The Debate the GOP Didn't Have in Florida

Instead of repeating tired applause lines about Fidel Castro, here are the vital Latin American issues the Republican candidates should be talking about.

BY MICHAEL SHIFTER | JANUARY 30, 2012

One can be forgiven for assuming that a primary election in Florida -- a state with a huge Latino population, often touted as the gateway to Latin America -- would offer the best time and place to have a serious debate about how the United States should deal with its closest neighbors, its proverbial "backyard." But that would be ignoring past experience and today's political realities.

Indeed, when it comes to Latin American policy it is generally wise to keep expectations in check. The Republican candidates have eschewed the tough questions and preferred to fantasize about space centers rather than take a hard look at the countries nearest to Miami's shores. To the extent Latin America was treated at all, the discussion has been dominated by phantom threats and tired bromides.

There is, of course, a real threat ravaging a number of countries close to Florida -- and whose citizens make up a substantial share of the growing Latino population in the United States. Drug-fueled criminal violence has, according to official statistics, claimed close to 48,000 Mexican lives since 2006, when Felipe Calderón came to office. Mexico, which is holding elections in five months is, as George W. Bush once rightly said, the United States' "most important bilateral relationship."

What happens in Mexico is fundamental to U.S. interests. Yet not a serious word was uttered among the candidates about whether the current U.S. policy, reflected in an aid package known as the Merida Initiative, adequately addresses the problem -- or whether different approaches or ideas to the drug war should be considered.

The situation in the "northern triangle" countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador is even more alarming. Central American governments are overwhelmed and outmatched, unable to cope with a growing crime wave. A recent report in the Miami Herald about Honduras was particularly chilling. Honduras now has the world's highest homicide rate (82.1 per 100,000 residents). Nearly 7,000 homicides were recorded in 2011, a 250 percent increase in half a dozen years. Organized crime pervades the country's police forces.

How should the United States respond to such rampant lawlessness? Clearly the current Honduran government is overwhelmed and doesn't have sufficient resources or capacity. To be sure, in the Florida debate Rick Santorum was critical of Barack Obama's mistakes in responding to the June 2009 political crisis.  But how should the president deal with today's reality? And how does this grave situation compare with other foreign-policy priorities? Plausible scenarios are dire, but the United States has a fundamental interest in safeguarding fragile democracies in a neighboring region. (Obama also avoided this issue in his recent State of the Union address.)

Drug policy is a key dimension of the current crisis. Drugs -- in Central America, chiefly cocaine -- fuel much of the violence, yet are apparently an issue unworthy of discussion in a U.S. presidential race (with the exception of Ron Paul, who has no chance of being nominated). True, the inflated rhetoric associated with the "war on drugs" has notably abated. U.S. politicians no longer say, as George H. W. Bush did in 1989, that anti-drug efforts "will require the bravery and sacrifice that Americans have shown before and must again." But policies persist that, despite an investment of billions of dollars over the last four decades, have yielded few positive results. Much to the chagrin of most Latin Americans, there is no appetite in Washington to entertain alternative approaches.

A serious debate on the drug war would feature the candidates' responses to the recommendations made in a 2009 commission report headed by three respected Latin American ex-presidents -- Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, and César Gaviria of Colombia. The report underlines the risks posed by the growing drug problem to democracy in the region, calls for a wide-ranging policy review, and urges specific measures, such as the legalization of marijuana. Colombia's current president, Juan Manuel Santos, has also reiterated appeals for a global debate on drug policy, beginning with consumer countries such the United States. Far more Latin Americans have died in the ill-conceived drug war over the years than during the Arab uprisings. But few in Washington appear to care about the former.

