The Pros And Cons Of The Merida Initiative

In the last decades, narco trafficking and organized crime had emerged as the main security threats in Latin America. Deviant globalization increase their power by establishing connections with similar organizations in other parts of the world, like cocaine distribution networks, for example. This perceived danger increases the pressure on the governments for effective solutions, and some of them consider that these problems had overwhelmed the capabilities of the local police. Consequently, the intervention of military forces would be necessary to secure the stability of the countries. However, the use of force as the only solution is the outcome of a misunderstanding of the root causes that generates them. This paper presents the research for a general pattern in the region that is helpful to understand how the civil society perceives the failures of governance and how the networks of illegal activities exploit this perception.

Raat, W. Dirk, and Michael M. Brescia. Mexico and the United States : Ambivalent Vistas (4th Edition). Athens, GA, USA: University of Georgia Press, 2010.

The changes in key government leadership positions have had significant implications on Mexico 's drug trade business (Lupsha 1995). Take the example of one of Mexico 's leading drug traffickers, Juan Garcia Abrego who is widely known as the inventor of Mexican drug trafficking. Abrego 's drug smuggling operations flourished under former President Salina 's administration. When former President Zedillo entered office in December of 1994, Abrego lost the high-level protection provided under the former President Salina. Without this level of protection, Abregos influence in the drug trade industry decreased dramatically to the point of bankruptcy, in a traditional business sense. During this transformation, other well-connected cartels gained uncontested access to large drug trafficking corridors once controlled by Abrego. Despite Abregos deteriorating drug influence in Mexico, President Zedillo put a large bounty on him, making Abrego the most wanted drug smuggler in Mexico. Nevertheless, Abrego 's eventual capture was highly celebrated by the United States as a sign of Mexico 's increasing efforts and dedication to the elimination of illicit drug smuggling operations. In my opinion the example of Abrego 's lost influence and highly celebrated capture directly relates to the politic rhetoric and corruption that is associated with

Dan Lindley is assistant professor in international relations and security studies at the University of Notre Dame. Lindley worked for several arms control and research organizations in Washington, D.C. before receiving a Ph.D. from MIT. Lindley has published and spoken on U.N. peacekeeping, internal conflict, the Cyprus problem and Greco-Turkish relations, collective security, the U.S. intervention in Panama, the role of ideas in international politics, and SDI contracting.

Reading the book Harvest of Empire by Juan Gonzalez, has been very informative to me and has changed my perspective on U.S. foreign policy. Each account of the families from the different Latino countries has similar underlying trends that can be found because of the U.S. involvement in their countries. Every single instance of U.S. involvement in Latin American countries seems to evolve around the idea of greed and profit. The U.S. is like a business that only cares about the income of money and not about the morality of their actions. On top of all the injustice the U.S. government has employed, they don’t bother to own up to their mistakes and they tend to sweep their involvement under the rug. For example, the Iran-Contra scandal mentioned in the book of the Reagan administration was the result of using drug money from Iran to buy weapons for the Nicaraguan contra rebels against the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. It infuriates me that the U.S. would support a dictator that suppresses the rights of its citizens and all the while they want to take down the established, popular Sandinista government. The U.S. wants to do all this so that the new government will support U.S. interests in Nicaragua. When the scandal was uncovered, all Reagan could say was “I’m sorry” and “It won’t happen again” even though our involvement had the result of many lives lost in that war/rebellion. Unfortunately, this theme did not only occur in Nicaragua

Plan Colombia is a long-prevailing foreign aid package bestowed to the country of Colombia from the United States. This foreign aid package grants substantial financial assistance to Colombia, intending to fight the “War on Drugs” and to reduce the trafficking of narcoleptics, but there is a multitude of other factors and implications, both unintentional or indirect and intentional due to ulterior motives. To accomplish the goals of Plan Colombia, most of the aid has been provided in the form of armed forces. This situation is complicated because of the ongoing civil war between the government of Colombia and the left-wing Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia - People’s Army (FARC). Additionally making matters difficult has

