Tomorrow, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will travel to Mexico to meet with President Felipe Calderón and other top Mexican officials. And most likely, she will be taking with her the new Obama Administration plan for security on the U.S-Mexico border, which was unveiled today. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg and United States Deputy Attorney General David Ogden presented the "U.S. - Mexico Border Security Policy" this morning, which is guided by two objectives: preventing violence from spilling over the border and helping President Calderón crack down on drug cartels in Mexico.

The plan outlines the United States' commitment to "work with its Mexican partners, to support the Mexican government's campaign against the violent cartels, and to reduce contraband in both directions across the border." In addition to the $700 million already allocated to Mexico under the Mérida Initiative, the plan includes increased Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and Treasury personnel and efforts directed at the Southwest border and a renewed effort to reduce the demand for illegal drugs in the United States. According to the Los Angeles Times' coverage of the new plan, "Obama also could deploy National Guard troops to the U.S. Mexico border if the violence appears to be overwhelming the response of civilian authorities, although administration officials have portrayed this as a worst-case scenario."

Instead of targeting lax U.S. gun regulations that allow for the sale of high-powered automatic weapons, the new plan only aims to stop the transfer of weapons at the border by increasing the number of officers and agents on the border and enhancing the use of technology at ports of entry. And in terms of reducing the demand for drugs in the United States, the plan doesn't go much farther - only re-announcing that $5 billion have been committed in the previous year for initiatives to reduce illicit drug use (part of the Mérida Initiative), that the Obama Administration would like to integrate substance abuse services into the national healthcare system, and that the "FY09 Omnibus includes $63.9 million for drug courts that bring judicial, law enforcement, and treatment communities, as well as other social and public services together with the goal of breaking a non-violent offender’s drug addiction."

In addition to discussing the United States' commitment to securing the border and helping fight drug cartels in Mexico, trade - especially NAFTA - will most likely be high on the agenda for Secretary Clinton's trip. Congress recently cancelled funding for a pilot program that would allow Mexican trucks to travel on U.S. highways and Mexico retaliated last week by imposing tariffs on a wide-range of U.S. goods. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced today that the Obama Administration wants to assemble a proposal to resolve this dispute before President Obama visits Mexico in mid-April. However this dispute, as well as Mexico's concern that the United States is going to continue to backslide on NAFTA in light of the current economic situation (and both Obama's and Clinton's campaign promises to renegotiate NAFTA), will still remain main points of discussion.

Other topics that may be addressed, according to State Department Spokesman Robert Wood, include "the situation in the hemisphere ... and how we can further spread prosperity throughout the hemisphere as well as ensure that democracy ... continues to take a firm hold in the region."

Today at 4:00, the State Department held a press briefing to preview Secretary Clinton's trip to Mexico, which will most likely provide even more insight into who, in addition to President Calderón, she will be meeting with and what topics will be on the agenda.

On March 17, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing to receive testimony on U.S. Southern Command, U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Africa Command, and U.S. Transportation Command. Although it was a general hearing about all of the Commands, Committee members expressed their growing concern about the alarming violence on the Mexican border and had specific questions for Admiral Jim Stavridis [PDF] , U.S. Southern Command, and General Victor E. Renuart, Jr., U.S. Northern Command. The following are some of them, paraphrased, from Committee members:

• How are Northern Command and Southern Command working together to address the issue of violence on the border? –Chairman Carl Levin (D)
• Where do we need additional troops on the border? Is Calderón’s government “winning”? What are they doing about the widespread corruption among officials, law enforcement, etc., up to the highest level? Although the price of cocaine has dropped, the amount of drug-related violence has spiked; can someone please explain this to me? – Ranking Member John McCain (R)
• Should we have troops on the border? What is Northern Command doing to deter the violence? How much of a threat to homeland security is drug-related violence? - Joseph Lieberman (D)
• Have there been complaints from the Mexican government regarding the flow of arms originating from the United States into Mexico? - Jack Reed (D)

Yesterday, at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing "To receive testimony on the United States Southern Command, United States Northern Command, United States Africa Command, and United States Transportation Command," U.S. Navy Admiral James Stavridis, the commander of Southcom, brought up concerns regarding the increased Iranian and Hezbollah activities in Latin America. His comments appear to serve to expand upon U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' comments at his confirmation hearing that Iran's influence in Latin America was of greater concern that Russia's (see our previous blog on this here). Today, various news outlets reported on Admiral Stavridis' concerns and once again brought the idea to the public's eye that Iran's increased influence and presence in the region could be a threat to U.S. national security.

