Yesterday, the House Armed Services held a hearing on national security threats in Latin America as the first part of their Committee Defense Review. Three people testified (all links open in PDF): William Edgar of Jane's Strategic Advisory Service, Steve Johnson of the Heritage Foundation and Professor William LeoGrande from American University.
Their three testimonies had some sharp differences in how they view the "threats" in the region, but I found it astounding the amount of similarity over what topics all three considered important: transnational crime, gangs, Colombia's illegal armed groups, a minimal threat from radical Islam or China, a concern over growing anti-American populist movements, troubled democratic institutions and poverty.
Tom Shannon also testified before the Senate; here's the Miami Herald's coverage and I'll link to the testimony when I find a link. (UPDATE: LA Times article here, still no link to the testimony.)
This is a good time to deal with two questions I've been struggling with on Latin America. These are more stream of thought paragraphs rather than completely coherent questions. I just wanted to get the two issues on the table.
1. How do we handle the fact that domestic politics in Latin American countries can become a US national security issue? This is obviously an issue that has been dealt with for at least two centuries (Anyone want to debate the Monroe Doctrine?), but it's always worth taking another look at it. I had a brief discussion with Adam Isacson of CIP on that issue here, which has in part sparked more thoughts in my free time. Failed states and ungoverned spaces can become havens for international terrorism or transnational crime, both of which present threats to US security. However, trying to prevent states from failing and encouraging better government presence (both security and non-military) can be an interference in a nation's sovereign politics. We do have a significant security interest in how elections turn out or when political institutions or security situations deteriorate. At what point, however, do the issues within a country become so important to the US that we feel the need to take action? What actions are available to us? No country in the region is similar to Taliban-led Afghanistan circa 2001, but that's the most extreme example of a problem that comes at many different levels. Deciding how the sovereign politics of our neighbors fit into our national security is not an easy debate, but it's one that we're always having whether we want to or not.
2. Do politics in Latin America need to be redefined? President Lula da Silva and President Lagos are very different from the old Latin American left; President Uribe and President Fox are very different from the old Latin American right. Try to define "left" and "right" with regards to Latin America. Does "left" mean more government, anti-free trade, concern for the poor, anti-Americanism? Does the "right" mean less taxes, pro-business, less civil liberties, stronger militaries? Those are the frames people use today and in many ways that is how the politicians and movements are self-defining, but what if those frames are the completely wrong way to understand politics. There is a wide concern for the poor on Latin America's right, and there is an acceptance of globalization and free markets among much of the left (although maybe not the US version of it). Also in this mix are populism and indigenous activism. While today, both tend to be associated with the left, there is nothing that makes either term exclusively "pro-left" (in fact, if you look back ten years to Menem or Fujimori, you'll see a type of populism from the "right" that mimics Chavez). If necessary, I want to think outside the box to redefine Latin American politics. Maybe this is no longer a two sided system but a four or five issue grid. The Left-Right spectrum simply isn't explaining it anymore (nor is it explaining American politics, but that's a different debate).
Thoughts (well formed or not) are welcome in comments or by e-mail. Now that I'm done rambling, I'll try to have more coherent writings on the issues over the next few weeks.
0 comments:
Post a Comment