Five Key Points from Congress' Hearing on $1 billion Aid Package to Central America
On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representative’s subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs held a hearing, “U.S. Assistance to Central America” to discuss the contents of the $1 billion dollar aid package President Obama has requested to address the conditions in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador propelling migration north.
The three witnesses who testified before the committee were Roberta Jacobson, Assistant Secretary of Western Hemisphere Affairs for the Department of State; William Brownfield, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL); and Elizabeth Hogan, Acting Assistant Administrator for USAID in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Highlighted below are five key concerns or points raised during the hearing about U.S. security assistance to Central America.
1. Members of Congress are worried about security and foreign investment
A recurring concern among the committee members was whether Northern Triangle countries are safe enough to welcome foreign development. Plan Colombia, routinely heralded as the model in the drug war, was cited as having prioritized security to pave the way for foreign investment. Roberta Jacobson said in her testimony there would be a major expansion of the Central American Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) portion of the package, totaling $286.5 million. A total $205 million will go to anti-narcotics programs, a 105 percent increase from FY2014 according to testimony of William Brownfield.
Jacobson also noted that businesses and elites of the Northern Triangle are beginning to step up to forge a more hospitable and secure investment environment. Elizabeth Hogan noted that $350 million has been raised since 2013 in public-private partnerships in the region.
2. Members of Congress are very worried about security on the borders
Commonplace in lawmakers’ discussions about Latin American migration, members of Congress expressed concern over implementing a development plan without beefing up security along the U.S.-Mexico border. Chairwoman Granger (R-TX) said that the United States only returned 2,000 of the 68,000 unaccompanied migrants from last year’s influx back to Central America. She made no mention of Mexico ramping up deportations of migrants at the behest of the United States.
Brownfield said the intricacies of U.S. immigration laws were not in the scope of the hearing; its purpose was to expound on investments that would prevent a future surge. Throughout their answers, Jacobson, Brownfield and Hogan emphasized that economic development and good governance in Central America would beget security.
Jacobson added that “just today” there was a border security agreement between Guatemala and Honduras, which each sent 300 security forces to the border, and pointed out that many programs in the aid package are directly related to border security.
3. The new Central America plan will supposedly work closely with communities, especially youths
Brownfield mentioned the INL would be expanding two important youth programs:
· G.R.E.A.T. – Local law enforcement offers programs and trainings in schools. Brownfield noted this is the first time many of these children have interacted with law enforcement on a “human level,” and the goal is to build relationships that help youths resist the pressure of joining gangs.
· D.A.R.E. – A drug abuse reduction plan that uses local law enforcement and health care professionals to bring skill sets to kids.
While anecdotal evidence suggests these programs are somewhat effective, no hard metrics have been taken to determine to what degree they have an impact.
On security, Brownfield said INL would also expand the Model Police Precinct (MPP) program, which emphasizes crime prevention through intelligence gathering and community involvement. In areas where MPPs are operational, Brownfield cited a 10 percent average reduction in violent crime rates. The INL plans to expand MPPs. In Guatemala, for instance, there are currently 8 MPPs; their goal is to have 100 by 2018. Despite Brownfield’s testimony, a 2014 Guatemala report from the Wilson Center indicates existing model precincts have a ways to go in terms of effectiveness. According to the investigation model precincts in places like Villa Nueva, Guatemala has not yet met “INL’s own standards,” even after ten years of operation.
4. INL’s approach aims to be more integrated with USAID and U.S. Southern Command
Brownfield, Jacobson and Hogan said there would be closer collaboration between INL and USAID. Brownfield discussed a new paradigm called the “place-based” approach, which would include integrating USAID’s community programming and INL’s MPPs. According to Brownfield, the plan entails creation of community-specific safety programs, based on analysis of threats and demographics inside a particular community. The plan will be tested in the region’s most violent city, San Pedro Sula, Honduras, with the goal of lowering the homicide rate.
Jacobson and Brownfield said they have worked extensively with a number of agencies, and that U.S. Southern Command would have a “critical role” in any forthcoming plans, be it maritime interdiction or detection and monitoring.
5. Officials say Northern Triangle countries have political will to change
The witnesses repeatedly pointed to the “political will” of Northern Triangle leaders as reason to support this ambitious plan. In her testimony, Jacobson said “We sense it; Central American governments sense it; and we are all driven by an urgency to act.”
Jacobson, Brownfield and Hogan pointed to steps taken by the presidents over the last year, such as El Salvador’s Investment Stability Law, Guatemala’s Reparations Program and Honduras’ agreement with Transparency International. Hogan noted that Honduras’ new security tax has given USAID an additional $2 million to open community centers, while El Salvador has improved tax administration, raising revenue for their own security efforts. Jacobson, Brownfield and Hogan agreed regional leaders are committed the plan, which will be key to it being a success.
However, “political will” on the part of the Northern Triangle governments remains a big question mark. Experts, human rights advocates, journalists and civil society have expressed serious doubt as to whether these governments will follow through with the necessary reforms to tax structures, justice systems and security sectors and push for human rights protections that must take place to ensure the benefits of the plan reach all strata of society—not just the elites.
For long-term sustainability these governments must take on high-level corruption, which to date remains a deeply entrenched problem, up to the highest office, in each of these countries. As many observers have noted it remains to be seen how this plan will move forward, but the need for political will to improve the lives of citizens is a certainty.