The US again failed to address the reality that entire peasant villages were built around the coca industry, when devising the Dignity Plan in Bolivia. This plan took effect between1998 and 2002. The war on drugs in Bolivia meant the indiscriminate destruction of both legal and illegal crops by the country’s military. Legal crops destroyed included staple foods and exotic crops. The plan resulted in human rights violations and the dislocation of thousands of peasants- a direct contradiction of the US Senate’s Leahy amendment calls for funding to be

The Mexican government has faced legal and practical restraints on launching an all-out war on the Zapatistas. The first government counter-attacks encountered tactical difficulties in the jungles of Chiapas and the army failed to score a quick military victory. In 1995, the federal congress passed a ?law for dialogue,? which foreclosed the option of a unilateral show of force by the Mexican army in areas under Zapatista control. This legislation catalyzed the signing of the San Andrés Accords by the EZLN and the Zedillo government. The San Andrés Accords, as well as the inaccessibility of the jungles of Chiapas, made overt military action politically and tactically unviable.

currently use to prevent illicit crimes from spilling over? While the Administration and congress have made the vision of a secure border a reality by developing, integrating, investing, and undertaking new measures. Developing several ambitious strategies’ in investing in border infrastructure. While today there not too much specifics details of the Obama Administration’s plans on border security the most valuable existing program is the Merida Initiative , a program developed between the United States and Mexico to assist law enforcement efforts, help enhance judicial and prosecutorial effectiveness, and to foster better court and prison management in Mexico. While this program is costing the United States around 2 billion it is a step forward in cooperation with Mexico in combating security and immigration issues (Seelke, 2009). With the Merida Initiative the United States can help its neighboring country combat crime and illegal immigration before it reaches the U.S

From the very beginnings of the crisis in Haiti, we can see the various policies adapted by the three different presidents who held office in the U.S. Through the Reagan, Bush, and finally Clinton administrations, there is an evolution of policy from that of silence, to a gradual increase of concern, and ultimately an objective of restoring democracy in Haiti. However, the one thing that remained constant throughout each administration was the U.S. policy and practice of interdiction and repatriation of Haitian refugees. This policy was indeed successful in curtailing the influx of Haitians into the U.S. (Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Haiti, 1994).

Mexico is one of the most populated and industrialized of the third world nations, yet it remains very impoverished in comparison to it’s northern neighbor. Recently Mexico has been the third largest trading partner of the United States, has become an important exporter of petroleum and plays a pivotal role in the politics of the region. Yet Mexico is frequently treated with neglect and misunderstanding by the United States. This treatment is why Mexico is hesitant about United States influence and investment in Mexico. While many foreign countries acknowledge the United States as a

1. In late June 2008, the United States provided aid to Mexico and other Central American countries with the Merida initiative which is a three year international assistance plan.

"Fueled by the Cold War and transnational corporate interests, the U.S. has covertly tinkered with the governments of Latin American countries since World War 2, producing an extremely violent and unstable political climate."

The United States has been a heavily involved in Latin American affairs for a long time, and there is great controversy surrounding how good of a neighbor we have been. As the “Colossus of the North”, this country holds enormous power. The question is; have we used our power for good or for evil? At times, we have been generous to Latin American countries. We returned the Panama Canal to the Panamanians and created free trade with Mexico through NAFTA. However, the negative impact we have had outweighs the good. Time after time, the United States has put dictators into Latin American countries out of the fear of growing communism. We have meddled, taken the situations of our neighbors into our own hands with force, and vilified them for situations like the drug trade dilemma that are partially at the fault of the United States. Due to the selfish overstepping upon Latin American governments, our discrimination and blame upon immigrants and foreigners as well as patronizing actions like the Cuban embargo and the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, the Colossus of the North has historically been a poor neighbor to Latin American countries.

The lectures in class this week and the article “10 of the Most Lethal CIA Interventions in Latin America” by Olivier Acuña has opened my eyes to the U.S.’s international political connections. The U.S. has proved throughout history to be self serving and has proven to intervene in nations that will lead to its own economic and political advantages. I find it unfortunate that the CIA and American government tries to pride itself on our democratic system, but will support corrupt dictators and absolute rulers