Admiral Stavridis was not alarmist in his testimony about Hezbollah's influence in the region, yet he does say that Southcom has multiple strategies to keep them from getting a stronghold on the region, such as increased humanitarian assistance and regional cooperation. However, an article on the website of the conservative National Review published today, by Mario Loyola, tries to paint the picture that terrorists are taking over Latin America, making the region the "southern front in the War on Terror." Loyola claims that "There may be no direct connection between recent kidnappings in Phoenix and high-profile visits by Hugo Chávez to Tehran. But connect the dots, and you will see a transnational extremist-terrorist wave challenging the institutions of liberal democracy in Latin America. If that wave begins to win in Latin America, we will soon be facing it here at home, with potentially grave consequences for our security and our way of life."

Recent talk by the Obama Administration on the instability of the region, specifically in regard to Mexico, and Capitol Hill's barrage of hearings over the past two weeks on drug violence and security in the region have all tended to hint at a need for increased military action in the region. However, a better strategy to defeat Iran's influence, which may or may not be an actual threat to the United States, would be for the Obama Administration to take a fresh approach and offer increased support for programs in Latin America aimed at fighting inequality and poverty, factors often cited as the main sources of instability in the region.

To read articles from the past year following Iran's increasing influence and presence in Latin America, check out Just the Facts' news archives.

Below are relevant excerpts from Admiral Stavridis' testimony on Iran, Hezbollah and the spread of Islamic terrorism in Latin America. His entire testimony (in pdf format) can be downloaded here.

Despite this "peaceful" state of the region from a state-on-state violence perspective, security challenges undoubtedly do exist. Narcoterrorism, drug trafficking, crime, gangs, and natural disasters pose the principal security challenges to the region and to the United States from the region. Also, the specter of transnational Islamic terrorism is of concern and bears due vigilance on our part....

One specific area of increasing concern is the nexus of illicit drug trafficking - including routes, profits, and corruptive influence - and terrorism. In the Western Hemisphere, the illicit drug trade historically has contributed, and continues to contribute, significant financial resources to known terrorist groups like the FARC in Colombia and the Shining Path in Peru. Another threat to the United States is the nexus with Islamic radical terrorism. In August of last year, U.S. Southern Command supported a Drug Enforcement Administration operation, in coordination with host countries, which targeted a Hizballah-connected drug trafficking organization in the Tri-Border Area of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay. Last October, we supported another interagency operation that resulted in the arrests of several dozen individuals in Colombia associated with a Hizballah-connected drug trafficking and money laundering ring. Identifying, monitoring, and dismantling the financial, logistical, and communication linkages between illicit trafficking groups and terrorist sponsors are critical to not only ensuring early indications and warnings of potential terrorist attacks directed at the United States and our partners, but also in generating a global appreciation and acceptance of this tremendous threat to security....

Terrorist networks are active throughout our hemisphere. These networks include domestic narcoterrorists, such as the FARC, who mainly reside in Colombia, as well as the Shining Path Maoist-style narcoterrorists of Peru. Islamic terrorist networks are also active, primarily involved in fundraising and logistical support for parent organizations based in the Middle East, such as Hizballah and Hamas. Individuals with terrorist training and experience who could support or conduct terrorist attacks in our hemisphere may be present in the region, and our intelligence has demonstrated that pre-operational and operational activities have indeed occurred, as exemplified by the attempt to blow up fuel pipelines at the JFK airport in New York in 2007. Islamic terrorist networks are present in the Tri-border Area, as well as several other locations in the region. A robust Hizballah financial support network exists in the region, as well as an active group of sympathizers and supporters of Hizballah. Also present are Sunni groups,including Hamas, whose members possess operational backgrounds. Moreover, known al- Qa'ida members have journeyed to Latin America and the Caribbean and other terrorist-inspired Islamic radicals have been arrested in the region.

