U.S. Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann gestures beside Mitt Romney during the Republican presidential debate in Ames (Courtesy Reuters).
As primary election season gets underway, the Republican hopefuls have had little to say about Latin America. But there have been a few hints though from the leading candidates as to what they see when they look south – particularly with regard to Mexico.
Michele Bachmann is the most cut and dry so far. She opposes immigration and the legalization of undocumented migrants, and calls for the deployment of troops in south Texas. The Minnesota congresswoman wants to wall the border off completely, saying “As president of the United States, every mile, every yard, every foot, every inch will be covered on that southern border.” When Bachmann felt the need to strengthen her foreign policy chops last spring, she flew to Colombia and Mexico with the House Intelligence Committee – her first trip abroad to a country other than Israel (which she has visited multiple times courtesy of pro-Israel interest groups). Upon returning, she expressed strong support for the drug war.
Mitt Romney and Rick Perry have more nuanced takes – in part because they have more extensive experience in and with the region. Romney has a long history working in Latin America, as his firm Bain Capital invested extensively in Central and South America. On the campaign trail, he lauds those governments with business friendly policies, pointedly contrasting them to those with less open markets (e.g. Venezuela and Cuba).
During the 2008 electoral race Romney became increasingly tough on immigration , and even tougher on border enforcement, running ads attacking John McCain for his “soft” stances. His hardened views have caused somewhat of a family drama as many of his relatives (no, not from the Huntsman branch) live in northern Mexico and have openly criticized him, saying that “I don’t think Mitt understands the causes of illegal immigration.”
Rick Perry, the newest addition to the field and the now front-runner has little interest in Latin America, but does have a long history with Mexico. On immigration, the Texas governor is considerably more progressive than many of his peers. Perry’s record suggests that he supports the DREAM act and similar reforms, given that he approved a law allowing undocumented high school graduates in Texas to pay state tuition. He has even thrown his weight behind a guest worker program for Texas.
But Perry is increasingly vocal and tough on border security. Among the most outspoken critics of Obama’s border policy, he has repeatedly raised alarm bells about violence spilling over from Mexico into the lone star state, and asked for the deployment of military troops and predator drone in response. Unlike Bachmann, Perry has remained firmly opposed to the border fence, calling the idea “ridiculous on its face.”
This early in the season, most candidates and campaigns are focused on domestic issues. Those foreign policy issues at the forefront – Afghanistan, Libya, or Syria – aren’t necessarily a club Latin American nations would want to join. But many do bemoan the lack of interest and understanding of the rest of the Western Hemisphere by these presidential hopefuls.
Latin America should in fact matter more. The region is among the U.S. fastest growing trading partners, creating American jobs with each purchase. With over half a trillion dollars worth of goods going back and forth, Latin America is second only to Asia – and growing much faster – in terms of total trade with the United States. Its largest nations play important roles in multilateral organizations from the G20 to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), helping the United States and others resolve difficult global challenges. And finally, according to the latest census 50 million Americans – 1/6 of the population – are descendants of these nations, many still with close ties to their original homes. Ignoring Latin America or alienating Latin Americans only adds up to a missed opportunity, both for the Republican Party and for the country.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
A customs officer is handed a passport by a motorist at the San Ysidro border crossing (Fred Greaves/Courtesy Reuters).
The U.S. debates over Mexico’s drug war increasingly focus on spillover violence. Border state governors Rick Perry and Jan Brewer insist that Mexican cartels are hitting their states hard, portraying the border as a lawless “war zone” in which the drug cartels and illegal Mexicans incite “terror and mayhem” on a daily basis. In stark contrast, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Alan Bersin and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano contend that the border has never been safer.
The statistics bear out the latter position. A recent study based on FBI figures shows that violent crime in cities within 50 miles of the border is consistently lower than state and national averages. The robbery rate in the Texas border region, for example, remained at least 30 percent lower than the state average for every year in the past decade. The data also show that the number of kidnapping cases in border areas dropped by more than half since 2009. This doesn’t mean that bad things don’t happen – they do. But they happen less frequently along the border, on average, than in other parts of the United States. Despite local politicians’ concerns and rhetoric, the border is more secure than in the past, and in fact safer than the rest of the country.
