The Trump Administration's Newest Migration Policies and Shifting Immigrant Demographics in the USA

New Trump administration migration policies including the "Safe Third Country" agreements signed by the USA, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras have reduced the number of migrants from the Northern Triangle countries at the southwest US border. As a consequence of this phenomenon and other factors, Mexicans have become once again the main national group of people deemed inadmissible for asylum or apprehended by the US Customs and Border Protection.

▲ An US Border Patrol agent at the southwest US border [cbp.gov].

ARTICLE / Alexandria Casarano Christofellis

On March 31, 2018, the Trump administration cut off aid to the Northern Triangle countries in order to coerce them into implementing new policies to curb illegal migration to the United States. El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala all rely heavily on USAid, and had received 118, 181, and 257 million USD in USAid respectively in the 2017 fiscal year.

The US resumed financial aid to the Northern Triangle countries on October 17 of 2019, in the context of the establishment of bilateral negotiations of Safe Third Country agreements with each of the countries, and the implementation of the US Supreme Court's de facto asylum ban on September 11 of 2019. The Safe Third Country agreements will allow the US to 'return' asylum seekers to the countries which they traveled through on their way to the US border (provided that the asylum seekers are not returned to their home countries). The US Supreme Court's asylum ban similarly requires refugees to apply for and be denied asylum in each of the countries which they pass through before arriving at the US border to apply for asylum. This means that Honduran and Salvadoran refugees would need to apply for and be denied asylum in both Guatemala and Mexico before applying for asylum in the US, and Guatemalan refugees would need to apply for and be denied asylum in Mexico before applying for asylum in the US. This also means that refugees fleeing one of the Northern Triangle countries can be returned to another Northern Triangle country suffering many of the same issues they were fleeing in the first place.

Combined with the Trump administration's longer-standing "metering" or "Remain in Mexico" policy (Migrant Protection Protocols/MPP), these political developments serve to effectively "push back" the US border. The "Remain in Mexico" policy requires US asylum seekers from Latin America to remain on the Mexican side of the US-Mexico border to wait their turn to be accepted into US territory. Within the past year, the US government has planted significant obstacles in the way of the path of Central American refugees to US asylum, and for better or worse has shifted the burden of the Central American refugee crisis to Mexico and the Central American countries themselves, which are ill-prepared to handle the influx, even in the light of resumed US foreign aid. The new arrangements resemble the EU's refugee deal with Turkey.

These policy changes are coupled with a shift in US immigration demographics. In August of 2019, Mexico reclaimed its position as the single largest source of unauthorized immigration to the US, having been temporarily surpassed by Guatemala and Honduras in 2018.

US Customs and Border Protection data indicates a net increase of 21% in the number of Unaccompanied Alien Children from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador deemed inadmissible for asylum at the Southwest US Border by the US field office between fiscal year 2019 (through February) and fiscal year 2020 (through February). All other inadmissible groups (Family Units, Single Adults, etc.) experienced a net decrease of 18-24% over the same time period. For both the entirety of fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2020 through February, Mexicans accounted for 69 and 61% of Unaccompanied Alien Children Inadmissible at the Southwest US border respectively, whereas previously in fiscal years 2017 and 2018 Mexicans accounted for only 21 and 26% of these same figures, respectively. The percentages of Family Unit Inadmisibles from the Northern Triangle countries have been decreasing since 2018, while the percentage of Family Unit Inadmisibles from Mexico since 2018 has been on the rise.

With asylum made far less accessible to Central Americans in the wake of the Trump administration's new migration policies, the number of Central American inadmisibles is in sharp decline. Conversely, the number of Mexican inadmisibles is on the rise, having nearly tripled over the past three years.

Chain migration factors at play in Mexico may be contributing to this demographic shift. On September 10, 2019, prominent Mexican newspaper El discussion published an article titled "Immigrants Can Avoid Deportation with these Five Documents." Additionally, The Washington Post cites the testimony of a city official from Michoacan, Mexico, claiming that a local Mexican travel company has begun running a weekly "door-to-door" service line to several US border points of entry, and that hundreds of Mexican citizens have been coming to the municipal offices daily requesting documentation to help them apply for asylum in the US. Word of mouth, press coverage like that found in El discussion, and the commercial exploitation of the Mexican migrant situation have perhaps made migration, and especially the claiming of asylum, more accessible to the Mexican population.

US Customs and Border Protection data also indicates that total apprehensions of migrants from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador attempting illegal crossings at the Southwest US border declined 44% for Unaccompanied Alien Children and 73% for Family Units between fiscal year 2019 (through February) and fiscal year 2020 (through February), while increasing for Single Adults by 4%. The same data trends show that while Mexicans have consistently accounted for the overwhelming majority of Single Adult Apprehensions since 2016, Family Unit and Unaccompanied Alien Children Apprehensions until the past year were dominated by Central Americans. However, in fiscal year 2020-February, the percentages of Central American Family Unit and Unaccompanied Alien Children Apprehensions have declined while the Mexican percentage has increased significantly. This could be attributed to the Northern Triangle countries' and especially Mexico's recent crackdown on the flow of illegal immigration within their own states in response to the same US sanctions and suspension of USAid which led to the Safe Third Country bilateral agreements with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.

