit to Costa Rica, President Obama said, The stronger the economies and the institutions for individuals seeking legitimate careers, the less powerful those narco-trafficking organizations are going to be. Advocates also insist that if the United States does not nurture its Latin American relationships, it will leave the door open for other nations namely China to fill the void. Economic issues are of paramount concern to Latin American leaders, and they will continue to forge alliances elsewhere that may leave the United States out in the cold. Furthermore, supporters note that Latin American relations are a vital issue to the United States national security. Latin America was the world s most violent region in 2013, and the continued illegal drug trade will only lead to more casualties. Opponents of increased Latin American engagement disagree. They note that during the 1980s and early 1990s, the United States prioritized its relationships in Latin America while many nations were dealing with dire threats from communist insurrections, human rights violations, and a heavily militarized War on Drugs. But over the last two decades, Latin America has become a more economically prosperous and democratically stable part of the world and U.S. intervention is no longer necessary. Chile, Costa Rica, and Uruguay ranked among the world s most free countries in 2014, while the Venezuelan people were attracting worldwide attention for their efforts to secure freedom of speech and increased security protections. Some critics believe the United States already gives Latin America more than its fair share of attention, noting that both the president and vice president visited the region in 2013. They say it is more vital for the United States to focus on new relationships and markets in Asia and the Pacific where China is quickly gaining dominance rather than spending too much time in its own backyard. Other critics of increased Latin American engagement note that the United States is finally extracting itself from long, drawnout conflicts in the Middle East therefore, now is not the time to further entangle Americans in other nations affairs. With a skyrocketing national debt and a fragile economy that is still struggling to recover from the global economic crisis, the United States needs to turn its focus inward. 254 2014 Close Up Foundation 255
Should the United States Consider Latin American Concerns When Crafting Drug Policy? The effectiveness of the War on Drugs has been a source of debate in Latin America for decades. On December 10, 2013, the government of Uruguay passed a law legalizing the cultivation, sale, and use of marijuana, making it the first nation in the world to legalize the entire process. Meanwhile, government officials in Argentina, Ecuador, Mexico, and several other Latin American nations have signaled that they are open to decriminalizing, legalizing, or relaxing penalties for marijuana possession or use. As several Latin American leaders have called for an international drug debate, some policymakers have wondered if the United States should take Latin American concerns into account when crafting its own drug policies. Some Americans believe the War on Drugs can only be effective if the United States and Latin American nations work together to craft a more cohesive strategy. It is estimated that the United States has spent more than $1 trillion fighting the War on Drugs over the last four decades. Yet in 2011, a 19-member global commission of current and former world leaders determined that the War on Drugs had failed to effectively curtail supply or consumption. At the same time, Latin America remains the world s most violent region, accounting for nearly 31 percent of global homicides in 2012 and much of that violence was related to the illegal drug trade. Therefore, many advocates of Latin American cooperation believe the United States needs to take a more flexible approach to dealing with drugs. Latin American countries have been examining their own drug problems for years, and these governments are best suited to determine the most appropriate policy responses. For that reason, advocates say the United States should work with Latin American leaders and consider new alternative policies, which may include the legalization of marijuana. But opponents of increased consideration of Latin American concerns argue that the United States must prioritize its own interests when fighting the War on Drugs. Over the course of the last four decades, Latin American nations have been unable to prevent illegal drugs from reaching the United States. According to the DEA, Colombia still produces roughly 90 percent of the powder cocaine that reaches the United States. And in 2013, the State Department found that more than 90 percent of cocaine bound for the United States still passes through Central America and Mexico despite efforts made by the former Calderón administration to crack down on drug trafficking. Therefore, critics maintain that many Latin American nations are ill-equipped to stop the flow of illegal drugs to the United States. They say that if the United States succumbs to the recent Latin American push for marijuana legalization, that policy will not prevent drug-related violence or curb the operation of cartels in drug-producing countries. Retreating in the War on Drugs would only allow drug producers to continue to generate massive amounts of money, which could possibly end up in the hands of terrorists. The current U.S. policy has been relatively successful in denying these groups easy access to drug money, and the government has an obligation to continue it. Should the United States Make Its Economic Relationship with Latin America More Inclusive? As Americans consider their economic future, policymakers have debated whether the United States should make its trade relationship with Latin America more inclusive. It is a debate that focuses on whether the United States should pursue free trade or fair trade policies the latter of which involves setting trade rules to help producers that face disadvantages in a free market. Proponents of free trade agreements note that such policies are already benefiting Latin American nations. Of the 20 countries with whom the United States had free trade agreements in effect in 2014, 11 of them