But the downward trend in border violence does not mean that the Mexican drug war hasn’t had spillover effects on the United States. Among the most troubling is corruption. Local newspapers recount the stories of public officials engaged in foul play; from the South Texas county Sheriff Conrado Cantú, who took bribes from drug traffickers, to Columbus, New Mexico Mayor Eddie Espinoza, charged with operating a gun smuggling ring in connection with Mexican cartels. Available data also show a rise in corruption within the ranks of the border patrol. Since the reopening of the Homeland Security Bureau’s internal affairs unit in 2003 – in and of itself a reflection of the increased risk of corruption within the agency – cases of corruption against law enforcement officials on the border have more than doubled. Tales of CBP agents turning a blind eye to, and sometimes actively aiding drug traffickers smuggling narcotics, arms and migrants across the border abound.
The increase in corruption reflects the lure of drug money and the CBP’s institutional weaknesses. Doubling the border patrol’s numbers in less than a decade made it more vulnerable to corruption, diluting the once highly disciplined force with less experienced and committed newcomers. The border patrol administers lie detector tests to only 10 percent of applicants, more than half of which fail — raising serious concerns about the capability, and even intentions, of many of its new hires.
Other spillover effects are positive for the United States – namely increasing economic activity. Seemingly every day new restaurants, stores, and private schools are opening in border towns, serving clients that once traveled further south. Many attribute Texas’ strong real estate market to the influx of Mexican citizens eager for greater peace and stability. In the spring of 2008, when foreclosures hit record highs across the United States, real estate agents in El Paso reported steady sales of houses and apartments worth more than $100,000. The President of the Greater El Paso Association of Realtors, Dan Olivas, attributed the stability of the El Paso market to “a substantial number of people from Juarez coming over to buy properties for security reasons, for fear of kidnappings, extortion, and cartel violence.” This El Paso trend has continued, and spread more broadly.
Not only do Mexicans buy homes, but many are bringing their businesses north. Immigration consultants say inquiries from Mexicans for EB-5 investor visas – which cost $500,000, and require that applicants’ create at least 10 jobs in the U.S. within two years – have doubled in recent years. Mexico has quickly risen the ranks to become one of the top recipients of these visas.
Mexico’s drug war is indeed affecting the United States – but mostly in ways that politicians overlook, misunderstand, or (more cynically) choose not to recognize. The current policy prescriptions – a higher and longer border wall, more boots on the ground and predator drones overhead – won’t slow seeping corruption, nor bolster the beneficial economic ties. Unfortunately, the wrong diagnosis means also the wrong policy prescriptions, hurting both countries in the process.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Undocumented Migrants travel on raft bound for Ciudad Hidalgo, Mexico (Daniel Leclair/Courtesy Reuters).
While two weeks ago Damien Cave’s great New York Times piece highlighted the positive economic factors keeping Mexicans at home, this week the Wall Street Journal adds border crossing dangers to the reasons for a downward trend in undocumented migration. This holds doubly true for Central Americans. A recent RAND study shows that while fewer Mexicans are coming to the United States, fewer are leaving as well, even with the economic downturn. Its authors suggest that this is due to the “target earner hypothesis,” which holds that migrants will not return to their home country until they have earned a prefixed level of savings. I’d add that the increasing costs and dangers of returning must also affect migrants’ calculation.
Though unlikely before the 2012 presidential election, these changing dynamics may open a space again to talk about immigration reform. I recommend CFR’s immigration policy Task Force, published in 2009, for some serious thoughts on what U.S. national interests here comprise, and what should be done.
Lastly, Arturo Valenzuela’s tenure at the State Department has now officially ended. Steve Clemons offers his take, emphasizing the positive steps the outgoing Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemispheric Affairs took toward establishing a more consistent, less volatile U.S. policy toward Latin America. Let’s hope for continuity rather than change going forward.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Seized weapons are displayed to the media by the Mexican Navy in Mexico City (Jorge Lopez/Courtesy Reuters).
