Aviva Chomsky Immigration

What Biden Could Really Do to Help Central America

The president’s new plan for Central America is the disappointing equivalent of ancient history when solutions are actually available.
U.S. foreign policy has fueled the displacement of many Central Americans, including children. [Peter Haden / CC BY 2.0]

By Aviva Chomsky / TomDispatch

Earlier this month, a Honduran court found David Castillo, a U.S.-trained former Army intelligence officer and the head of an internationally financed hydroelectric company, guilty of the 2016 murder of celebrated Indigenous activist Berta Cáceres. His company was building a dam that threatened the traditional lands and water sources of the Indigenous Lenca people.  For years, Cáceres and her organization, the Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras, or COPINH, had led the struggle to halt that project. It turned out, however, that Cáceres’s international recognition — she won the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize in 2015 — couldn’t protect her from becoming one of the dozens of Latin American Indigenous and environmental activists killed annually.

Yet when President Joe Biden came into office with an ambitious “Plan for Security and Prosperity in Central America,” he wasn’t talking about changing policies that promoted big development projects against the will of local inhabitants. Rather, he was focused on a very different goal: stopping migration. His plan, he claimed, would address its “root causes.”  Vice President Kamala Harris was even blunter when she visited Guatemala, instructing potential migrants: “Do not come.”

As it happens, more military and private development aid of the sort Biden’s plan calls for (and Harris boasted about) won’t either stop migration or help Central America. It’s destined, however, to spark yet more crimes like Cáceres’s murder. There are other things the United States could do that would aid Central America. The first might simply be to stop talking about trying to end migration.

How Can the United States Help Central America?

Biden and Harris are only recycling policy prescriptions that have been around for decades: promote foreign investment in Central America’s export economy, while building up militarized “security” in the region. In truth, it’s the very economic model the United States has imposed there since the nineteenth century, which has brought neither security nor prosperity to the region (though it’s brought both to U.S. investors there). It’s also the model that has displaced millions of Central Americans from their homes and so is the fundamental cause of what, in this country, is so often referred to as the “crisis” of immigration.

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the U.S. began imposing that very model to overcome what officials regularly described as Central American “savagery” and “banditry.” The pattern continued as Washington found a new enemy, communism, to battle there in the second half of the last century. Now, Biden promises that the very same policies — foreign investment and eternal support for the export economy — will end migration by attacking its “root causes”: poverty, violence, and corruption. (Or call them “savagery” and “banditry,” if you will.) It’s true that Central America is indeed plagued by poverty, violence, and corruption, but if Biden were willing to look at the root causes of his root causes, he might notice that his aren’t the solutions to such problems, but their source.

Stopping migration from Central America is no more a legitimate policy goal than was stopping savagery, banditry, or communism in the twentieth century. In fact, what Washington policymakers called savagery (Indigenous people living autonomously on their lands), banditry (the poor trying to recover what the rich had stolen from them), and communism (land reform and support for the rights of oppressed workers and peasants) were actually potential solutions to the very poverty, violence, and corruption imposed by the US-backed ruling elites in the region. And maybe migration is likewise part of Central Americans’ struggle to solve these problems. After all, migrants working in this country send back more money in remittances to their families in Central America than the United States has ever given in foreign aid.

What, then, would a constructive U.S. policy towards Central America look like?

Perhaps the most fundamental baseline of foreign policy should be that classic summary of the Hippocratic Oath: do no harm.  As for doing some good, before the subject can even be discussed, there needs to be an acknowledgement that so much of what we’ve done to Central America over the past 200 years has been nothing but harm.

The United States could begin by assuming historical responsibility for the disasters it’s created there. After the counterinsurgency wars of the 1980s, the United Nations sponsored truth commissions in El Salvador and Guatemala to uncover the crimes committed against civilian populations there. Unfortunately, those commissions didn’t investigate Washington’s role in funding and promoting war crimes in the region. 

Maybe what’s now needed is a new truth commission to investigate historic U.S. crimes in Central America. In reality, the United States owes those small, poor, violent, and corrupt countries reparations for the damages it’s caused over all these years. Such an investigation might begin with Washington’s long history of sponsoring coups, military “aid,” armed interventions, massacres, assassinations, and genocide.