were in Latin America. Free trade advocates note that these pacts such as NAFTA and CAFTA-DR led the total U.S. merchandise trade with Latin America to grow by 82 percent between 1998 and 2009, compared to 72 percent growth for Asia and 51 percent for the EU, according to CRS. Many economists and supporters of free trade policies believe they provide vast and widespread benefits for both wealthy and developing nations. Free trade provides consumers with access to a wider variety of goods, as well as lower prices, than would otherwise be possible. The absence of tariffs, quotas, and other trade restrictions also allows a more free exchange of goods contributing to rapid economic growth and decreased levels of poverty. By pursuing free trade agreements, advocates say the United States will encourage Latin American nations to compete in the free market and further liberalize their economies. Fair trade policies, on the other hand, could lead the United States to 256 2014 Close Up Foundation 257
give blind preferential treatment to Latin American goods even if they are more expensive than goods produced in different parts of the world. Yet opponents of free trade disagree, and many have called instead for the United States to pursue fair trade agreements that reach disadvantaged Latin American markets. Fair trade policies actively push for higher prices for producers, as well as heightened environmental standards during production. Therefore, advocates insist that fair trade offers improved terms of trade for producers in developing nations. And through increased fair trade, farmers and producers in Latin America would be able to improve their lives, escape poverty, and become financially independent. Supporters argue that by pursuing such policies, the United States would gain access to higher-quality goods produced in neighboring nations, rather than depending on China for inexpensive, lower-quality imports. Fair trade proponents also believe it is in the best interests of the United States to support Latin American economic development. Improved economic fortunes in Latin America will eventually lead to increased production, lower levels of violence, and a more trusting, productive relationship between the United States and its neighbors to the south. THE DEBATE The United States should make it a priority to strengthen its relationship with Latin America. PRO: Treating Latin America as an equal partner will draw the region closer to the United States. Strengthening Latin American economic relationships will contribute to widespread economic prosperity and create climates less susceptible to a violent illegal drug trade. If the United States does not nurture its Latin American relationships, it will leave the door open for other nations namely China to fill the void. Latin American relations are a vital issue to the United States national security, because Latin America was the world s most violent region in 2013. CON: Latin America has become a more prosperous and stable part of the world, and U.S. intervention is no longer necessary. The United States already gives Latin America its fair share of attention both the president and vice president visited the region in 2013. It is more vital for the United States to focus on new relationships in Asia and the Pacific where China is quickly gaining dominance rather than spending too much time in its own backyard. With a skyrocketing national debt and a fragile economy that is still struggling to recover from the economic crisis, the United States needs to turn its focus inward. The United States should consider Latin American concerns when crafting drug policy. PRO: The War on Drugs can only be effective if the United States and Latin American nations work together to craft a more cohesive strategy. Because the War on Drugs has failed to curtail supply and consumption, the United States needs to take a more flexible approach. Latin American countries have been examining their own drug problems for years, and these governments are best suited to determine the most appropriate policy responses. For that reason, the United States should work with these governments and consider new alternative policies, which may include the legalization of marijuana. CON: The United States must prioritize its own interests when fighting the War on Drugs. Over the last four decades, Latin American nations have been unable to prevent illegal drugs from reaching the United States. If the United States succumbs to the recent Latin American push for marijuana legalization, that policy will not prevent drugrelated violence or curb the operation of cartels in drug-producing countries. Retreating in the War on Drugs will only allow drug producers to continue to generate massive amounts of money, which could possibly end up in the hands of terrorists. 258 2014 Close Up Foundation 259
THE DEBATE The United States should make its economic relationship with Latin America more inclusive. PRO: Fair trade policies would actively push for better prices for producers, as well as heightened environmental standards during production. Through increased fair trade, farmers and producers in Latin America would be able to improve their lives, escape poverty, and become financially independent. The United States will gain access to higher-quality goods produced in neighboring nations, rather than depending on China for inexpensive, lower-quality imports. Improved economic fortunes in Latin America will eventually lead to increased production, lower levels of violence, and a more trusting, productive relationship between the United States and its neighbors. CON: Free trade is already benefiting Latin American nations and dramatically increasing trade. Free trade provides consumers with access to a wider variety of goods, as well as lower prices. The absence of tariffs, quotas, and other trade restrictions also allows a more free exchange of goods contributing to rapid economic growth and decreased levels of poverty. By pursuing free trade agreements, the United States will encourage Latin American nations to compete in the free market and further liberalize their economies. Fair trade policies could lead the United States to give blind preferential treatment to Latin American goods even if they are more expensive than goods produced elsewhere. 260