While the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration from the Northern Triangle countries has effectively worked to limit both the legal and illegal access of Central Americans to US entry, the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration from Mexico in the past few years has focused on arresting and deporting illegal Mexican immigrants already living and working within the US borders. Between 2017 and 2018, ICE increased workplace raids to arrest undocumented immigrants by over 400% according to The Independent in the UK. The trend seemed to continue into 2019. President Trump tweeted on June 17, 2019 that "Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States. They will be removed as fast as they come in." More deportations could be leading to more attempts at reentry, increasing Mexican migration to the US, and more Mexican Single Adult apprehensions at the Southwest border. The Washington Post alleges that the majority of the Mexican single adults apprehended at the border are previous deportees trying to reenter the country.

Lastly, the steadily increasing violence within the state of Mexico should not be overlooked as a cause for continued migration. Within the past year, violence between the various Mexican cartels has intensified, and murder rates have continued to rise. While the increase in violence alone is not intense enough to solely account for the spike that has recently been seen in Mexican migration to the US, internal violence nethertheless remains an important factor in the Mexican migrant situation. Similarly, widespread poverty in Mexico, recently worsened by a decline in foreign investment in the light of threatened tariffs from the USA, also plays a key role.

In conclusion, the Trump administration's new migration policies mark an intensification of long-standing nativist tendencies in the US, and pose a potential threat to the human rights of asylum seekers at the US-Mexico border. The corresponding present demographic shift back to Mexican predominance in US immigration is driven not only by the Trump administration's new migration policies, but also by many other diverse factors within both Mexico and the US, from press coverage to increased deportations to long-standing cartel violence and poverty. In the face of these recent developments, one thing remains clear: the situation south of the Rio Grande is just as complex, nuanced, and constantly evolving as is the situation to the north on Capitol Hill in the USA.

The changes, although significant in some cases, will not substantially modify trade flows between the three countries.

The new Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico is now ready for implementation, following ratification by the congresses of the three countries. The revision of the previous treaty, which came into force in 1994, was demanded by Donald Trump on his arrival at the White House, alleging the trade deficit generated for the US in relation to Canada and especially Mexico. Although some significant corrections have been introduced, following the main US approaches, it does not appear that the revised agreement will substantially modify trade flows between the three countries.

▲ Presidents Peña Nieto, Trump and Trudeau sign free trade agreement in November 2019 [US Gov.]

article / Marcelina Kropiwnicka

On January 1, 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) entered into force. More than twenty years later and under the administration of President Donald Trump, the three partner countries opened a review process of the agreement, now called the Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico (to which each country has given a different acronym: the Mexicans call it T-MEC or TMEC, the Americans USMCA and the Canadians CUSMA).

The text of the TMEC (its Spanish acronym) finally ratified by the three countries is generally consistent with the old NAFTA. However, there are particular distinctions. Thus, it includes stricter rules of origin in the automotive and textile sectors, an updated labor value content requirement in the automotive sector, increased U.S. access to Canadian supply-managed markets, novel provisions related to financial services, and a specification on the establishment of free trade agreements with non-market economies. The overall goal is to encourage production in North America.

News negotiated in 2017-2018

The three parties started the negotiation in the summer of 2017 and after a little over a year they closed an agreement, signed by the presidents of the three countries in November 2018. The main novelties introduced until then were as follows:

1) The agreement revises the regional value content (RVC) percentage for the automotive industry. Under NAFTA, at least 62.5% of an automobile must be made with parts from North America. The TMEC raises the percentage to 75% with the intention of strengthening the countries' manufacturing capacity and increasing the work force in the automotive industry.

2) Along the same lines, to support employment in North America, the agreement contains new trade rules of origin to boost higher wages by mandating that 40-45% of auto manufacturing be done by workers earning at least $16 per hour on average by 2023; that's about three times the pay a Mexican worker normally receives today.

3) Aside from the automotive industry, the dairy market will be opened to ensure greater access for U.S. dairy products , a core topic demanded by Washington. Currently, Canada has a system of domestic quotas that were put in place to protect its farmers from foreign skill ; however, under the new TMEC agreement , changes will allow the U.S. to export up to 3.6% of Canada's dairymarket , anincrease of 2.6% over the original NAFTA provision. Another core topic achievement for Trump was the negotiation of Canada's elimination of what are known as itsmilk classes 6 and 7.

4) Another new aspect is the sunset clause. NAFTA had an automatic sunset clause or a predetermined termination date for the agreement, which meant that any of the three parties could withdraw from the agreement upon six months notice of withdrawal; if this did not occur, the agreement remained indefinite. However, the TMEC provides for a duration of 16 years, with the option to meet, negotiate and review the document after six years, as well as the possibility of renewing the agreement after 16 years.

