CIAO DATE: 04/03

Latin America's Role in the Battle Against Terror

Eric Farnsworth

Hemisphere Focus: 2001-2002
October 30, 2001

The Center for Strategic and International Studies

 

Overview

• The foundation of U.S. hemispheric policy is partnership with other democracies.
• True partnership demands sacrifice; expected mutual benefits go hand-in-hand with higher mutual obligations.
• Latin American and the Caribbean nations have taken strong first steps in the fight against international terror.
• Nonetheless, without visible additional support, future strategic U.S. neglect is more likely.
• Despite current severe economic and political difficulties in the hemisphere, bold steps now will resonate with outsized significance well into the future.

 

September 11 changed our world forever. For the decade of the 1990s—years that may come to be seen much like the 1920s—the United States reigned as the sole unchallenged superpower, the leader of the victorious coalition that won the Cold War. It was a time when domestic concerns generally took prominence in U.S. political debate, peace and prosperity numbed many U.S. citizens into complacency about the world at large, and politicians had the luxury of treating international issues, such as trade expansion, as the continuation of interest group politics by other means.

The horrendous attacks in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania ushered in a new age for the United States. Henceforth, everything from U.S. military doctrine, to our system of overseas alliances, to the way we conduct international commerce, will come under intensive review. The challenge now facing the United States is to fight an asymmetrical war against terror, and all previous bets are off.

U.S. policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean will not be unaffected. A mere six days before the attacks, Mexico's president Vicente Fox came to Washington as the first leader afforded a state visit, the highest honor the White House can bestow. The primary topics of discussion were immigration reform, law enforcement cooperation, and trade. At the time, no one considered terrorism part of the equation. Yet, in a remarkable move, President Fox returned to Washington on October 4 to proclaim Mexico's full solidarity with the United States as a neighbor, partner, and friend, realizing that terrorism is now the defining issue for U.S. foreign policy and that new bona fides must be established, even among best friends.

Such actions broadly support the United States' overall Western Hemispheric agenda, which continues to be the backdrop for U.S. policy. Since the Miami Summit of the Americas, the United States and other democracies in the region have talked about shared values and common interests as the unifying element of hemispheric relations, underwritten by a firm U.S. commitment to the expansion of trade with the Free Trade Area of the Americas. As conceived, the free-trade community of the Americas now under construction would have reciprocal benefits and reciprocal obligations. Members would meet common challenges jointly, from democracy, to financial stress, to the fight against illegal narcotics and corruption. Now add terrorism to the list.

On balance, the United States has done its part in meeting its regional commitments, starting with the implementation of most NAFTA provisions; support for Mexico during the peso crisis; provision of financial assistance to Brazil and Argentina; timely intervention to bring peace to the border between Ecuador and Peru and to end Guatemala's civil war; and allocation of massive bilateral assistance to the troubled Andean region. The effort has been bipartisan; the process begun under the first Bush's, George H.W.'s, presidency and continued under President Bill Clinton has formed the basis of hemispheric policy under the second Bush's, George W.'s, administration. That is all for good. Similarly, the one area where the United States has not totally met its commitments—trade—has been a bipartisan failing, where neither party, Republican nor Democrat, has been able to muster the votes at this point to pass fast track/Trade Promotion Authority without the other.

Due to the increasing realization in Congress that trade expansion should be a national security issue, even that may have changed in the wake of September 11. Progress on fast track's passage is but the most visible manifestation, along with the effort to renew the Andean Trade Preferences Act (ATPA), which will otherwise expire on December 4.

Stemming from the 1991 counter narcotics summit in Cartagena, ATPA was designed to provide duty—free access to a range of products from the primary cocaine-producing nations (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru) as a spur to alternative development and economic growth. The program has worked well beyond expectations in increasing trade, expanding economic development, and supporting democracy. With that in mind, it is important that Congress provide benefits to the region that are as broad as politically possible—not because it is good for the region, although that is surely the case, but because it is good for us—bearing in mind that the investment, jobs, and robust corporate responsibility programs of current ATPA users depend in part on a seamless reauthorization effort.

