A Conversation on US Cooperation in Central America and Mexico

By Cameron Combs
December 11, 2013

Crime and violence are global problems, too big for any one county to tackle alone. But they are also highly local phenomena; their precise roots are as unique as the motive behind a single crime. This paradox was a central theme during a meeting of the Congressional Members Working Group focused on Central America, cohosted by Representatives Matthew Salmon of Arizona, Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, and Antonio Cárdenas of California. How can cooperation and international assistance on security issues adapt to local realities without becoming hopelessly complex?

Though no definitive answer to this question emerged, the group agreed on several fundamental elements of the problems the United States and Latin America face. The first is that economic development is critical to preventing crime. A lack of opportunity and education, especially for young people, is an essential ingredient in areas with high criminality. Costa Rica, for instance, has succeeded in preventing crime to a higher degree than its neighbors due in large measure to GDP growth that has averaged 4% for the last fifty years.

Weak institutionally is another area for concern. Both US and Central American officials lamented the challenges of cooperating on security issues in the face of corruption and underdeveloped law enforcement and democratic institutions. Several participants noted that while elections have generally become more transparent and free, this trend has not meant that leaders can effectively govern once in office. One participant characterized Central America as a region of “formal, not functional, democracies.”

It is impossible to explain the problems Central America faces without accounting for its geography. The region is situated between the world’s largest consumer of drugs, and the only area in the world that produces cocaine: the Andes. This has caused the isthmus to become a trafficking corridor for drugs and illicit commerce. But the group’s participants qualified this assessment with some important nuances. To begin, there are differences within Central America. Guatemala, for instance, borders Mexico and has absorbed a significant number of criminal groups displaced by Felipe Calderón’s military offensive against drug trafficking organizations. Costa Rica, meanwhile, is bordered by Nicaragua, which has acted as a “buffer” between the country and the more violence-plagued Northern Triangle. Participants also noted that an historic drug paradigm is shifting – no longer are narcotics simply produced in South America and consumed in North America. Brazil in particular has become a growing market place for coca-derivatives, and the United States has become a producer of drugs like marijuana.

Central American participants encouraged their US counterparts to also take history into account. Decades of civil war have contributed to what some described as a “culture of violence” in Central America. Yet the legacy of these conflicts is not only cultural. All too often, the military – not the police – has been the primary force used to suppress criminal activities. But the anti-guerrilla tactics the armed forces developed during the 1970s, 80s and 90s, have not been an effective – or humane – solution to what is fundamentally a law enforcement problem.

The group agreed that a critical issue is making sure that US assistance aligns with the needs and priorities of the Central Americans. That is no easy task. But participants noted that one of the best ways to improve the situation in Central America was to do a better job at home. The United State has deported scores of gang members back to the region over the years, effectively exporting our gang problem to countries ill-equipped to manage it. Smart, compassionate solutions at home are also good foreign policy.