U.S. Aid Is Crucial to Defending Democracy in Latin America
It's a reference to U.S. actions during the Cold War to undermine democratically elected governments across the region, including Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz in the 1950s and Chilean President Salvador Allende in the 1970s. Under the auspices of fighting communism, Washington backed right-wing military coups and dictatorships throughout the hemisphere. As late as the 1980s, Jeanne Kirkpatrick—a foreign policy adviser to then-President Ronald Reagan who later served as his ambassador to the United Nations—issued a defense of authoritarian regimes that she believed helped to protect their populations from even worse revolutionary ideologies.
But the joke was outdated even before January 2021, when then-U.S. President Donald Trump tried to overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. In fact, over recent decades, the view of the United States as a defender of authoritarianism, at least in Latin America, has become an anachronism. Eventually, Washington lent support to the Concertacion coalition that defeated then-dictator Augusto Pinochet at the polls and led to the reestablishment of democracy in Chile in 1990. And in 2001, the U.S. backed the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which clearly states in its opening that '[t]he peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy and their governments have an obligation to promote and defend it,' while promising to remove nondemocratic governments from various hemispheric institutions.
More recently, perhaps the top three achievements of former President Joe Biden's policies in Latin America all came in defense of democracy. His administration supported a democratic transition in Honduras in 2021 after Xiomara Castro defeated the ruling National Party's candidate in the country's presidential election that year. Washington then had outgoing President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who had stolen Honduras' 2017 presidential election, extradited on drug-trafficking charges so he could no longer interfere in domestic politics. A year later, Biden's team pressured Brazil's military leadership to stay clear of a coup attempt led by outgoing President Jair Bolsonaro after Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva won that country's presidential election in 2022. And the Biden team safeguarded an incredibly difficult presidential transition in Guatemala at the end of 2023 to ensure that President Bernardo Arevalo took office, overcoming the efforts of that country's corrupt elites to keep him from power.
To get more in-depth news and expert analysis on global affairs from WPR, sign up for our free Daily Review newsletter.
The U.S. record is far from perfect, and this column will no doubt provoke responses detailing the many wrongs Washington has committed in the region in recent years. But the U.S. really did shift toward a more pro-democracy stance in Latin America since the end of the Cold War. As part of that shift, the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, funded numerous local NGOs that promoted human rights and anti-corruption efforts. The National Endowment for Democracy—a government-funded semi-autonomous organization—backed training for political parties and civil society that contributed to grassroots civic activism at the heart of democratic values, winning NED the hatred of authoritarian leaders who viewed those efforts as a violation of their sovereignty. Various other U.S. agencies also provide grants for research and think tank work that is critical to policy debates in the region. All those efforts go beyond the specific episodes, such as those by the Biden administration, when the U.S. government backed a democratic movement at a critical moment. They were cooked into U.S. policy in nearly every country.
That is not to say that U.S. support is the only thing sustaining democracy in Latin America. Democracy can't be imposed from abroad. The biggest efforts come from the people of Latin America, who work to improve their countries' governance on a daily basis. They deserve far more credit than the U.S. does. But U.S. funding and leadership has become a critical part of the scaffolding and infrastructure for promoting democracy and civil society throughout the hemisphere.
Many groups have come to depend on it and were not prepared for the shock of recent weeks, when with minimal warning, that scaffolding was suddenly ripped away after Trump returned to the White House in January. Working through the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, run by Elon Musk, the Trump administration has put a freeze on nearly all foreign aid. Even programs that supposedly received waivers remain stuck in limbo, and payments that U.S. judges have ordered USAID to unfreeze do not seem to be flowing. In my conversations with analysts and activists across Latin America in February, I've been stunned by the sheer number of accounts I've heard of offices closing and laying off employees, important humanitarian assistance being cut and contracts not being paid by the U.S. government, even for work that has already been completed. It will likely take months before the full extent of the job losses and program shutdowns are reported.
Authoritarians around the region are gleeful at the turn of events. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has taken to Twitter/X to encourage Musk to cut funding for NED, whose efforts Bukele portrayed as not only wasted but bad for the region. Bukele has also cheered on both Trump's efforts to defy the judicial branch and calls by Trump's supporters to remove judges who attempt to block his policies.
In the short term, civil society organizations in Latin America are just trying to survive long enough to find new funding sources. Many op-eds have been written discussing how China or other global powers may fill the vacuum as the U.S. withdraws from its influential position in the region. But so far, there is just a vacuum. Contrary to the accusations thrown around by DOGE about waste, fraud and abuse, the vast majority of these NGOs and political parties were never particularly well-funded. They survived on shoestring budgets, and replacing the funds for any one of them would be a drop in the bucket for an interested patron. But for every organization that finds a new source of funding, many others will be forced to shut down. No other country or global institution has the resources and interest to fund these groups at the level the U.S. did just a few months ago.