The partnership about which President Fox spoke, however, is by definition a two-way street. Just as the United States works to build the hemispheric community through trade expansion efforts such as fast track and ATPA renewal, the nations of the Americas must also do their share. Even before the events of September 11, skepticism about the region's abilities to meet its obligations was growing. Now more than ever, individual nations must stand with us in our time of need, just as we have stood with them. Simply put, we should expect the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean to actively and willingly join the fight against global terrorism. The strong resolution by the Organization of American States (OAS) and invocation of the Rio Treaty provide an opening salvo in this regard and should be appreciated as important statements of political support. In and of themselves, however, they are insufficient. Unless Latin American and Caribbean nations truly own the issue of global terrorism, understanding that terrorists pose a significant threat not just to U.S. interests but also to their own, the region's efforts will be overshadowed and fears of renewed U.S. policy neglect could well come to pass.

International terrorism is a regional problem. At the most basic level, Canada, Mexico, Chile, and numerous other nations of the Western Hemisphere lost their citizens in the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Al Qaeda reportedly maintains cells in Ecuador and Uruguay, and the tri-border area (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay) has long been a lawless zone where Hezbollah, Hamas, and other international terrorist groups operate. Argentina's Jewish community was the target of bombings in the early 1990s that have yet to be resolved. Domestic terrorism—in Colombia, Peru, and elsewhere—has been a fact of life in several nations.

More broadly, the attacks of September 11 have directly impacted the U.S. economy, which has in turn had dramatic negative effects throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. The World Bank estimates the region's growth will be reduced significantly as a result of the attacks. Already weak economies, such as Argentina's, have been pushed to the brink. Stronger economies, such as Mexico, are also feeling the pinch. In a climate ripe for populism, as shown in Venezuela, sinking economies exacerbate otherwise difficult political circumstances, and with another round of elections in the Americas in the next 12 months (Nicaragua and Honduras in November, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia in 2002), the outlook is uncertain and potentially worrisome.

The last thing that many of the region's leaders want or need is a new war on terrorism. In many cases resources do not exist for basic education and health, much less for a ramped-up effort against terror. This is not a war of our own choosing, however, and true partnership requires more than rhetorical support. In this regard, here are several concrete actions for the nations of the Americas to consider:

• Provide strong, unified support at the UN for military, economic, and diplomatic operations against Afghanistan and other targets. Now that Mexico is on the Security Council, and former ambassador to Mexico John Negroponte is at the UN, Mexico can and should take a leading role to mobilize Latin American and Caribbean support.
• Highlight antiterrorism activities, within the context of collective hemispheric defense and security activities, into OAS security activities and support the Rio Treaty accordingly.
• Ask for respective congressional resolutions of support for the international community, thereby bolstering the role of legislatures in support of democracy while obtaining the support of the public and putting opposition leaders on record.
• Deny safe-haven to terrorists by improving intelligence sharing with each other and with the United States, and by actively keeping tabs on known criminals and sympathizers and taking appropriate law enforcement action.
• Attack terrorists' financial support by going after money laundering and illicit transfers.
• Strengthen border control activities, not just at the Mexican and Canadian borders, but also at airports, seaports, and free trade zones.
• Maintain flexibility among oil-exporting nations including Venezuela, Mexico, Ecuador, and Canada, and consider contributions to the strategic petroleum reserve.
• Finally, offer tangible support, including equipment and burden sharing for out-of-region peacekeeping operations to relieve NATO and other forces from peacekeeping duties peripheral to Central Asia and the Middle East. Argentina, a Major non-NATO Ally, and Chile, approved to purchase advanced fighter planes, bear a special burden. Where possible, direct payments to support the coalition should also be contemplated, through reallocation of OAS assessments to reduce the U.S. burden or even a token return of foreign assistance.

Not every nation will be able to take many of these steps; some can take more, others less. However all nations in the region must take appropriate actions as self-interested actors to root out international terrorist activities and support the global coalition against terror. The higher obligations of democracy go hand-in-hand with the expected benefits, and true partnership requires that democracies deliver for the good of the hemispheric community.

The fight against global terrorism is the first test of the new century, and the question remains, will Latin American and Caribbean nations pass or fail? The answer will determine in part the strategic importance that the United States ascribes to the region well into the future.

 

About the Author

Eric Farnsworth is former policy director to the White House special envoy for the Americas (1995-1998) and now managing director of Manatt Jones Global Strategies LLC, chairman of the Greater Washington Board of Trade Western Hemisphere Task Force, and adjunct fellow with the CSIS Americas Program.