Reformers say never to waste a crisis — or a scandal. They certainly have found one with the ATF’s Fast and Furious program, in which bureau officials allowed hundreds of firearms to “walk” across the border, straight into the hands of Mexican drug traffickers. Designed to track complex cartel networks and increase border security, the operation relied on surveillance to document so-called straw buyers’ purchase and sale of arms to Mexican drug traffickers, in hopes that the dealings would lead them to important criminal targets. Those in charge, however, lost track of the guns. When two Fast and Furious military-style firearms were found at the scene Border Patrol agent Brian Terry’s murder last year, ATF employees broke rank and began to speak out on the program’s failings. Since the initial whistle-blowing in March of 2011, the revelations of high-level ATF and justice officials involvement just keep expanding.
Fast and Furious illuminates the deep problems within ATF. In a recent report based on ATF data, Democrats highlight that roughly 70 percent of all illegal guns found in Mexico come from the U.S., and attribute this to the weak tools ATF holds. They argue that to address the problem, the U.S. needs to better enforce the ban on imports of military-style weapons and ratify the CIFTA treaty, which would establish a standard for the control of illicit manufacturing and trafficking of firearms.
Republicans, led by Darrel Issa (R-Vista) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)are more interested in holding top justice officials accountable for their involvement in Fast and Furious. Issa has all but ruled out any discussion of gun laws during the investigation into the scandal, interrupting a witness’s testimony in a hearing last week to remind him,“we’re not here to talk about proposed gun legislation.”
The Obama administration, trying to take initial steps to address the issue, recently issued new regulations requiring gun dealers to notify the ATF when a customer buys more than one gun in a short period of time, in an effort to detect so-called ‘straw buyers’ who purchase firearms on behalf of Mexican drug traffickers.
What else can and should be done? In a report for the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center and the University of San Diego, Colby Goodman and Michel Marizco recommend that states criminalize straw purchasing and urge ATF to boost its staff so the bureau can increase its inspections of gun stores. At current staffing levels, it would take the ATF a minimum of three years to inspect every licensed firearms dealer in the country. Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns group wants to close the “terror-gap” in gun legislation, under which more than 1300 known terror suspects purchased firearms in the U.S. since 2004. The coalition of mayors also advocates the repeal of the Tiahrt amendments, which prevent the release of trace data to state and federal officials. One effect of this measure is to force the U.S. to rely on data from the Mexican government about the status of Fast and Furious guns. A repeal would to improve law enforcement’s ability to track criminals armed with illegal guns.
Studies of California’s regulation show that steps like these matter – of the thousands of guns heading to Mexico and into cartel hands, only an estimated 3% were purchased in California. Whats more, since it tightened restrictions on the sale of firearms in the early 1990s, its rate of firearm-related deaths has plummeted more than 45%, dwarfing the 16.5% average drop across the rest of the United States.
Average U.S. citizens are increasingly inclined to regulate gun sales, as a recent poll shows that the overwhelming majority of those surveyed, including gun owners, support more probative background checks for buyers. But to make a real move means taking on the NRA in a Presidential election year. This may mean, unfortunately, that this scandal will go to waste, and U.S. guns will keep fueling Mexican cartels’ fire.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
U.S. President Barack Obama and Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff toast during lunch in Brasilia (Ho New/Courtesy Reuters).
Today the Council on Foreign Relations is releasing its independent Task Force report, “Global Brazil and U.S.-Brazil Relations”. I sat in as an observer for the Task Force, ably led by co-chairs Samuel W. Bodman — former Secretary of Energy under George W. Bush — and James D. Wolfensohn — chairman of Citigroup’s international advisory board and former president of the World Bank Group — and directed by my CFR colleague, Julia Sweig. The project’s 30 participants hail from diverse backgrounds, some old Brazil hands and others with functional and/or wide-ranging expertise. Needless to say, the four meetings that took place over the course of a year yielded a stimulating and fruitful dialogue. Although there were some differences of opinion among Task Force members (some of which are noted in the additional comments and dissents section of the report), everyone agreed to Brazil’s rising importance.