As with all of the Department of Defense and other U.S. departments and agencies, U.S. Southern Command dedicates significant effort to remaining vigilant in the struggle against violent extremism. We have a regional plan to combat this threat through multiple avenues. This plan includes shaping the strategic environment through support to interagency humanitarian operations that impede radical organizations from gaining a foothold in the region, as well as building partner nation capacity to detect and defeat threats in a cooperative environment. These efforts will help ensure the forward defense of the United States and increased security for our partners.

Below, thanks to CIP Intern Stacy Ulmer, are remarks of government officials around the region regarding the results of Sunday’s elections in El Salvador:

“We applaud the democratic process in El Salvador, and we give our most enthusiastic best wishes to El Salvador for their democratic examples” -Álvaro Uribe Vélez, President of Colombia

“Well, first and foremost, I want to congratulate the people of El Salvador for, you know, a very free, fair, and democratic election. I want to specifically congratulate Mauricio Funes as the winner of the presidential election, and also his opponent, Rodrigo Avila, for participating in the election and for respecting the election results. So we look forward to working with the new government of El Salvador, you know, on our bilateral agenda. And you know, and that’s what I have.” - Robert Wood, Acting Department Spokesman for the U.S. State Department

“The sons of Simón Bolívar give our supportive hand to President Mauricio Funes” -Hugo Chávez, President of Venezuela

…with the FMLN at the head of El Salvador, the leftist governments extend throughout the region and that, in his opinion, are “a clear demonstration that the political neoliberals promoted by the United States, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have been an entire failure and that the people are looking for new horizons” -Iván Canelasagregó, Spokesman for the Bolivian Government

The President of Mexico, Felipe Calderón Hinojosa, congratulated the winning candidate of the El Salvador elections, Mauricio Funes, by telephone this afternoon; and through their own channels he asked the Salvadoran citizens to do the same, which yesterday became a model for elections, that displayed their vibrant democracy that lives in this Central American country.

On Sunday, El Salvador held historic elections. For the first time in 20 years, a government led by a party other than the conservative ARENA proved victorious. And the victor was none other than the party of the former leftist guerrillas, Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN), who during El Salvador's 12 year civil war fought against the U.S. backed government. 17 years after the war ended, the FMLN's candidate, Mauricio Funes, was elected with 51% of the vote to be the country's next president. Not only is this a major step for El Salvador, but it is also another step in Latin America's move to the left.

Now many are watching President-elect Funes closely, wondering whether he will join the ranks of the far-left leaders in Latin America like Venezuelan President Chávez and Bolivian President Morales, or follow the lead of moderates like Brazil's Lula.

Funes himself has compared his future policies and leadership style to that of President Lula and has tried to distance himself from Chávez. In an interview yesterday (as it appears in the Washington Post), President-elect Funes said "nothing traumatizing is going to happen here. There will be no confiscation, we will not reverse any privatizations. We will not jeopardize private property. There is no reason at this moment for fear." However, some skeptics believe that the extreme left of the FMLN is going to have more influence over Funes than he says. Regardless, as made clear by editorials from many of the Central American region's major newspapers, many challenges lie ahead for Funes, including a suffering economy and high levels of poverty, inequality and criminal violence.

Major newspapers in the United States reported mainly on the historic nature of the victory and Funes' promise to be a moderate leader. However, some publications had a more pointed stance on the outcome of the elections. Following the cue of some Republican members of Congress, who believe that an FMLN victory is a threat to national security, the Washington Times editorial board was quick to make their (reminiscent of Cold War rhetoric) opinion be known. The editorial argues that a win by the FMLN is a win for "communist terrorists" and it continues by sounding the alarm that "a pro-terrorist political party taking power in El Salvador is a grave development that underscores the need for urgent action in Latin America. Our friends in Colombia are being surrounded, and Mexico is inching toward a social meltdown that Chávez and his cronies will leap to exploit."

The Obama Administration, however, refuses to take this negative stance. Yesterday, State Department spokesman Robert Wood congratulated the people of El Salvador for a "very free, fair, and democratic election." Continuing on to "specifically congratulate Mauricio Funes as the winner of the presidential election" and make clear that the U.S. "look[s] forward to working with the new government of El Salvador, you know, on our bilateral agenda."

Below are links to some of the editorials written about the FMLN victory.