The U.S. would have to focus as well on the impacts of ongoing economic aid since the 1980s, aimed at helping U.S. corporations at the expense of the Central American poor.  It could similarly examine the role of debt and the U.S.-Central America Free Trade Agreement in fostering corporate and elite interests. And don’t forget the way the outsized U.S. contribution to greenhouse gas emissions — this country is, of course, the largest such emitter in history — and climate change has contributed to the destruction of livelihoods in Central America.  Finally, it could investigate how our border and immigration policies directly contribute to keeping Central America poor, violent, and corrupt, in the name of stopping migration.

Constructive Options for U.S. Policy in Central America

Providing Vaccines: Even as Washington rethinks the fundamentals of this country’s policies there, it could take immediate steps on one front, the Covid-19 pandemic, which has been devastating the region. Central America is in desperate need of vaccines, syringes, testing materials, and personal protective equipment. A history of underfunding, debt, and privatization, often due directly or indirectly to U.S. policy, has left Central America’s healthcare systems in shambles. While Latin America as a whole has been struggling to acquire the vaccines it needs, Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua rank at the very bottom of doses administered. If the United States actually wanted to help Central America, the emergency provision of what those countries need to get vaccines into arms would be an obvious place to start.

Reversing economic exploitation: Addressing the structural and institutional bases of economic exploitation could also have a powerful impact. First, we could undo the harmful provisions of the 2005 Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Yes, Central American governments beholden to Washington did sign on to it, but that doesn’t mean that the agreement benefited the majority of the inhabitants in the region.  In reality, what CAFTA did was throw open Central American markets to U.S. agricultural exports, in the process undermining the livelihoods of small farmers there.

CAFTA also gave a boost to the maquiladora or export-processing businesses, lending an all-too-generous hand to textile, garment, pharmaceutical, electronics, and other industries that regularly scour the globe for the cheapest places to manufacture their goods. In the process, it created mainly the kind of low-quality jobs that corporations can easily move anytime in an ongoing global race to the bottom.

Central American social movements have also vehemently protested CAFTA provisions that undermine local regulations and social protections, while privileging foreign corporations. At this point, local governments in that region can’t even enforce the most basic laws they’ve passed to regulate such deeply exploitative foreign investors.

Another severe restriction that prevents Central American governments from pursuing economic policies in the interest of their populations is government debt. Private banks lavished loans on dictatorial governments in the 1970s, then pumped up interest rates in the 1980s, causing those debts to balloon. The International Monetary Fund stepped in to bail out the banks, imposing debt restructuring programs on already-impoverished countries — in other words, making the poor pay for the profligacy of the wealthy.

For real economic development, governments need the resources to fund health, education, and welfare.  Unsustainable and unpayable debt (compounded by ever-growing interest) make it impossible for such governments to dedicate resources where they’re truly needed. A debt jubilee would be a crucial step towards restructuring the global economy and shifting the stream of global resources that currently flows so strongly from the poorest to the richest countries.

Now, add another disastrous factor to this equation: the U.S. “drug wars” that have proven to be a key factor in the spread of violence, displacement, and corruption in Central America. The focus of the drug war on Mexico in the early 2000s spurred an orgy of gang violence there, while pushing the trade south into Central America. The results have been disastrous.  As drug traffickers moved in, they brought violence, land grabs, and capital for new cattle and palm-oil industries, drawing in corrupt politicians and investors.  Pouring arms and aid into the drug wars that have exploded in Central America has only made trafficking even more corrupt, violent, and profitable.

Reversing climate change: In recent years, ever more extreme weather in Central America’s “dry corridor,” running from Guatemala through El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua, has destroyed homes, farms, and livelihoods, and this climate-change-induced trend is only worsening by the year. While the news largely tends to present ongoing drought, punctuated by ever more frequent and violent hurricanes and tropical storms, as well as increasingly disastrous flooding, as so many individual occurrences, their heightened frequency is certainly a result of climate change. And about a third of Central America’s migrants directly cite extreme weather as the reason they were forced to leave their homes. Climate change is, in fact, just what the U.S. Department of Defense all-too-correctly termed a “threat multiplier” that contributes to food and water scarcity, land conflicts, unemployment, violence, and other causes of migration.

The United States has, of course, played and continues to play an outsized role in contributing to climate change. And, in fact, we continue to emit far more CO2 per person than any other large country. We also produce and export large amounts of fossil fuels — the U.S., in fact, is one of the world’s largest exporters as well as one of the largest consumers.  And we continue to fund and promote fossil-fuel-dependent development at home and abroad.  One of the best ways the United States could help Central America would be to focus time, energy, and money on stopping the burning of fossil fuels.