The long-term implications of this cut are incredibly damaging to U.S. interests. Along with the shock, the sudden collapse of funding is generating a sense of betrayal among civil society in Latin America—with good reason. The U.S. has broken its promises and let them down. They won't easily trust the dependability of U.S. support in the future. Decades of efforts by the U.S. to shed its Cold War reputation are being swiftly undermined, not by an activist foreign policy that directly supports dictators, but by one that cuts off aid to the grassroots organizations on the front lines of Latin America's efforts to push back creeping authoritarianism.
If and when the U.S. tries to readopt a more supportive role for democracy and civil society four or eight years from now, it will likely find a much more hostile and distrustful environment. That will benefit the United States' adversaries around the world, but more immediately it will benefit democracy's adversaries in the region.
James Bosworth is the founder of Hxagon, a firm that does political risk analysis and bespoke research in emerging and frontier markets, as well as a global fellow at the Wilson Center's Latin America Program. He has two decades of experience analyzing politics, economics and security in Latin America and the Caribbean.
The post U.S. Aid Is Crucial to Defending Democracy in Latin America appeared first on World Politics Review.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Los Angeles Times
26 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
European leaders to join Ukraine's Zelensky for meeting with Trump
KYIV, Ukraine — European and NATO leaders announced Sunday they will join President Volodymyr Zelensky in Washington for talks with President Trump on ending Russia's war in Ukraine, with the possibility of U.S. security guarantees now on the negotiating table. European leaders, including heavyweights France, Britain and Germany, are rallying around the Ukrainian leader after his exclusion from Trump's summit on Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Their pledge to be at Zelensky's side at the White House on Monday is an apparent effort to ensure the meeting goes better than the Ukrainian leader's last one in February, when Trump berated him in a heated Oval Office encounter. 'The Europeans are very afraid of the Oval Office scene being repeated, and so they want to support Mr. Zelensky to the hilt,' said retired French Gen. Dominique Trinquand, a former head of France's military mission at the United Nations. 'It's a power struggle and a position of strength that might work with Trump,' he said. Special U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff said Sunday that Putin agreed at the meeting in Alaska with Trump to allow the U.S. and European allies to offer Ukraine a security guarantee resembling NATO's collective defense mandate as part of an eventual deal to end the 3½-year war. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, speaking at a news conference in Brussels with Zelensky, said, 'We welcome President Trump's willingness to contribute to Article 5-like security guarantees for Ukraine. And the 'coalition of the willing' — including the European Union -- is ready to do its share.' Von der Leyen was joined Sunday by French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Finnish President Alexander Stubb in saying they will take part in Monday's talks at the White House, as will the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Mark Rutte. The European leaders' demonstration of support could help ease concerns in Kyiv and other European capitals that Ukraine risks being railroaded into a peace deal that Trump says he wants to broker with Russia. Neil Melvin, director of international security at the London-based Royal United Services Institute, said European leaders are trying to 'shape this fast-evolving agenda.' After the Alaska summit, the idea of a ceasefire appears all but abandoned, with the narrative shifting toward Putin's agenda of ensuring Ukraine does not join NATO or even the EU. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday that a possible ceasefire is 'not off the table' but that the best way to end the war would be through a 'full peace deal.' Putin has implied that he sees Europe as a hindrance to negotiations. He has also resisted meeting Zelensky in person, saying that such a meeting can only take place once the groundwork for a peace deal has been laid. Speaking to reporters after his meeting with Trump, the Russian leader raised the idea that Kyiv and other European capitals could 'create obstacles' to derail potential progress with 'behind-the-scenes intrigue.' For now, the Zelensky meeting offers the Europeans the 'only way' to get into the discussions about the future of Ukraine and European security, Melvin said. But the sheer number of European leaders potentially in attendance means the group will have to be 'mindful' not to give 'contradictory' messages, he said. 'The risk is they look heavy-handed and are ganging up on Trump,' he added. 'Trump won't want to be put in a corner.' Although details remain hazy on what Article 5-like security guarantees from the U.S. and Europe would entail for Ukraine, it could mirror NATO membership terms, in which an attack on one member of the alliance is seen as an attack on all. In remarks made on CNN's 'State of the Union,' Witkoff said Friday's meeting with Trump was the first time Putin has been had heard to agree to such an arrangement. Zelensky continues to stress the importance of both U.S. and European involvement in any negotiations. 'A security guarantee is a strong army. Only Ukraine can provide that. Only Europe can finance this army, and weapons for this army can be provided by our domestic production and European production. But there are certain things that are in short supply and are only available in the United States,' he said at the news conference Sunday alongside Von der Leyen. Zelensky also countered Trump's assertion — which aligned with Putin's preference — that the two sides should negotiate a complete end to the war rather than first securing a ceasefire. Zelensky said a ceasefire would provide breathing room to review Putin's demands. 'It's impossible to do this under the pressure of weapons,' he said. 'Putin does not want to stop the killing, but he must do it.' Kullab and Leicester write for the Associated Press and reported from Kyiv and Le Pecq, France, respectively. AP writers Pan Pylas in London and Katie Marie Davies in Manchester, England, contributed to this report.