We addressed a wide range of issues, including Brazil’s economic health, its energy agenda, its role as a dominant regional power and its relationship with the U.S. government. The report’s core recommendations focus on deepening cooperation between Brazil and the United States so that both can more effectively advance their common interests (and better manage areas where we might come into conflict). In particular, the Task Force points to Chinese monetary policy, climate change mitigation, the expansion of the biofuels industry and regional counternarcotics policy as issue areas that provide opportunities for bilateral cooperation. It calls for Washington to better appreciate Brasilia’s increasing potential as a global strategic ally. As a sign of goodwill, the Task Force recommends a particular concrete step: fully endorsing Brazil as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
The report’s most basic takeaway is that Brazil is the newest pillar in a multipolar world and must be treated as such. Slotted to become the world’s fifth largest economy within the next decade, it grew at a stunning pace of 7.5% in 2010 (whether this is sustainable remains a big question mark), and is expected to expand 4.5% this year. Unemployment and inequality — perennial concerns for the nation—have fallen. Still, Brazil’s economic outlook is not entirely rosy. In the short to medium term, rising exchange rates and inflation threaten Brazil’s growth. Decrepit infrastructure and an overwhelmed public education system threaten its longer term competitiveness. Whether Brazil can take on these myriad obstacles effectively remains to be seen.
Whatever its economic future may hold, the Task Force report is worth a full read, as it provides important insights and ideas on how both Brazil and the U.S. can manage the challenges that lie ahead, and the U.S.-Brazil relationship, for the better of both nations.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Venezuelan President Chavez looks on as his Brazilian counterpart Lula da Silva speaks during their meeting at Miraflores Palace in Caracas in July, 2010 (Jorge Silva/Courtesy Reuters).
Jorge Dominguez’s recent testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere gives an overview of Latin America’s progress toward democratic consolidation in recent history, and the role the international community has played in this slow, but steady, march.
Time and America’s Quarterly have two good pieces on Mexico’s state level elections last weekend. While both rightly focus on the PRI’s strength coming out of the election, it didn’t win everywhere. The party lost nine municipalities it previously held in the state of Hidalgo, due in large part to successful alliances between the PAN and PRD. Meanwhile, the PRD mayor of Mexico City urges that these ties must become stronger to give his party and its allies a fighting chance in the 2012 presidential elections.
A recent New York Times article looks at the current state of illegal immigration from Mexico to the U.S., highlighting how changing dynamics within both countries dissuade Mexicans from crossing the border illegally. This discussion addresses issues I raised in the past, namely changing demographics and new economic realities, including the rise of the middle class in Mexico and the region more broadly.
Lastly, for readers worried about Brazil’s overheating, this Economist graph won’t calm your fears.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
A U.S. Border Patrol agent checks an area under a bridge crossing between the United States and Mexico (Eric Thayer/Courtesy Reuters).
Starting today, at the end of each week I will post a weekly roundup of articles, reports and other analyses on developments in Latin America and U.S. relations in the region that I have found particularly interesting. Please feel free to add your takes on these “reads of the week” in the comments section!
This is a good summary by my CFR colleague Ted Alden and co-author Bryan Roberts of what we know, what we don’t know, and what we need to know to develop a better U.S. border policy.
Southern Pulse provides interesting analysis of how drug cartels evolve, and the role Calderón’s security strategy has played in accelerating this process.
At the Central American Security Conference (SICA), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s calls on Central America’s elites to step up their contributions to the region-wide fight against violence.
A recent Los Angeles Times article illuminates why high growth and voter discontent co-exist in Peru.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
President Obama delivers remarks on immigration reform at Chamizal National Memorial Park in El Paso (Jim Young / Courtesy Reuters).
