A five year old boy killed by a shot of acid to the heart. Bodies dissolving in vats of chemicals. Plastic bags containing severed heads dumped in shopping centers. These are brief glimpses into the brutality of Mexico’s savage drug war, which has killed over 13,000 people since Mexico’s President Calderon deployed the army to curtail cartel activity in 2006. While grisly headlines churned out by the American media ensure that the chaos in Mexico is well known in the US, the long-term ramifications of that chaos have not yet been fully considered. Nor, it seems, have they been a priority in DC since the signing of the Merida initiative. But even though the maelstrom in Mexico has been overshadowed by national nail-biting over Afghanistan and Iran, it carries a heavy impact for the security of many Americans. The Obama administration, busy as it may be, cannot afford to continue ignoring the situation south of the border. Instead, Obama must be proactive, addressing the situation now before it worsens and the US finds itself with security threats on its border, not half a world away in Afghanistan.

Mexican drug violence is increasingly spilling over into the US. Already, the Department of Justice has designated Mexican drug cartels as the biggest organized crime threat in the US.  In the past few years there has been a substantial increase in the number of cartel-related crimes in the US, with cartel activity in forty-eight states. In 2006, the Justice department estimated that 100 cities in the U.S. were affected by cartel activity. By 2009, that number had risen to 230. Accompanying these rising numbers are rising crime statistics. In Phoenix, for example, the police department has recorded 700 home invasions in the past two years, all of them linked to drug and human smuggling. Between 2004 and 2007, a Mexican drug trafficking ring tortured and killed nine men in San Diego, dissolving two of their bodies in acid. And in Alabama in 2008, police stumbled upon the corpses of five men who had their throats slit for not paying their debt to a drug-trafficking ring.

Unfortunately, even with crackdowns like the one in October, the US is unlikely to be able to effectively push cartels out of its territory.  Until cartels lose their significant territorial, financial, military and human resources back in Mexico, they will be able to maintain a presence in the US. And even with the Calderon administration’s efforts to destroy drug cartels, the situation in Mexico is still far from under control. Violence is increasing, with kidnappings, torture, mass executions and decapitations now daily occurrences. In 2007, there were 2, 275 drug related killings in Mexico, while in 2008 that number rose to 6,290. Adding to the problem is widespread corruption, which has permeated all levels of Mexican government, law enforcement, and judicial institutions, thwarting effective rule of law. Even top officials are involved, as the October 2008 arrest of senior officials in the Mexican Attorney General’s anti-organized crime unit demonstrates. All of this points to the probability that things won’t be getting better anytime soon.

Furthermore, cartels have begun branching out in other industries, entrenching themselves into the fabric of Mexican society. In addition to drug trafficking, cartels are now involved in extortion, protective rackets, piracy, and trafficking of everything from stolen goods to people. Most worrying, there have been reports that drug cartels have been smuggling or aiding Middle Eastern terrorists attempting to cross the border illegally. According to a 2007 CRS report, some aliens associated with terrorism, including members of Hezbollah, have already successfully entered the U.S. via the Mexican border. Already, hundreds of people from countries of ‘special interest’- countries that are known to support or sponsor terrorism- cross the border every year. Intelligence also shows that Latin America, particularly Venezuela, is becoming a common way point for terrorists attempting to travel from South Asia to the US.

Altogether, the situation is ominous. The US can expect to see increasing levels of cartel-related violence both within its borders and below them. Americans should also be prepared for the possibility, even if small, of national security threats coming from the south.

Unfortunately, the 2,000 miles of border we share with Mexico means we cannot simply ignore the problem and hope it goes away. Denial is not an option, nor is procrastination. Instead of waiting until it is too late, we should begin a serious public and governmental debate on the situation now. The Merida initiative was an excellent first step. But as the continued chaos in Mexico demonstrates, it has not been enough. Extra steps are needed in the form of extensive US assistance to Mexico. This assistance can take the form of additional financial aid, training for Mexican law enforcement, and advice on building long-term security institutions that have the public’s trust.