Editorials from major newspapers in Central America

Costa Rica: Change in El Salvador, La Nación

Honduras: El Salvador moves left, El Heraldo

Guatemala: Challenges for Funes, the FMLN and Arena, La Prensa Libre

Nicaragua: Welcome Hope, El Nuevo Herald

U.S. Editorials

A new El Salvador, Los Angeles Times

El Salvador taking a left turn, Washington Times

For more links to articles covering the elections in Salvador, check out the Just the Facts news links.

On Saturday, Brazilian President Lula da Silva met with President Obama at the White House. He was the first Latin American head of state to be received in Washington since Obama's inauguration. What the two discussed behind closed doors wasn't made public, however at the press conference following the meeting, the two presidents mentioned that they covered topics ranging from the global financial crisis to cooperation on energy and biofuels, expanding trade relationships and improving standards of living in impoverished countries in Latin America.

Prior to the meeting, news sources such as Reuters speculated that President Lula would urge Obama to improve relations with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. The only glimpse of this conversation came when President Obama mentioned that he and President Lula intended to "use the strength of the U.S.-Brazilian relationship to strengthen ties throughout the hemisphere." While President Lula noted that "President Obama carries the responsibility and has a unique and exceptional position to improve the relationships with Latin America."

President Obama also said that "I have been a great admirer of Brazil and a great admirer of the progressive, forward-looking leadership that President Lula has shown throughout Latin America and throughout the world."

After the meeting, President Lula appeared at a press conference at the Brazilian embassy, according to the Spanish news agency EFE, where he continued to discuss his conversation with President Obama, adding that he had "asked his U.S. peer, Barack Obama, to establish a new relation 'of confidence and not interference' with Latin America, that would include closer ties with Venezuela, Cuba, and Bolivia." Additionally, President Lula affirmed that he had told President Obama that Latin American nations, not the United States, should take initiative on the fight against drugs and collaborate among themselves to control their borders.

The meeting between the two presidents comes at an opportune time, when the new U.S. adminstration is formulating the approach it will take at the upcoming Summit of the Americas in April, where heads of state from the Western Hemisphere will come together to discuss ideas and opinions on the political, economic, social and security challenges confronting the region.

On March 11th, 2009, the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing to discuss U.S. policy in the region at the upcoming 5th annual Summit of Americas in Trinidad and Tobago. With the recent surge of violence in Mexico and the expulsion of additional U.S. officials from Bolivia, Latin America has become a focus of many hearings in Washington. The hearing was attended by many Committee members, all of whom had a lot to say. Below are a few of my favorite comments, paraphrased:

Summit of Americas must not be high point of relationship between Latin America and the United States, but rather a new beginning, said Eliot L. Engel (D-NY), the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.

Dan Burton (R-IN) expressed his concern about the possible outcome of this weekend’s elections in El Salvador and stated that the U.S. should cut remittances of funds from Salvadorans living in the United States if the FMLN wins, and that the “Bolivarian Revolution” needs to be stopped. Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) continued the concern with the possible outcome of the election when he stated that when the people of El Salvador go to the polls they are essentially choosing their country’s relationship, or lack thereof, with the United States. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) boldly stated, “Chairman, I thought the Cold War was over”. (See the Washington Office on Latin America’s statement on these comments.)

Peter Hakim of the Inter-American Dialogue, who testified before the Committee, recommended that the United States not look at the region as friends vs. adversaries. Delahunt agreed and said that this policy did not get us very far the past 8 years, and brought much resentment from the region and that it is time to move on. On the contrary, many members were concerned with anti-U.S. rhetoric coming from several leaders in Latin America and their influence throughout the region. Ranking member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) stated that the U.S. should stand firmly with our allies, not leaders with anti-U.S. rhetoric.

On Tuesday, the directors of two of the organizations participating in the "Just the Facts" project testified at a hearing about U.S. aid to Mexico, held by the House of Representatives' Appropriations Subcommittee for the State Department and Foreign Operations.

Here is a statement put out by one of our witnesses, Latin America Working Group Education Fund Director Lisa Haugaard. This post also appears on the LAWGEF's new blog.

Testimony from Ms. Haugaard, Washington Office on Latin America Director Joy Olson, and other witnesses at Tuesday's hearing is linked at the bottom of this post.