Framed by sunny El Paso skies, President Obama put immigration back firmly on center stage yesterday. In his speech he called on Congress to “put politics aside” and find “common ground” in order to reform a broken system. His justifications are similar to those of the past – immigration reform is both an economic and moral imperative, as important for the future competitiveness of our country as for our understanding of ourselves as Americans. The basic outline for reform is also similar to the last legislative round in 2007 – tougher penalties against businesses employing undocumented workers; temporary worker programs; a path to citizenship for those living in the shadows requiring applicants to pay penalties, taxes, and learn English; legal status for American college graduates hoping to start businesses here; and citizenship for young people brought to the U.S. as children who go on to college or serve in the military (the so-called DREAM Act).
What is different this time around is that in reopening the debate, Obama explicitly called on a constituency that remained decidedly quiet during the last polarizing round: business. In his speech, he singled out and quoted as many businessmen as immigrants. Alongside the voices of immigrants serving in the U.S. marines and navy, Obama added those of Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch. He went on to mention some of the largest corporations founded by immigrants – Google, Intel, Yahoo and Ebay –which add billions of dollars and thousands of jobs to the U.S. economy.
An eloquent speech in and of itself will change few minds, particularly as the 2012 Presidential election season nears. But if it would open the deep pockets of the private sector, it could perhaps make a difference. Of any constituency business has a cross-cutting power to pressure for the necessary reach across the aisle. And openness to immigration reform seems to span the private sector – from agriculture to high tech, from small businesses to the largest corporations, from the coasts to the center. Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – a consistent Obama critic – agrees with the President on the issues and has been pushing these types of reforms for a decade.
Comprehensive immigration reform is a long shot. The hostility of a vocal portion of the electorate will still likely hold the political process hostage, at least until after the 2012 election. But involving the quite powerful groups sitting on the sidelines is the way to give reform its best chance.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Mexico's Chamber of Deputies debate the immunity of fellow congressman Julio Cesar Godoy (Stringer / Courtesy Reuters).
Mexicans briefly got their hopes —and some their hackles— up this week as Congress debated potentially transformative reforms. The first dealt with national security, designed to strengthen the existing 2005 law and formalize the army’s de facto role in keeping the peace. The reform failed due to concerns over the protection of human rights and civil liberties in the face of broadly (and vaguely) defined internal threats and expanded intelligence gathering tools.
Political reform too made the rounds, also passing the Senate but shut down by the Chamber of Deputies. Fewer criticized this law, which would have allowed independent citizens to run for office and introduced national referendums. Most significantly, it would have allowed reelection in Mexico.
Taking term limits to the extreme, Mexico currently doesn’t permit reelection, period. From the president on down—governors, senators, deputies, local mayors and town councilors—no Mexican politician can stay. Initially written to limit local political fiefdoms, this electoral design created non-territorial fiefdoms instead, concentrating power in the hands of party leaders. The rule offers aspiring politicians little incentive to follow through on campaign promises or appease local voters, as their next career step depends more on the party hierarchy. Citizens can’t directly “punish” bad leaders or reward good ones as they will move on at the end of their first and only term.
These term limits also hamper institutional memory and learning. For instance, Mexican mayors have three-year terms. The first year they are settling in, appointing their staff, learning the ropes. The second year (if citizens are lucky) they work hard to address local issues. But by the third year, they must turn to their personal future—which can’t be as mayor. Locals can’t reward them for good service or undivided attention, and so—many times—they get neither. This hits issues that require longer time horizons—economic growth, security, good governance—the hardest.
For years, Mexico’s academic community has been pushing for electoral reforms. They argue that reelection would bolster accountability and, in the long-term, increase trust and participation in the political system. (To be sure, reelection won’t solve all of Mexico’s ills – it won’t end corruption or improve Mexico’s courts, among other issues.) But despite widespread agreement on the real benefits, it still didn’t happen, for two reasons.
First, while the reform would lessen the control of party bosses over politicians, until it passes these same leaders hold the careers of aspiring politicians in their hands. Too few are willing to stick their necks out, fearing that if the law doesn’t pass, their political careers certainly will. In 2005— the last time political reform came up for a vote and despite the PRI’s party-wide protestations of wholehearted support for change—the party bailed on the day, claiming that they wanted “a better bill.” Senator Genaro Borrego, who had introduced the bill, was the lone yay vote from the PRI, and he was already planning on retiring. Second, this particular bill also opened up the presidential race to independent candidates. This couldn’t have pleased the current PRI presidential front-runner, who holds sway in Mexico’s lower chamber.