Finally, the US must also accept responsibility for its role in Mexico’s drug wars and take actions to reduce that role. The vast majority of Mexican drugs go to the US to feed American demand, and 95% of the weapons used in drug violence in Mexico come from the US. American money supports cartels, and American weapons kill Mexicans. Steps to decrease domestic demand for drugs are sorely needed, as is a plan to stop the illegal purchase and smuggling of weapons.

These actions are well within the Obama administration’s capabilities. Instability in Mexico and cartel violence in the US can be lessened, if the political will is there. Yes, Obama has a lot on his plate at the moment. But history has shown us that preventative action often goes further to fix a crisis than a massive cleanup after the fact. Mexico cannot be ignored. The Obama Administration must act now, or face the consequences later.

No related posts.

Three months ago, at the conclusion of the fifth Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, anti-American leftist leaders across Latin America were optimistically embracing President Obama’s commitment to a new “spirit of cooperation” with the region. But soon after the onset of the Honduran political crisis, what was heralded as a “renewed partnership of the Americas” appeared to be quickly unraveling. Less than an hour after the Honduran army descended on the presidential residency and whisked Manuel Zelaya away to Costa Rica in his pajamas, Hugo Chávez was already accusing the “Yankee empire” of having a hand in the ouster. Later that same day, Obama issued the following statement:

“I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of President Mel Zelaya. As the Organization of American States did on Friday, I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference.”

Obama’s response was carefully worded. In calling for all actors to adhere to democratic norms and the rule of law, he made thinly veiled indictments of both the ousted president and the de facto government. But the administration’s main objective must be to ensure the security and wellbeing of the Honduran people – who are now faced with restricted trade, suspended aid, and deepening isolation – and that goal will be most easily reached through compromise. The precision of Obama’s language has made his position on two aspects of the crisis very clear – that both sides are partially at fault and that the conflict must conclude with a peacefully negotiated agreement.

The Honduran crisis comes as a sudden reminder of the fragility of Latin America’s original banana republic. Seventy percent of the population is mired in poverty, making Honduras the poorest of the 18 countries studied in a 2008 UN report on poverty and social exclusion in Latin America. Zelaya seemed committed to reversing this trend by shaping policies to close the gap between the rich and the poor, most notably with a substantial minimum wage increase. But while his social programs were viewed favorably by most, his steady drift to the left concerned the country’s conservative elite, especially as he began to align himself more and more with Chávez’s authoritarian socialist bloc. The tension boiled over when Zelaya – blatantly defying the ruling of Congress and the Supreme Court – planned to hold a referendum for a constitutional convention in an attempt to lift presidential term limits. Acting fully in accordance with the Honduran Constitution, the Supreme Court ordered the army to arrest Zelaya. In this respect, the grievances against Zelaya are valid. In fact, if the military had simply arrested Zelaya and allowed him to await trial in a Honduran prison, its actions would have been constitutional and (presumably) internationally justifiable. But by forcing him into exile, the interim government and its leader, Roberto Micheletti, broke the law and have thus lost legitimacy in the eyes of the international community. Even the Honduran army has since acknowledged that Zelaya’s expulsion was illegal.

Obama’s measured response to the crisis recognized the two sides’ shared culpability and also made it clear that the U.S. would not take a dominant role in the negotiations. So, falling into stride with the rest of the OAS, he called on Costa Rican President Oscar Arias – a Nobel Peace Prize laureate for his role in ending Central American civil wars – to mediate the talks. But on Wednesday, the negotiations were postponed yet again and the two sides remain locked in a stalemate. Arias’ proposed seven-point plan, which Zelaya approved, would establish a national unity government and grant amnesty for all political crimes. The sticking point was Arias’ insistence – in accordance with the demands of the international community – that Zelaya be reinstated until his term ends in January, even if with “significantly limited powers.” Micheletti’s interim government called any plan that would reinstate the deposed President “unacceptable.” Zelaya has pledged to return to Tegucigalpa this Friday despite Micheletti’s standing threat to arrest him upon his arrival. When the military prevented a Venezuelan-provided plane with Zelaya on board from landing on July 5th, at least one protester was killed and dozens were injured. Another attempt would almost certainly incite more bloodshed, which Arias fears could eventually escalate into a civil war.