Respond, Yes—But Only the Right Way: The U.S. Debates Drug Cartel Violence in Mexico

Written by Lisa Haugaard

Wednesday, 11 March 2009

Day after day we hear nightmarish stories of gangland slayings in Mexico, as drug-related violence expands, affecting the lives of countless families and communities across Mexico, as well as the U.S-Mexico border region. Mexico’s Attorney General estimates that rival drug cartels killed 6,262 people in 2008.
And in the U.S. Congress and the White House, our policymakers are talking about “how to help Mexico.” Pentagon leaders are touring Mexico, talking in alarmist ways about failed states and pledging help. I am finding it eerily reminiscent of the days leading up to Plan Colombia.

Yes, the United States can and should help. But there are ways to respond that can help—and ways to respond that create new troubles ahead.

LAWG had the chance to testify before the House Foreign Operations Subcommittee on March 10. Many thanks are due to Subcommittee Chair Nita Lowey for providing an opportunity for U.S. and Mexican nongovernmental groups to share perspectives and provide some advice and cautionary tales about what the United States should do—and avoid doing.

What should we do? By far the most important step we can take is to clean up our own act. We need to reduce demand for illicit drugs and stop the flow of assault weapons from the United States into Mexico.

To do this, the United States must take a public health approach, improving access to high-quality drug treatment programs. Each year barely one-fifth of the Americans in need of such treatment receive it. Expanding and improving treatment and prevention would be the single most important contribution that the U.S. government could make in addressing the problem caused by the illicit drug trade in Latin America. Any U.S. aid package, even if well designed, will not solve the problem but at best temporarily shift it, after enormous human suffering, to another geographical area. We owe it to our neighbors and to ourselves to finally test out more effective and humane public health solutions to this enduring problem.

Second, the United States must put a stop to the “iron river” of assault weapons flowing into Mexico. According to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), 90 percent of the weapons confiscated from organized crime in Mexico originate in the United States. The solutions are fairly well defined—we just need to muster the political will to accomplish them. They include enforcing the ban on importing assault weapons into the United States, enforcing the laws so dealers don’t sell to fronts to the drug cartels, and restoring an effective ban on sale of assault weapons in the United States.

Third, we can provide U.S. assistance to Mexico, but with a focus on strengthening the justice system and making civilian law enforcement more accountable. And with human rights requirements included and seriously enforced.

But what we should not do is also on the table for discussion in Washington right now. We should not, through U.S. aid, equipment and training, reinforce the role of the Mexican military in daily law enforcement. Human rights violations, such as the shooting of civilians by soldiers operating checkpoints, since 2006, when the military has been increasingly brought into policing roles. When you take the army out of the barracks, it is often hard to put it back.

The United States so often responds to problems in Latin America—in this case, problems partly of our own making—as if guns and helicopters provide the solution. But this is not the answer, either for Mexico, or for the United States.

Testimonies from the March 10, 2009 Foreign Operations Subcommittee hearing

All links are in PDF format.

• Lisa Haugaard, director, Latin America Working Group Education Fund
• Joy Olson, director, Washington Office on Latin America
• Ana Paula Hernández, consultant in Mexico on Human Rights and Drug Policy
• Thomas Shannon, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs
• David T. Johnson, assistant secretary of state for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
• Roger D. Garner, U.S. Agency for International Development mission director to Mexico

Amid skyrocketing rates of drug-related violence in Mexico, President Felipe Calderón said the following on Monday, while meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy:

If the Mexican Army, the Federal Police, and local police are working and risking their lives for this fight [against narcotrafficking], in the name of the hundreds of Mexican police who have died, it is fundamental that the United States assume, through deeds, its part of the responsibility for this fight."

Part of the U.S. responsibility would be helping to stop the flow of U.S. guns into Mexico. However, yesterday's Wall Street Journal presented some chilling statistics showing how great the problem of U.S. arms smuggling is and how little has been done.

The fighting is being waged with thousands of American-purchased or stolen weapons flowing south illegally each year, U.S. officials say.

The State Department recently estimated U.S.-originated guns were used in 95% of Mexico's drug-related killings. The number of such murders more than doubled to almost 6,000 last year, up from about 2,700 in 2007.

Meanwhile, U.S. authorities seized only 257 weapons heading south at border checkpoints in 2008 -- and a total of just 733 dating back to the start of 2005, according to data Homeland Security officials provided to The Wall Street Journal.