Francisco Anzola
President Trump has said he will withdraw aid from countries in Northern Central America. The current aid project is intended to bolster the economies of countries like Guatemala, where people often take on ad-hoc jobs pushing wares in the street to stay afloat.
President Donald Trump is renovating his Department of Homeland Security, parting ways with beleaguered (by him) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and others, frustrated with their failure to stop the caravans of migrants and asylum seekers fleeing Central America.
At the same time, Trump is actively taking steps that will make the situation worse.
On March 29, Trump announced that he was ending assistance to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. “No money goes there anymore,” he told reporters. The next day his administration affirmed plans to proceed.
The number of migrants apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection has remained stable between 2014 and 2018, according to data from the agency. But applications for asylum by migrants from the northern countries of Central America have increased, from 3,523 applications in 2012 to 31,066 applications in 2017. This influx has spiked further in recent months.
The efforts of U.S. aid did little to address labor rights violations by companies and governments in the region, which means workers are often unable to provide for their families.
According to Trump, the tens of thousands of migrants and asylum seekers represent a threat and are overwhelming U.S. resources at the southern border, creating a crisis. But the root of this crisis is the instability caused by extreme poverty and violence, which a withdrawal of U.S. aid will do nothing to abate.
Adam Isacson from the Washington Office on Latin America, in a blog post, argues that the President cannot unilaterally suspend aid without congressional approval without a fight. But the vague language in the appropriation bill places the aid money in a “legal grey,” as one Congressional aide who spoke with The Progressive on terms of anonymity explained. This could allow the President to hold the money.
Congress could still stand in the way.
“Members of Congress want to do everything in their power to stop this,” the aide said. “They think it is a misguided and wrong approach to countering family and child migration.”
The Trump Administration wants to punish the countries of Northern Central America for not stopping people fleeing their countries and seeking refuge in the United States. But that trend is certain to continue, whether or not the U.S. discontinues aid.
Aid to the northern countries of Central America is intended to promote development and curb migration from the region. Yet analysts including Abelardo Medina, senior economist for the Central American Institute for Fiscal Studies, say U.S. aid has done little to resolve the economic problems and violence creating the flow of migrants.
“We have not seen any change,” Medina tells The Progressive. “The aid from the United States has not generated new employment, or improved conditions. If the aid from the U.S. goes, it will not change any of the situation because it never was changed to begin with.”
Analysts have criticized the Alliance for Prosperity, an Obama-era program meant to curb northern migration, for leaving out municipal and indigenous community representatives in the planning and implementation of pilot projects, instead giving control of funding and planning to U.S.-backed, non-governmental organizations.
“The financial aid stayed primarily at the peripheries,” Medina says. “The majority of the money is going to the contraction of businesses, but they are not giving the results that are desired: We continue to see a massive movement of drugs, and the massive immigration of people from the region.”
Still, Medina thinks that Trump’s decision to end humanitarian aid will make matters worse. “We are worried that the decision will cause us more problems,” he says, noting that the decision could lead to lower investments due to lack of confidence. But the biggest threat, he believes, would be an increase of the influence of drug-traffickers, further destabilizing the region.
“We could see a major increase in narco activity in the country,” agrees Iduvina Hernández, the director of the Guatemalan based organization Security in Democracy. “It would not be immediate, but the suspension of aid will not only contribute to the increase of migration, but the levels of violence and insecurity as well.”
Hernández suggests that the government of Guatemala has not shown the resolve to continue the struggle against the narco influence in the country, especially given the Morales’ administration’s actions against anti-immunity and anti-corruption efforts.
“The United States will be the most affected,” said Medina.
For nearly five years, the United States has worked to resolve the drivers of Central American migration through the implementation of the Alliance for Prosperity. Yet these efforts have favored an expansion of security efforts that do little to address the reasons why people from Guatemala specifically migrate.
Among the stories told to The Progressive during the massive exodus from the region, many pointed to rising costs of basic goods and low pay at the few employment opportunities that exist in their countries. The efforts of U.S. aid did little to address labor rights violations by companies and governments in the region, which means workers are often unable to provide for their families.
Added to this, the embedded culture of corruption and dark influence of drug-traffickers that permeates the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras remain in place. The Trump Administration and Republicans have turned a blind eye to what little efforts are being made to root out corruption and impunity. All the while, drug traffickers continue to increase their influence in these countries to bring their product to their largest consumers: The United States.
Trump’s decision to end aid is not based on the inability of the governments of the northern countries of Central America to end migration, rather it is a reflection of his racist hostility to the other Americans of a darker skin color.
The exodus from the region will continue as long as policy does little to address the actual needs of communities that continue to suffer from discrimination, climate change, and decades of the inability to create stable inclusive economies.