Ultimately, all sides must act in the best interest of the Honduran people. In the end, the most peaceful – and most likely – outcome will be very similar to Arias’ proposed resolution, including the establishment of a unity government with some degree of reduced presidential powers. Zelaya will be permitted to serve out the remainder of his term and then step down. Both sides will be granted amnesty and Honduras will emerge a more robust democracy.

Perhaps the bigger picture is the new role being played by the U.S. in the hemisphere. Obama’s engaged yet distanced approach has proven his commitment to work multilaterally with the hemisphere. The Latin left has even begun to differentiate between this cooperative U.S. President and the “empire” he stands before. Chávez recanted his initial accusation, calling Obama “more like a prisoner of the empire.” Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, one of Chávez’s most loyal minions, has claimed “I believe U.S. intelligence didn’t tell Obama they were planning a coup.” Obama’s even-handed approach has exhibited the balance of confidence and humility required of the U.S. in a ‘unimultipolar’ world. The U.S. has become just one of many voices in a region it has long dominated, often at the expense of Latin Americans. A peacefully mediated resolution brokered by the OAS will be a victory not just for Honduras or for U.S.-Latin American relations, but also for the long-term advancement of democracy in a region where it has all too often been just out of reach.

No related posts.

When Hugo Chávez strolled over to Barack Obama with a book in hand and a sly smirk plastered on his face it was clear the Venezuelan president was up to no good.  Obama’s reluctance at first to even rise from his seat to accept Chávez’s gift – Eduardo Galeano’s The Open Veins of Latin America – was a telltale indication that he wanted the encounter to be over as soon as possible.  But Chávez prolonged the handshake to the brink of awkwardness while slightly twisting the paperback’s cover toward the cameras and holding it high for all to see.  The book’s subtitle, Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent, was all anyone needed to see to ascertain Chavez’s intentions.  Ironically, Eduardo Galeano is the same man who coined the term “democratoship” – an apt characterization of the style of government practiced in Chávez’s “Bolívarian Republic”.  To most of the hemisphere’s leaders, Chávez is nothing more than a self-righteous demagogue who happens to be sitting atop one of the world’s largest oil reserves.  To others, like Bolivia’s Evo Morales, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, and the rest of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), he is nothing less than a champion of Latin American pride and glory.  Americans generally tend to agree with the former description, so the intense scrutiny that Obama has endured for his friendly reception of the controversial socialist leader has come as little surprise.  Senator John Ensign said “you have to be careful who you’re seen joking around with.  I think it was irresponsible for the president to be seen kind of laughing and joking with Hugo Chavez.”  Former House speaker Newt Gingrich warned that “everywhere in Latin America, enemies of America are going to use the picture of Chavez smiling and being with the president as proof that Chavez is now legitimate, that he is acceptable.”  But despite the ominous forecasts of a mounting challenge to American democracy, the simple truth is that Chávez’s regime does not imperil the U.S. in an era when cultural identity – not political ideology – serves as the most fundamental element of international relations.

Obama’s approach to Chávez, and to the Fifth Summit of the Americas in general, has certainly stood in stark contrast to that of his predecessor.  Four years ago, prior to the Summit’s fourth gathering at Mar del Plata, Argentina, Morales led a grand procession of anti-Americanism aboard a train called the Expreso del ALBA, culminating in a dramatic address by Chávez before 25,000 people at a soccer stadium to denounce George W. Bush and the “Washington Consensus”.  The subsequent meetings accomplished little but to demonstrate a U.S. commitment to unilateralism, and leaders throughout Latin America left Argentina questioning whether the Summit and the American-dominated Organization of American States (OAS) still maintained a purpose.

All signs in Latin America seemed to be pointing away from the principles that America stands for.  But according to Latinobarómetro – an annual Chilean public opinion survey of 18 Latin American countries – while attitudes toward the U.S. have diminished since 2001, support for democracy has steadily increased throughout the region.  This trend seems to indicate that Latin Americans embrace American values, but they object to America’s means of advancing – or imposing – those values.  Evidently, when it comes to our neighbors to the south, the reach of American influence has exceeded its grasp.  The U.S. sorely needed to reassess its strategy toward Latin America.

