Group items tagged

Mexico's president-elect Enrique Pena Nieto has asked the United States to extend the focus of the United State's relationship with Mexico beyond the war on drugs and illegal immigration. He asks that the two countries bolster economic ties and investments in energy. In general, the United States seems to portray a very negative image of Mexico that focuses solely on violence rather than emphasizing the ways in which the countries could develop together.

This is a good article examining Latin America and its place within the foreign policy of the United States. Specifically it questions the reasons why Latin America did not come up in the final presidential debate on foreign policy.

This is a really good article. The United States often just doesn't seem to take Latin America seriously, and we have a somewhat tainted history of involvement in that area. This needs to change.

Of particular interest in this article is the methodology utilized to combat the increasing threat of Mexican drug cartels. Operation Fast and Furious underlines the fact that at the core, Americans are being forced to consider with more and more gravity the problem of Mexican drug cartels. The fact that "hundreds of weapons" were able to be lost, and subsequently passed into cartel hands, just goes to show the desperation of the United States government in concern to this real and visceral threat on our southern border. Furthermore, the article shows the problem in using weapons and ammunition to further a purpose. We saw the misguided delivery of weapons backfire on us during the Soviet-Afghan conflict, so it leaves one wondering when we'll figure out that this may not be the best way to engage in foreign policy.

To what extent do you think this is a domestic policy issue for the US as well as a foreign policy issue? Certainly the Central and South American countries rightly point out that if demand for drugs wasn't so fierce in the US the drug trade would be greatly diminished. Not to mention that drug crimes are one of the reasons that we have so many people in prison, along with the enormous costs (in money and lives) that are consumed in keeping the prison system going. Is this a topic where social scientists should be able to help out? To what extend does what we know from social science and medical science inform our laws? Even if we couldn't work out completely the demand issue on our end, is it possible if we made a significant dent in it, that it would make enough of a difference that progress could be made at the production end in disrupting that node? It seems to me we don't hear much from scientists in regard to this issue -- why not?

This article discusses the implications of the US giving surveillance aid to Latin American countries. US officials have in recent years aided Latin American governments with surveillance equipment in order to bolster their reach in their own territories. The primary thought has been that this will help the governments with anti-drug traffickin operations, however, recent evidence has emerged that these technologies have been repurposed to silence judges and opposition voices. This goes to illustrate the danger in providing potentially corrupt governments with US aid, that is, the danger of misappropriation (this true for any form of aid). As such, as the United States becomes more and more comfortable with the idea of Latin America as a global player in the tech market, we must still utilize caution in regards to where and how we provide aid to bolster these governments and markets.

Two south Texas city council persons wrote a book last year on the effect of the illegal drug trade out of Mexico and the effectiveness of US policy responses. Their conclusion: Legalization of marijuana the "least bad" option at this point, as the only way to effectively battle the criminal cartels that export drugs is economically. Here I think is an example of ways in which international black and grey markets, in this case the illegal drug trade, can affect policy.

Unfortunately, we won't know if legalization of a drug will have a net positive impact on society until we try it. Although history does provide some analogies that could help policy makers make a decision, such as prohibition.

Many Latin American countries seem to be considering drug legalization to be the "least bad" and necessary solution to the heinous drug trafficking problems present Mexico, Columbia, Bolivia and Peru for example. I believe legalization efforts are a step in the right direction. Sadly, wealthy countries such as the United States and Western Europe drive the demand for drugs from Latin America, but we do not suffer the consequences of trafficking or the war on drugs. Instead, people who have nothing, poor coca growers and drug mules who have no other options, are punished most harshly for rich people's cocaine. This is clearly unjust. Although legalization would be a complicated and messy process, I hope that in the future Latin American countries as well as the United States will come together and legalize drugs so that fewer people will suffer in the illegal trafficking process.

Another article on the war on drugs. This article explains that the Guatemalan president suggested drug decriminalization in front of the UN General assembly, and said that it should coincide with increasing military pressure on drug violence. Legal drug use would be state controlled, much like the use of tobacco and alcohol in the United States.

It certainly seems like decriminalization would take the money and violence out of the equation (or at least, a great deal of it). Certainly, Prohibition in the US re alcohol was a big mistake in regard to criminal activity, and even with the problems alcohol currently causes, there are still forms of control (laws, public attitudes, health advisories)...Would it help if we put more effort into scientific studies on addiction? Do we know enough in that regard to circulate public information that would be relevant? Why don't we have conferences about this topic where the issues are debated? I'd like to see something like that at OU, with input from the law school, and the sociologists, psychologists, law enforcement, Latin Americanists, etc. etc. It could be very enlightening. Too dangerous a topic, though? But we should be able to talk about anything at an education of higher learning...