New York Post
26 minutes ago
- New York Post
Who's REALLY ‘destroying democracy' — after failing to win voters legitimately?
'Destroying democracy' — the latest theme of the left — can be defined in many ways. How about attempting to destroy constitutional, ancient and hallowed institutions simply to suit short-term political gains? So, who in 2020, and now once again, has boasted about packing the 156-year-old, nine-justice Supreme Court? Who talks frequently about destroying the 187-year-old Senate filibuster — though only when they hold a Senate majority? Who wants to bring in an insolvent left-wing Puerto Rico and redefine the 235-year-old District of Columbia — by altering the Constitution — as two new states solely to obtain four additional liberal senators? Who is trying to destroy the constitutionally mandated 235-year Electoral College by circumventing it with the surrogate 'The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?' Does destroying democracy also entail weaponizing federal bureaucracies, turning them into rogue partisan arms of a president? So who ordered the CIA to concoct bogus charges of 'collusion' to sabotage Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, the 2016-2017 transition, and the first 22 months of Trump's first term? Who prompted a cabal of '51 former intelligence officials' to lie to the American people on the eve of the last debate of the 2020 election that the FBI-authenticated Hunter Biden laptop was instead the work of a 'Russian intelligence operation?' Who ordered the FBI to connive and partner with social-media conglomerates to censor accurate news deemed unhelpful to the 2020 Biden campaign? Who pulled off the greatest presidential coup in history by using surrogates in the shadows to run the cognitively debilitated Biden presidency, then by fiat canceled his reelection effort and finally anointed as his replacement the new nominee Kamala Harris, who had never won a single primary delegate? Who ordered FBI SWAT teams to invade the home of a former president because of a classification dispute over 102 files out of some 13,000 stored there? Who tried to remove an ex-president and leader of his party from at least 25 state ballots to deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity to vote for or against him? Who coordinated four local, state and federal prosecutors to destroy a former and future president by charging him with fantasy crimes that were never before, and will never again be, lodged against anyone else? Who appointed a federal prosecutor to go after the ex-president, who arranged for a high-ranking Justice Department official to step down to join a New York prosecutor's efforts to destroy an ex-president, and who met in the White House with a Georgia county prosecutor seeking to destroy an ex-president — all on the same day — a mere 72 hours after Trump announced his 2024 reelection bid? Who but the current Democrats ever impeached a president twice? Has any party ever tried an ex-president in the Senate when he was out of office and a mere private citizen? When have there ever been two near-miss assassination attempts on a major party presidential candidate during a single presidential campaign? Who destroyed the southern border and broke federal law to allow in, without criminal or health background audits, some 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens? Who created 600 'sanctuary jurisdictions' for the sole purpose of nullifying federal immigration law, in the eerie spirit of the renegade old Confederacy? Who allowed tens of thousands of rioters, arsonists and violent protesters over four months in 2020 to destroy over $2 billion in property, kill some 35 people, injure 1,500 police officers and torch a federal courthouse, a police precinct and a historic church — all with de facto legal impunity? How do the purported destroyers of democracy find themselves winning 60% to 70% approval on most of the key issues of our times, while the supposed saviors of democracy are on the losing side of popular opinion? How does a president 'destroy democracy' by his party winning the White House by both the popular and Electoral College vote, winning majorities in both the Senate and House by popular votes and enjoying a 6-3 edge in the Supreme Court through judges appointed by popularly elected presidents? So what is behind these absurd charges? Three catalysts: One, the new anguished elitist Democratic Party alienated the middle classes through its Jacobin agenda and therefore lost the Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court, and now has no federal political power. Two, the Democratic Party is polling at record lows and yet remains hellbent on alienating the traditional sources of its power — minorities, youth and Independents. Three, Democrats cannot find any issues that the people support, nor any leaders to convince the people to embrace them. So it is no surprise that the panicked Democrats bark at the shadows — given that they know their revolutionary, neo-socialist agenda is destroying them. And yet, like all addicts, they choose destruction over abandoning their self-destructive fixations. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.


Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Israel's growing frustration over the war in Gaza explodes in nationwide protests
JERUSALEM — Israeli police blasted crowds with water cannons and made dozens of arrests Sunday as thousands of protesters demanding a deal to free hostages in the Gaza Strip aimed to shut down the country with a one-day strike that blocked roads and closed businesses. Groups representing families of hostages organized the demonstrations as frustration grows in Israel over plans for a new military offensive in some of Gaza's most populated areas, which many fear could further endanger the remaining hostages. Fifty hostages remain, and 20 of them are believed to still be alive. 'We don't win a war over the bodies of hostages,' protesters chanted in one of the largest and fiercest protests in 22 months of war. Even some former Israeli army and intelligence chiefs now call for a deal to end the fighting. Protesters gathered at dozens of places including outside politicians' homes, military headquarters and on major highways. They blocked lanes and lighted bonfires. Some restaurants and theaters closed in solidarity. Police said they arrested 38 people. 'The only way to bring [hostages] back is through a deal, all at once, without games,' former hostage Arbel Yehoud said at a demonstration in Tel Aviv. Her boyfriend, Ariel Cunio, is still being held by Hamas. One protester carried a photo of an emaciated Palestinian child from Gaza. Such images were once rare at Israeli demonstrations but now appear more often as outrage grows over the hunger crisis there after more than 250 malnutrition-related deaths, including more than 100 children. An end to the conflict does not seem near. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is balancing competing pressures including the potential for mutiny within his coalition. 'Those who today call for an end to the war without defeating Hamas are not only hardening Hamas' position and delaying the release of our hostages, they are also ensuring that the horrors of Oct. 7 will be repeated,' Netanyahu said, referencing the Hamas-led attack in 2023 that killed some 1,200 people and sparked the war. The last time Israel agreed to a ceasefire that released hostages earlier this year, far-right members of his Cabinet threatened to topple Netanyahu's government. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich on Sunday called the demonstrations 'a bad and harmful campaign that plays into Hamas' hands, buries the hostages in the tunnels and attempts to get Israel to surrender to its enemies and jeopardize its security and future.' The new offensive would require the call-up of thousands of reservists, another concern for many Israelis. Hospitals and witnesses in Gaza said Israeli forces killed at least 17 aid-seekers on Sunday, including nine awaiting United Nations aid trucks close to the Morag corridor. Hamza Asfour said he was just north of the corridor awaiting a convoy when Israeli snipers fired, first to disperse the crowds, then from tanks hundreds of yards away. He saw two people with gunshot wounds. 'It's either to take this risk or wait and see my family die of starvation,' he said. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which runs the Israeli-backed and U.S.-supported distribution points that have become the main source of aid since they opened in May, said there was no gunfire 'at or near' its sites, which are in military-controlled areas. Israel's military did not immediately respond to questions. Israel's air and ground war has displaced most of Gaza's population and killed more than 61,900 people, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which does not specify how many were fighters or civilians but says about half were women and children. Two children and five adults died of malnutrition-related causes Sunday, according to the ministry, which is part of the Hamas-run government and staffed by medical professionals. The U.N. and independent experts consider it the most reliable source on casualties. Israel disputes its figures but has not provided its own. The United Nations has warned that levels of starvation and malnutrition in Gaza are at their highest since the war began. Most aid has been blocked from entering Gaza since Israel imposed a total blockade in March after ending a ceasefire. Deliveries have since partially resumed, though aid organizations say the flow is far below what is needed. It is not clear when Israel's military will begin the new offensive in crowded Gaza City, Muwasi and the 'central camps' of Gaza, as Netanyahu describes them. The military body that coordinates its humanitarian aid to Gaza, COGAT, this weekend noted plans to forcibly evacuate people from combat zones to southern Gaza 'for their protection.' Designated 'safe zones,' however, also have been bombed during the war. War-weary Palestinians on Sunday insisted that they won't leave, arguing that there is 'no safe place' in Gaza. 'There are no humanitarian zones at all,' said Raghda Abu Dhaher, who said she has been displaced 10 times during the war and now shelters in a school in western Gaza City. Mohamed Ahmed also insisted that he won't move south. 'Here is bombing and there is bombing,' he said. Israeli airstrikes hit Yemen's capital of Sanaa on Sunday, escalating strikes on the Iran-backed Houthi rebels, who since the war in Gaza began have fired missiles at Israel and targeted ships in the Red Sea. The Houthi-run Al-Masirah Television said the strikes targeted a power plant in the southern district of Sanhan, sparking a fire and knocking it out of service. Israel's military said the strikes were launched in response to missiles and drones aimed at Israel. While some projectiles have breached its missile defenses — notably during its 12-day war with Iran in June — Israel has intercepted the vast majority of missiles launched from Yemen. Its military later Sunday said it had intercepted another. Metz, Melzer and Magdy write for the Associated Press and reported from Jerusalem; Nahariya, Israel; and Cairo, respectively. AP writer Sam Mednick in Tel Aviv contributed to this report.