The Republican candidates did, of course, talk about immigration, another major concern of most Latin Americans. But the debate was far from edifying, and there was no sense that for Latin Americans immigration is also a foreign-policy issue. Building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, for example, is seen as an affront to Latin Americans, and makes cooperation on other issues more problematic (of course, Democrats also view immigration as an entirely domestic issue). It will be difficult to build more constructive and deeper relationships with many countries in the region unless the broken U.S. immigration system -- reflected in millions of productive and hard-working Latinos living in fear of deportation -- is fixed.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has rightly linked immigration reform to the country's economic well-being, and in a number of interviews former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stressed that comprehensive reform is essential. "Some of the harsher things said about immigration are both shortsighted and, ultimately, in the long-term, will undo one of the great strengths of the United States," she said recently.  Are any of the Republican candidates listening?

PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images

 

Michael Shifter is president of the Inter-American Dialogue.

DFROBICHAUX

8:24 AM ET

January 31, 2012

It does matter if you make the correct choices

There is only one candidate with sane policies that would solve a multitude of issues. Ending the drug war would do away with prohibition policies that are in effect turning Latin America into 1930 era Chicago with rule by gangsters. Free trade on level playing fields without "diktat" by the U.S. including Cuba would enhance economies of the entire hemisphere. Special interest do not want this, but if we are to survive and even thrive in the post 2008 world, we have no choice. Vote Ron Paul, the only candidate with the clarity of vision to understand what and where we should be.

 

RMDUENAS

10:04 AM ET

January 31, 2012

Thank you...

... Mr. Shifter for such and enlightening and comprehensive article. I just wish it would be a compulsory read for all politicians everywhere in the US, or that people like you would run for the presidency... see, we all have dreams...

 

NONAMEON

4:02 AM ET

March 2, 2012

Obama wanted Gitmo closed,

Obama wanted Gitmo closed, engage with Iran and Syria cordially, pull out the military from the Middle East practically overnight, reach a global climate change deal, and wanted nuclear weapons wiped off the face of the Earth. These and more foreign and domestic policy farces proved to never pan out even in outline. Worse still, they were equally ridiculous and unrealistic as any that GOP candidates have - but most of us knew that anyway. It is strange how this GOP nominee selection became about Obama. I guess they think the insurance to the nomination goes through bashing him. They have no economical plans to insurance our pockets, no political plans to insurance our safety and certainly no energy plans to insurance our future. It's all about bashing Obama.

 

MALCOLMKYLE

12:32 PM ET

January 31, 2012

Some Simple facts

* The involvement of the CIA in running Heroin from Vietnam, Southeast Asia and Afghanistan and Cocaine from Central America has been well documented by the 1989 Kerry Committee report, academic researchers Alfred McCoy and Peter Dale Scott, and the late journalist Gary Webb.

* A rather large majority of people will always feel the need to use drugs, such as heroin, opium, nicotine, amphetamines, alcohol, sugar, or caffeine.

* Just as it was impossible to prevent alcohol from being produced and used in the U.S. in the 1920s, so too, it is equally impossible to prevent any of the aforementioned drugs from being produced and widely used by those who desire to do so.

* Due to Prohibition (historically proven to be an utter failure at every level), the availability of most of these mood-altering drugs has become so universal and unfettered that in any city of the civilized world, any one of us would be able to procure practically any drug we wish within an hour.

* The massive majority of people who use drugs do so recreationally - getting high at the weekend then up for work on a Monday morning.

* A small minority of people will always experience drug use as problematic.

* Throughout history, the prohibition of any mind-altering substance has always exploded usage rates, overcrowded jails, fueled organized crime, created rampant corruption of law-enforcement - even whole governments, while inducing an incalculable amount of suffering and death.

* It's not even possible to keep drugs out of prisons, but prohibitionists wish to waste hundreds of billions of our money in an utterly futile attempt to keep them off our streets.

* Prohibition kills more people and ruins more lives than the prohibited drugs have ever done.

* The United States jails a larger percentage of it's own citizens than any other country in the world, including those run by the worst totalitarian regimes, yet it has far higher use/addiction rates than most other countries.

* The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.
- H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) American editor, essayist and philologist.