In this article a connection is drawn between the United States' increasing use of bio-fuels, particularly corn ethanol, and increased cost to import and sell food products in poor nations. Among others, Mexico, Colombia, and Guatemala are mentioned by name. According to the article, the amount of added burden from this is enough to undermine aid and relief efforts in these nations. It seems that poor crop yields, presumably due to climate change, are often pinned as being directly responsible for increasing food costs and shortages. Although environmental factors certainly play their part, it appears to be important for us to consider what other pressures may be mounting. Assuming this article is accurate, our domestic policies may have unintended not-so-domestic consequences. Countries who rely on imports for food products are typically doing so because they cannot produce enough on their own, and if they cannot afford the imports then a food-shortage results. The implications may even be further reaching than the author states. If I'm not mistaken, sugarcane is another crop which is often utilized as a bio-fuel source. If that is the case, then one may be compelled to consider the great number of products which include corn and sugarcane and what that may mean for already struggling populations. Reducing the reliance on fossil fuels is an important undertaking, but is relying on food for fuel the proper route?

This article lays out the reasons why Uruguay's government is considering legalization of marijuana. It has already been decriminalized and full legalization would allow the government to benefit economically from production. The profits could stimulate the economy and even be used to treat drug addicts and go towards drug education. Also, legalization would take power away from deadly cartels.

This article was very interesting. To me, it seems that Uruguay has been searching for a way to combat what the war on drugs has done to the cartels. This is vastly different to the approach the United States is taking in regards to marijuana. I wonder if we will see any of the affects here, in addition to how the U.S. government views government controlled marijuana. I feel that ong term, the different drug strategies could potentially change the U.S.'s current stance on drug policies if they prove their effectivness.

wow, great discussion! I've been working my way down from the top adding some comments and was wondering about decriminalization up above! This reminded me that there's a ballot initiative in Washington state this election year that could pass re legalization of marijuana, which would put the states vs the feds in an interesting position if so. I was looking for some info, and found this background on a site called ballotpedia -- which I didn't know existed and am definitely going to be using in the future! http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Marijuana_Legalization_and_Regulation,_Initiative_502_(2012)

This article explains a new road that has been built that is working to revitalize a road for farmers. This road creates a direct path to the super market in order to boost earnings for the farmers. It was funded by the United States supported "Millennium Challenge Cooperation."

More new stuff for me to learn about, thanks, Elizabeth! It's amazing that lack of reliable roads can be a stumbling block to development in the 21st century, but often this is the legacy of colonial regimes that in previous eras weren't interested in internal connections among the people, but in building only what was necessary in terms of transportation infrastructure to extract indigenous resources and get them exported (a problem in Africa as well). I didn't know anything about the Millennium Challenge Corporation, so began looking up some info. One interesting fact is that they are rated as the most "transparent" US agency and 9th most transparent out of 72 in the world by "Publish What You Fund: The Global Campaign for Aid Transparency" [one of 13 organizations marked "fair," the second highest category -- only two came in at the top category]. http://www.publishwhatyoufund.org/index/2012-index/ The pressure for transparency: a consequence of the Internet, since the cost of "publishing" the information is minimal? It will be interesting to see how well the federal and state governments at home and abroad do on this score in the coming years.

This article is fascinating. It discusses the drug violence in Brazil, and what could be done to combat it. The police are working to recover slums in order to prepare for the 2016 Olympics and the World Cup. Here, it is questioned what will happen to the drug stricken areas.

It's interesting to think that drug violence or youth culture could be impacted in such a way. However, I wonder if this is a phenomena unique to Brazil, or if it could be applicable to countries like the United States.

Chinese economic growth is set to decline according to forecasts, which alarms S. American analysts because Latin America provides many of the materials and commodities that China is buying. Note how China's long term goal of urbanization is cited as proof of hope for Latin American markets, since as more Chinese move into the cities they will have need for appliances and lifestyles powered by materials and commodities acquired from S. American countries.

Although the article is talking about long term vs short term analysis, China is still the fastest growing country in the world, even if its growth rate declines by a few percentage points. Seeing as the United States has been able to maintain post-industrial growth rates in GDP over the past few decades, I don't see why that wouldn't be the case with China.