The hesitation to diplomatically engage the more controversial Latin American leaders stems from the political ideologies embraced by Chávez and the Castro brothers.  But are ideological differences still a major source of international conflict?  Is communism still a legitimate threat to America?  Since the collapse of the Soviet Union nearly two decades ago, conflicting cultural and religious identities have become the primary root of conflict.  Today, Cuba is merely the shell of a Soviet-installed mindless pest propped up in America’s backyard to demonstrate the extent of Communism’s reach into the Western hemisphere.  Every other country in the hemisphere has reestablished relations with Cuba and advocates its reincorporation into the OAS, indicating the preeminence of a common Latin American cultural identity as opposed to differing political ideologies.  As for Chávez, his primary objective is not to spread socialism, but rather to realize his idol Simón Bolívar’s dream of a united South American continent.  Critics of Obama’s mild tone with Chávez would be better served by supporting the development of alternative clean energy sources, which could all but relegate Venezuela to irrelevance, rather than by continuing to support the Bush administration’s heavy-handed policies.  Continuing to treat Venezuela and Cuba as if they were legitimate threats is the most irresponsible action the U.S. can take in the region.  The only threat to American security and prosperity posed by Venezuela is if the chasm between Washington and Caracas becomes so deep that countries that do matter – like Mexico and Brazil – are pressed to choose a side.

Regardless of whether the Obama administration stands by its apparent intentions to move in a new direction in Latin America, it appears that the region will continue to coalesce under its common cultural identity.  A Latin America that operates collectively is far less threatening if it does not do so in explicit opposition to the United States, especially with China’s interest in the region on the rise.  The U.S. can choose to forge a partnership with its neighbors and incorporate itself into an “Americas” identity, or as Obama wrote in an Op-Ed prior to the Summit, it can “stay mired in the old debates of the past”, allowing obsolete ideological rifts to divide the hemisphere.  The general consensus at the conclusion of the Summit was that the hemisphere had reached a “spirit of cooperation” that had not been achieved in years.  Chávez has already announced his intention to restore an ambassador to the United States.  Raúl Castro also responded positively to Obama’s policy changes last week, and leaders from Brazil to Canada to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines are praising the Summit’s effectiveness.  The “Obama Doctrine” of collective action and mutual respect has been embraced by leaders throughout the Americas.  The “renewed partnership of the Americas” that has emerged from the Summit is a long overdue change of direction toward a safe and prosperous future for our hemisphere.

No related posts.

As we near the end of Obama’s first 100 days, it would be hard to argue that this Administration has been reticent about stating its policies on national security and foreign policy issues.  We’ve heard major policy announcements on Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, climate change and nuclear proliferation, just to name a few of the big fish that have been thrown onto the crowded frying pan.  And given the number of high-profile officials that have been named to coordinate key challenges, it seems that President Obama is looking to put his name in the Guinness Book of World Records under “most special envoys named.”

Yet, despite what has been a relatively forthright presentation of policy shifts on many other issues, the Administration continues to be relatively restrained on changing policy toward Cuba.  True, the Administration is lifting some restrictions, but that is small potatoes when you’re starting from a trade embargo, which apparently is not open for debate.

On April 17, Obama will meet with his counterparts from the Western Hemisphere at the Summit of the Americas.  Cuba will not be in attendance, and the Administration has gone so far as to point out that Cuba is not on the agenda.  It is clear that the President will hear a lot about Cuba and say very little.  The question is why.

There is some political cover for Obama to move boldly to dramatically increase engagement with Cuba.  Senator Richard Lugar has publicly supported such a move.  Senator Mike Enzi co-sponsored the bill to lift travel restrictions.  The House bill on lifting travel restrictions also has sponsors from both parties, which seems to be a rare accomplishment these days.  The Cuban American National Foundation now pretty much declares current U.S. policy a failure.  And a recent CNN poll shows nearly three-quarters of Americans supporting diplomatic relations with Cuba.

So, again, the question — why isn’t there a more robust Cuba policy?  Quite simply, because there doesn’t need to be.

