Trump to the rescue

The Inter-American Dialogue had a few people weigh in on What Will Trump’s Presidency Mean for Central America? for this week's Latin American Advisor. As many of us have said before, there's a great deal of uncertainty surrounding President-elect Donald Trump's likely policies towards the region. We share common interests on providing solutions to issues related to trade, migration, illicit narcotics, energy, security, democracy, and the rule of law.

Like previous administrations, the Obama administration has used a series of carrots and sticks to encourage Central American governments to pursue policies that we believe to be in both our interests. They haven't always worked. I think that most of us are expecting the incoming administration to use more stick, rather than carrot. The Obama administration has gone out of its way to support a second Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact to El Salvador, over critics on both the left and the right in the US. The US has supported CICIG and transitional justice in Guatemala, over critics on the right in the US and Guatemala. The US has supported post-coup governments in Honduras, over critics on the left and the right in both the US and Honduras. The US has also relied on little more than words to prevent the collapse of the semblance of democracy in Nicaragua.

My guess is that the Trump administration will not expend much political capital on big development projects in the region. While there are some individual successes with different MCC programs in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, the overall results at the national and regional level are difficult to discern. The Trump administration, perhaps like a Clinton administration, will want to see more tangible progress from the $750 million aid package before dedicating additional revenue to the region.

I fear the US will not be as forthcoming in its support for the rule of law in the region, in particular with regard to supporting the MP office and CICIG in Guatemala. If Trump's endorsement of the violence in the Philippines is any indication of his global law and order platform, I worry about the resurgence and/or expansion of death squad activity throughout the region to address societal problems. His AG selection and support for Duterte do not bode well for supporters of drug decriminalization and a move away from the counterproductive war on drugs.

While not perfectly aligned with my views, I hope that President-elect Trump listens to his DHS nominee, retired Gen. John Kelly.
Trump’s preferred solution, of course, is to build a “big, beautiful wall” at the US/Mexico border. As DHS secretary, Kelly would probably be the point person for actually building such a wall. But while Kelly has never explicitly come out against the wall — he told the Military Times earlier this year that he believes the country has a right to “some form of control, whether it’s a wall or a fence” — his analysis of the problem differs from his would-be boss’s in an important way: Kelly doesn’t think the border, per se, is the problem.
In the Military Times interview, Kelly went on to say, “If the countries where these migrants come from have reasonable levels of violence and reasonable levels of economic opportunity, then the people won’t leave to come here.” In an interview with Foreign Policy in July, he put it more bluntly: “No wall will work by itself.”
When Kelly criticized Washington for its lack of attention to Latin America, he was criticizing its lack of attention to the instabilities of the region itself — instability that was so overwhelming that no amount of US money or military might could fully stop the problems.
I disagree with the appointments of so many retired military officials to the Trump cabinet, but Kelly isn't one I would want to dismiss. From the little that I have read about him, he seems to have a solid understanding of the complexities of US foreign policy towards the Americas. Given the alternatives, he's a very good choice. However, it's unclear how much pull Kelly will have in regards to US policy towards Central America.

No comments