Migration as a Problem Solver

Isn’t it finally time that the officials and citizens of the United States recognized the role migration plays in Central American economies? Where U.S. economic development recipes have failed so disastrously, migration has been the response to these failures and, for many Central Americans, the only available way to survive.

One in four Guatemalan families relies on remittances from relatives working in the United States and such monies account for about half of their income. President Biden may have promised Central America $4 billion in aid over four years, but Guatemala alone receives $9 billion a year in such remittances. And unlike government aid, much of which ends up in the pockets of U.S. corporations, local entrepreneurs, and bureaucrats of various sorts, remittances go directly to meet the needs of ordinary households.

At present, migration is a concrete way that Central Americans are trying to solve their all-too-desperate problems. Since the nineteenth century, Indigenous and peasant communities have repeatedly sought self-sufficiency and autonomy, only to be displaced by U.S. plantations in the name of progress. They’ve tried organizing peasant and labor movements to fight for land reform and workers’ rights, only to be crushed by U.S.-trained and sponsored militaries in the name of anti-communism.  With other alternatives foreclosed, migration has proven to be a twenty-first-century form of resistance and survival.

If migration can be a path to overcome economic crises, then instead of framing Washington’s Central American policy as a way to stop it, the United States could reverse course and look for ways to enhance migration’s ability to solve problems.

Jason DeParle aptly titled his recent book on migrant workers from the Philippines A Good Provider is One Who Leaves. “Good providers should not have to leave,” responded the World Bank’s Dilip Ratha, “but they should have the option.” As Ratha explains,

“Migrants benefit their destination countries. They provide essential skills that may be missing and fill jobs that native-born people may not want to perform. Migrants pay taxes and are statistically less prone to commit crimes than native-born people…  Migration benefits the migrant and their extended family and offers the potential to break the cycle of poverty. For women, migration elevates their standing in the family and the society. For children, it provides access to healthcare, education, and a higher standard of living. And for many countries of origin, remittances provide a lifeline in terms of external, counter-cyclical financing.”

Migration can also have terrible costs.  Families are separated, while many migrants face perilous conditions, including violence, detention, and potentially death on their journeys, not to speak of inadequate legal protection, housing, and working conditions once they reach their destination. This country could do a lot to mitigate such costs, many of which are under its direct control. The United States could open its borders to migrant workers and their families, grant them full legal rights and protections, and raise the minimum wage.

Would such policies lead to a large upsurge in migration from Central America? In the short run, they might, given the current state of that region under conditions created and exacerbated by Washington’s policies over the past 40 years. In the longer run, however, easing the costs of migration actually could end up easing the structural conditions that cause it in the first place.

Improving the safety, rights, and working conditions of migrants would help Central America far more than any of the policies Biden and Harris are proposing. More security and higher wages would enable migrants to provide greater support for families back home. As a result, some would return home sooner. Smuggling and human trafficking rings, which take advantage of illegal migration, would wither from disuse. The enormous resources currently aimed at policing the border could be shifted to immigrant services. If migrants could come and go freely, many would go back to some version of the circular migration pattern that prevailed among Mexicans before the militarization of the border began to undercut that option in the 1990s. Long-term family separation would be reduced.  Greater access to jobs, education, and opportunity has been shown to be one of the most effective anti-gang strategies.

In other words, there’s plenty the United States could do to develop more constructive policies towards Central America and its inhabitants. That, however, would require thinking far more deeply about the “root causes” of the present catastrophe than Biden, Harris, and crew seem willing to do. In truth, the policies of this country bear an overwhelming responsibility for creating the very structural conditions that cause the stream of migrants that both Democrats and Republicans have decried, turning the act of simple survival into an eternal “crisis” for those very migrants and their families.  A change in course is long overdue.

Copyright 2021 Aviva Chomsky

Aviva Chomsky, a TomDispatch regularis professor of history and coordinator of Latin American studies at Salem State University in Massachusetts. Her new book, Central America’s Forgotten History: Revolution, Violence, and the Roots of Migration, will be published in April.