With Congress’s regular session ending tomorrow, political reform, labor reform, and tax reform all wait not only until the next September session, but realistically until after the 2012 presidential elections. (An extraordinary session will likely be scheduled for May/June to pass the security reform).
But, this congressional session wasn’t a total wash. What did pass both the House and Senate unanimously is a law beefing up penalties for Mexico’s monopolies. Under the new rules, firms found guilty of monopolistic practices could be fined up to 10% of their earnings and their executives sent to jail. The law also gives the Federal Competition Commission (CFC) more teeth. It comes on the heels of a record $1 billion regulatory fine for Telcel (Mexico’s leading telecom company) – as well as public suggestions of further fines in the works. While most will judge this session as an example of legislative gridlock, 2011 could shape up to be the year Mexico confronted its monopolies.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Fireworks over Mexico City's Zocalo during its bicentennial anniversary of independence in September 2010 (Daniel Aguilar/Courtesy Reuters).
Mexico’s Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, or CIDE, released its latest study, “Mexico, the Americas, and the World.” This is now its fourth version (the previous surveys were done in 2004, 2006, and 2008) and provides a fascinating glimpse into Mexicans’ views (both from its leaders and the general population) toward politics, policies, and, in particular, international relations.
There are several interesting takeaways. On the domestic front, there are strong differences of opinion between elites and the masses. Mexico’s leaders are quite dissatisfied with the progress made in terms of social inclusion, economic development, and peace and security. This negative view confirms what one hears in the halls of congress and reads on the editorial pages of its leading newspapers. In contrast, Mexicans in general are much more positive about their country’s advancements. A fairly strong majority are satisfied with the steps forward in terms of social inclusion and economic development. Just under a majority (compared to one-third of leaders) are satisfied with the progress made regarding peace and security.
Economically, the main difference is that elites lead a general trend. Overall, Mexicans view globalization increasingly favorably. A relative majority – some 43 percent – believe globalization has been good for Mexico (outweighing the 28 percent that see it as bad). This positive view is up from 34 percent in 2004 – climbing despite the 2008-9 global economic crisis. Mexico’s leaders are way out in front – with nearly three-quarters in favor of globalization. A strong majority of all Mexicans support free trade and foreign direct investment (though not in the state-run oil sector), and believe that trade and investment have brought benefits to their country and to them personally. Riding this wave of enthusiasm, two- thirds want to integrate economically with the rest of Latin America – likely an impetus behind the free trade accord scheduled to be signed between Mexico, Chile, Colombia and Peru in Lima next week.
Though increasingly looking outward economically, fewer Mexicans seem to be moving. The number of Mexicans reporting family members abroad fell from 61 percent in 2004 to 52 percent last year. This matches fairly closely with U.S. immigration statistics, which report 2004 as the height of Mexican immigrant inflows. Moreover, slightly less than half of Mexicans think migration is good for their families, their communities, or for Mexico. Elites are even more pessimistic about its benefits – for anyone other than the country receiving their fellow citizens (e.g. mainly the United States).
Looking northward, Mexicans generally feel warmly toward their neighbor. The public ranks the United States a very close second to Canada (Mexico’s leaders put the U.S. further down the rankings, next to China) in their affections. Many more “admire” the U.S. than disparage it, and while still somewhat wary of their neighbor, “confidence” has improved significantly – up 5 points since 2008. In fact, for the first time, a majority sees being neighbors as a distinct advantage for Mexico, rather than a problem.
Both Mexico and the United States are headed into presidential elections seasons. In the past, elections have often brought out the worst in the bilateral relationship, as politicians point fingers for short-term electoral gains. Yet this CIDE survey shows that Mexicans now hold more goodwill than not toward their northern neighbor, and favor a closer relationship with the United States than ever before. Let’s see if politicians truly read the polls, and appeal to this now broad constituency.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