It might seem quite obvious to observers that the embargo does not achieve its stated goals.  It may be clear that we have never managed to isolate Cuba or destabilize the Castro government.  It is possible that everyone in the Obama Administration, most of the Congress and a majority of the general public believe that Cuba policy should be changed.  And you know what — it just doesn’t matter.

Cuba is not a national security threat.  Cuba is not a foreign policy problem.  Though many leaders at the Summit of Americas may try to convince Obama otherwise, our Cuba policy does not have much effect on our relationships with other countries.  Despite some convoluted assertions by U.S. Government officials over the years, Cuba is not a source of terrorists or WMD.  Cuba can be ignored.

What is Cuba then?  Using Administration calculus, a likely political liability that is better left alone.  Cuba is the grand gesture that could tie up the Obama Administration in a media frenzy for weeks.  Any bold action on Cuba could threaten to delay or even derail countless other more pressing foreign policy objectives.

After all, you don’t get those poll numbers (or support in Congress) if the debate becomes about supporting the Castro brothers.  I would strongly urge those in Congress who want a change in Cuba policy to stay home rather than heading out on codels to Havana.  Supporters of the embargo — which also happen to be a bipartisan group — will scorch the earth to keep the policy, and every photo op taken with someone named Castro helps them rile up their base.  Though Obama has done a good job surrounding himself with foreign policy stalwarts, he is still relatively new at the game himself.  I’m sure his staff is not interested in giving political opponents a chance to use “President Obama” and “soft on dictators” together in a sentence.

So the lack of a wide-reaching new Cuba policy may be nothing more than the Obama Administration deciding it has too many other things to do to waste political capital defending a policy shift that is sound but will not actually make that much of a difference in terms of making the U.S. safer or stronger.  There are no consequences to taking no action on Cuba, regardless of how ineffective and outdated the current policy may be.

So is Cuba worth it?  I guess not.

Maybe next year?

No related posts.

A new report was released yesterday by Richard Lugar (R-IN) that supported a significant change in US policy towards Cuba.  It’s a sign that the policy of isolation that has continued to govern the US relationship with Cuba since the end of the cold war, could be changing.  This is a welcome development and is the type of policy that should get broad bipartisan support.  For too long, the US policy towards Cuba (at least at the presidential level) has been governed by interest group politics that reflected the hard-line approach of much of the Cuban American community living in the swing state of Florida.

Lugar writes,

After 47 years, however, the unilateral embargo on Cuba has failed to achieve its stated purpose of, “bringing democracy to the Cuban people,” while it may have been used as a foil by the regime to demand further choices from Cuba’s impoverished population…. We must recognize the ineffectiveness of our current policy and deal with the Cuban regime in a way that enhances US interests.

We can all agree that Cubans would be much better off with a democratic regime that respects human rights and is responsive to their needs.  The question, however, is what is the best way to reach that outcome – isolation or engagement.   Today there is growing agreement that this decades-long isolation simply has not worked.  It has not brought democracy to Cuba.  It has not strengthened human rights.  And, as Lugar mentioned, it has provided a straw man for the Cuban regime to blame for its own deficiencies.

The American public also seems to increasingly be on board.  A February 2009 poll released by Fox News showed that only 30 percent of Americans felt that we should continue the embargo.  In fact, recent polling of the Cuban American community shows that a majority (55 percent) wants the embargo ended.

It’s these types of common-sense solutions that counter narrowly focused interest groups that are ripe for bipartisan compromise.

This not to say that we should give up on human rights and democratization in Cuba.  Certainly not.  These should continue to be prioritized.  However, just as with countries like China, we have decided that sometimes a policy of engagement is the better approach.  Sanctions and isolation have their place and I’ve certainly been one to advocate for these tools for countries such as Burma and Sudan.  In his statement, Lugar even mentions their effectiveness in South Africa.  However, we must also recognize that such tools work in some situations and not in others.  We must not employ a one size fits all solution to these complicated problems.  Clearly, the history of the past several decades has shown that this approach simply has not been effective in the case of Cuba.  It’s time to try something different.

No related posts.