8 comments

  1. I guess the questions is why have the same policies been around for decades without any change. Does anyone care about the indigenous people down there and their plight. As a sovereign nation are they in control of policy decisions, or are they influenced by the US and others desirous of promoting predatory capitalism as they have all over the world. Just where is the breakdown between the elected reps, and the people who want positive outcomes. Above all of the political bickering is the Military Industrial Complex like a cancer needing to be fed, and run by people not in the news, who hide behind the scenes and direct. These people only care about the almighty dollar and control over the masses as Pres. Eisenhower had warned long ago. So why have we not exposed them and their decades long corruption? Because they own the media and the media is just as corrupt? Or complicit in their crimes against humanity. One thing is true, if we fail to call them out things will get worse.

  2. Thankyou for this excellent article. It is brilliant. For 50 years I have been hoping for these solutions. The Peace Corps made it clear! Schools, health care and jobs which allow families to live, and home country companies not behemoth international ones are the best answer. And we should help give them clean energy solutions.

  3. The history of US foreign policy in Central and South America is so racist, sociopathic, greedy, and egregious it’s beyond my ability to expand upon here except to thank Aviva Chomsky for this well written article.

  4. Great article, I do disagree on some points.

    What rarely if ever gets mentioned in progressive circles is the damaging effects of too many undocumented workers on impoverished U.S. workers. In most major cities building trades jobs are dominated by unscrupulous contractors who will only hire undocumented immigrants. The meat packing industry which used to supply good paying union jobs is now decimated, and consists of underpaid undocumented immigrants.

    Now before you go ballistic I am not blaming immigrants, they are victims. What I am trying to do is shed a little light on poor u.s. citizens plight.

    In regards to reparations, make those who did the damage pay, not poor u.s. taxpayers. Hilary and Obama have much to do with the murder of Berta in Honduras. Strip them of all their wealth and use it for reparations in Honduras. Then put them on a plane with a one way ticket to San Pedro Sula with only the clothes on their back.

    Raise the taxes on billionaires and corporations and pay every citizen in Central American countries 5 dollars a day to stay home. Thats a fortune down there. Those who cant stay due to climate change bring them here, we will build housing for them on property we seized from the oligarchs and their bought and paid for accomplices aka congress. Since we haven’t amended the 13th yet, after we’ ve tried Bezos for hus crimes against humanity, we could put him to use as a man servant to our newly housed migrants.

    There is only one possible solution, world wide revolt against the system that is killing us.

  5. Yes, exploitable workers do help in the race to the bottom, but the US always creates some exploitable social group—migrants or no migrants. We’ve got to think even bigger than immigration.

    In Aviva’s books, she mentions dual labor market. Essentially, there’s always been an exploited labor force… our economic system depends on it… whether it be slaves, migrants, children, etc. Somebody would be bringing down wages in the meat and construction industry. The whole economic system has to go to avoid this.

    1. Exactly, the whole system needs to come down if we are to survive.

      Being old, poor, white, and male I find identity politics odoriferous. Chris Hedges traveled through Appalachia before the 2016 election asking people who they were going to vote for and why. Many said Trump, even though they did not like or trust him. They reasoned that at least he said he was going to help them. Hillaryjustmetaphorically spate in their faces.

      I’ve never read any Avias book, but I was able to discern at an early age, that our system depended upon an exploited class, or classes.
      When you’re on the bottom it’s pretty self evident, we don’t need scholars to inform us, in fact it’s a slap to the face.

      Our system is killing us quite literally. If we don’t revolt, we are dead. Given the trajectory of climate change alone, I’d say we have 20 years at best, before total extinction.

      1. Sincere question: How is “identity politics” different from people fighting to achieve equality? Not talking about the exploitation of such struggles by elites (tokenism, empty symbolism, use in marketing/advertising) … but different groups saying, respond to our demands.

  6. That would depend upon your definition of identity politics. The term tends to be somewhat ambiguous. Not trying to dodge the question, just laying some groundwork.

    Personally I view identity politics as a particular group of people united in tribalism engaging in politics. i.e. I am woman, I am black, I am poor and white, and I primarily or only identify with my tribe. Identity politics always has a righteous victim and an ultimate villian. Poor whites blame immigrants, blacks blame whites, women blame men. There is often an element of truth involved, which adds cover to the ensuing lies and inconsistencys in the narrative. That’s a far cry from banding together to fight an injustice or injustices to a particular group. That’s when you get progressive women noding their heads sagely when Madeleine Albright tells them there is special place in hell for women who won’t vote for Shillary…sorry couldn’t help my self had to say it Shillary…damn did it again.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: