Skip to main content
  • Sections
  • Search

Center for Strategic & International Studies

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Sign In

Topics

  • Climate Change
  • Cybersecurity and Technology
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Governance
    • Intelligence, Surveillance, and Privacy
    • Military Technology
    • Space
    • Technology and Innovation
  • Defense and Security
    • Counterterrorism and Homeland Security
    • Defense Budget
    • Defense Industry, Acquisition, and Innovation
    • Defense Strategy and Capabilities
    • Geopolitics and International Security
    • Long-Term Futures
    • Missile Defense
    • Space
    • Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation
  • Economics
    • Asian Economics
    • Global Economic Governance
    • Trade and International Business
  • Energy and Sustainability
    • Energy, Climate Change, and Environmental Impacts
    • Energy and Geopolitics
    • Energy Innovation
    • Energy Markets, Trends, and Outlooks
  • Global Health
    • Family Planning, Maternal and Child Health, and Immunizations
    • Multilateral Institutions
    • Health and Security
    • Infectious Disease
  • Human Rights
    • Civil Society
    • Transitional Justice
    • Human Security
  • International Development
    • Food and Agriculture
    • Governance and Rule of Law
    • Humanitarian Assistance
    • Private Sector Development
    • U.S. Development Policy

Regions

  • Africa
    • North Africa
    • Sub-Saharan Africa
  • Americas
    • Caribbean
    • North America
    • South America
  • Arctic
  • Asia
    • Afghanistan
    • Australia, New Zealand & Pacific
    • China
    • India
    • Japan
    • Korea
    • Pakistan
    • Southeast Asia
  • Europe
    • European Union
    • NATO
    • Post-Soviet Europe
    • Turkey
  • Middle East
    • The Gulf
    • Egypt and the Levant
    • North Africa
  • Russia and Eurasia
    • The South Caucasus
    • Central Asia
    • Post-Soviet Europe
    • Russia

Sections menu

  • Programs
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Analysis
    • Blogs
    • Books
    • Commentary
    • Congressional Testimony
    • Critical Questions
    • Interactive Reports
    • Journals
    • Newsletter
    • Reports
    • Transcript
  • Podcasts
  • iDeas Lab
  • Transcripts
  • Web Projects

Main menu

  • About Us
  • Support CSIS
    • Securing Our Future
Photo: ULISES RUIZ/AFP/Getty Images
Commentary
Share
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Printfriendly.com

Cutting Off Assistance to Central America

April 19, 2019

A version of the article was originally published by the Washington Times on Monday, April 15, 2019.
 
Cutting off U.S. assistance to Central America’s Northern Triangle countries to stem migration is an example of wrong-headed ideology driving policy off a cliff, with ruinous results for those countries and ours.

President Trump decided, clearly without inter-agency consultation, coming just a day after his Secretary of Homeland Security had boasted of a “historic” agreement with El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to control migration, to halt current FY17 and FY18 spending in those countries, and bar any new programs. Diplomats, scholars, and longtime observers of the post-conflict history of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, even Vice President Pence—agree that reducing violence, creating economic opportunity, building less corrupt and more effective governance is the only way to limit the push factors driving migration.
 
One recent study found:

  • In El Salvador, homicides boost migration by 188 percent and economic informality by 27 percent.
A similar pattern was found between violence and the migration of minors in all three countries.
  • In Guatemala, a 1percent increase in homicides drives migration by 100 percent; increases in economic informality raise migration by 4 percent and a decline in human development index increases migration by 5 percent.
  • In Honduras, a 1 percent increase in homicides increases migration by 120 percent; rises in the amount of economic informality drive migration by 12 percent.

Equally important, the need to target push factors is endorsed by most civil society, business, and government leaders in those countries. Even the elites, many of whom have opposed tax, transparency and justice reforms, acknowledge that reality.
 
Until recent rhetoric about sealing the border in the near future gave coyotes a new selling pitch, the numbers of Northern Triangle migrants flowing north to the southwest was at a 45-year low in FY17. Last year, there was a tick upwards but still lower than FY14. When you look at the numbers closely, you also see a vast difference among the three countries. In part, those declines are linked to U.S. foreign aid programs that work.
 
In El Salvador, there were half as many family unit apprehensions between FY16 and FY18 on the southwest border. The numbers dropped from 27,114 to 13,669 according to the U.S. Border Patrol. The drop in unaccompanied minors from El Salvador was even more dramatic, declining by three-quarters last year from 2014.
 
How did U.S. foreign assistance contribute to those positive trends? And why didn’t President Trump recognize the success, take credit for it and urge the other two countries to do more of the same? Those are questions that need to be asked.
 
Just after outsider Nayib Bukele was elected president this year in a historic first-round win, I traveled to El Salvador. I also was in the country three times last year and dozens of times since I served there as a Peace Corps volunteer in the late 1960s. Here is what I found.
 
USAID, State, and Justice foreign assistance programs played a key role in reducing the migratory push factor of violence, working with the Salvador government, civil society and private sector to target the 50 highest violence municipalities. Then they used other lessons learned in Colombia and elsewhere to partner with Salvador counterparts in a violence prevention program in those communities aimed at youth most vulnerable to gang recruitment and intimidation, knitting in- and out-of-school job training, recreation, law enforcement with community policing, local government transparency, and investment in and youth involvement in community services.
 
In those 50 high crime counties, homicides since 2015 dropped by 61 percent, about 50 percent more than the national homicide reduction. Initial evaluation also shows drops in extortion. Nationally it was Plan El Salvador Seguro with Salvadoran funding alongside U.S. and UN monies. The national results saw the homicide rate cut by 42 percent between 2015-2018.
 
Salvadoran and U.S. officials and NGOs believe that those violence reduction results, with the jury still out pending ongoing evaluations, link directly to the sharp reduction we have seen in Salvadoran family and unaccompanied minors showing up on the U.S. southwest border.

El Salvador’s new president takes office on June 1. U.S. officials already welcome president-elect Bukele’s voiced determination to do more on anti-corruption with an International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG)-like entity for El Salvador and frankly are even more enthusiastic about his foreign policy statements critical of China, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Having the United States essentially turn its back on the incoming administration by cutting aid clearly would be a mistake.
 
So isn’t this a good time for the next tweet from the White House to say—“I took a second look and decided that we should not cut U.S. foreign aid to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.”
 
And if that tweet doesn’t appear, the U.S. Congress should press the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Control law and reject reprogramming that takes monies away from the Northern Triangle. They should add funding to replicate and expand programs that are combatting the underlying causes of migration—corruption, crime, and an absence of hope in communities suffering both violence and economic stagnation.
 
Mark L. Schneider is a senior adviser with the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
 
Commentary is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).
 
© 2019 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.
 

Written By
Mark L. Schneider
Senior Adviser (Non-resident), Americas Program and Human Rights Initiative
Media Queries

Contact H. Andrew Schwartz
Chief Communications Officer
Tel: 202.775.3242

Contact Caleb Diamond
Media Relations Manager and Editorial Associate
Tel: 202.775.3173

Related
Americas, Americas Program, Commentaries, Critical Questions, and Newsletters, Governance and Rule of Law, U.S. Development Policy

Most Recent From Mark L. Schneider

On Demand Event
Online Event: An Armchair Discussion with Luis Arreaga, Former U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala
October 19, 2020
Commentary
A Diagnostic on Corruption in Ecuador: The Way Forward
By Mark L. Schneider
October 13, 2020
Commentary
Trump Administration Cripples Latin America’s Ability to Fight Covid-19
By Mark L. Schneider
July 2, 2020
Report
Anti-Corruption in the Americas: What Works?
By Mark L. Schneider
February 25, 2020
Commentary
Maduro Locked out Legislators-and Opened Door for Global Action for Democracy
By Mark L. Schneider
January 17, 2020
Report
Unraveling the Water Crisis in Venezuela
By Moises Rendon, Mark L. Schneider, Arianna Kohan
December 10, 2019
In the News
How Evo Morales Made Bolivia A Better Place ... Before He Fled The Country
NPR | Isabella Gomez Sarmiento
November 26, 2019
Report
Analyzing Obstacles to Venezuela’s Future
By Moises Rendon, Mark L. Schneider
November 6, 2019
View all content by this expert
Footer menu
  • Topics
  • Regions
  • Programs
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Analysis
  • Web Projects
  • Podcasts
  • iDeas Lab
  • Transcripts
  • About Us
  • Support Us
Contact CSIS
Email CSIS
Tel: 202.887.0200
Fax: 202.775.3199
Visit CSIS Headquarters
1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Media Queries

Contact H. Andrew Schwartz
Chief Communications Officer
Tel: 202.775.3242

Contact Caleb Diamond
Media Relations Manager and Editorial Associate
Tel: 202.775.3173

Daily Updates

Sign up to receive The Evening, a daily brief on the news, events, and people shaping the world of international affairs.

Subscribe to CSIS Newsletters

Follow CSIS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • Instagram

All content © 2021. All rights reserved.

Legal menu
  • Credits
  • Privacy Policy
  • Reprint Permissions