5) The three countries' pact also includes a chapter on work that anchors labor obligations in the core of the agreement , making its execution more demanding.

Reforms in Mexico

Precisely to make that last point more credible, U.S. and Canadian negotiators demanded that Mexico make changes to its labor laws to speed up the process of approval and ratification of the TMEC by lawmakers in Washington and Ottawa. U.S. House leaders had doubted Mexico's ability to specifically comply with the agreement's labor rights points. One of President Trump's main objectives in the renegotiation was to assure U.S. workers that unequal skill status would be overcome.

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador sent a letter to the US congress guaranteeing the implementation of a four-year plan to ensure the achievement of adequate labor rights. Lopez Obrador committed to an outlay of $900 million over the next four years to change the labor justice system and ensure that disputes between workers and employers are resolved in a timely manner. Mexico has also invested in the construction of a Federal Center for Labor Conciliation and Registration, where labor disputes will be addressed prior to their hearing in court.

Obrador showed his commitment to labor reforms by assuring at least a 2% increase inMexico'sminimum wage. Most B that the requirement of direct voting for union leaders will change the functioning of workers' organizations. With direct elections, decisions on collective bargaining agreements will be more transparent. Mexico's plan to improve the labor environment will begin in 2020.

What's new in 2019 to facilitate ratification

Faced with demands raised in the U.S. congress , particularly by the Democratic majority, to ratify the treaty, negotiators proceeded with two major revisions to NAFTA. One of them aimed primarily at revising a large number of provisions relating to intellectual property, pharmaceuticals and the digital economy:

6) The chapter dedicated to intellectual property rights seeks to respond to U.S. concerns to boost innovation, generate economic growth and support work. For the first time, according to the U.S. Trade Representative, the additions include: strict rules against circumvention of technological protection measures for music, movies and digital books; strong protections for pharmaceutical and agricultural innovation; broad protections against trade secret theft; and official document authority for officials to stop suspected counterfeit or pirated goods.

7) A new chapter on digital trade has also been included that contains stricter controls than any other international agreement , consolidating the foundation for the expansion of trade and investment in areas where the US has a competitive advantage.

8) The final draft eliminates a 10-year guarantee of intellectual property protection for biological drugs, which are some of the most expensive drugs on the market. It also removes granting an additional three years of IP exclusivity for drugs for which a new use is found.

A second group of late-breaking changes reference letter to greater environmental and labor protections:

9) Environment covers 30 pages, outlining obligations to combat trafficking in wildlife, timber and fish; strengthen law enforcement to stop such trafficking; and address critical environmental issues such as air quality and marine debris. New obligations include: protecting various marine species, implementing appropriate methods for environmental impact assessments, and complying with the obligations of seven multilateral environmental agreements. In particular, Mexico agreement to improve surveillance to stop illegal fishing, and the three countries agree to stop subsidize fishing for overfished species. To increase environmental accountability, Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives urged the creation of an interagency oversight committee. However, the treaty does not address climate change issues.

10) To ensure that Mexico delivers on its labor promises, House Democrats forced the creation of an interagency committee to monitor the implementation of Mexico's labor reform and compliance with labor obligations. Despite the new and unique 'LVC' requirement, a labor value content rule, it will still be difficult to impose a minimum wage on Mexican automakers. However, U.S. Democrats hope that the condition will force automakers to buy more supplies from Canada or the U.S. or cause automakers' wages in Mexico to increase.

The agreement finally ratified will replace the one that has been in force for 25 years. Overall, the move from NAFTA to the TMEC should not have a drastic effect on the three countries. It is a progressive agreement that will entail slight changes: certain industries will be affected, such as the automotive and dairy industries, but in a small proportion. In the long term, given the changes introduced, wages should increase in Mexico, which will decrease Mexican migration to the US. Businesses will be affected in the long term, but with backup plans and new redesigns, the transition process should hopefully be smooth and mutually beneficial.

27% of Latin America's total private wealth is deposited in territories offering favorable tax treatment

Latin America is the world region with the highest percentage of private "offshore" wealth. The proximity of tax havens, in various countries or island dependencies in the Caribbean, can facilitate the arrival of these capitals, some generated illicitly (drug trafficking, corruption) and all evaded from national tax institutions with little supervisory and coercive force. Latin America missed out on taxes in 2017 to the tune of $335 billion, which represented 6.3% of its GDP.

▲ Caribbean beach [Pixabay].

article / Jokin de Carlos Sola

The natural wealth of Latin American countries contrasts with the precarious economic status of most of their societies. Lands rich in oil, minerals and primary goods sometimes fail to feed all their citizens. One of the reasons for this deficiency is the frequency with which companies and leaders tend to evade taxes, driving capital away from their countries.

One of the reasons for the tendency to evade taxes is the large size of the underground Economics and the shortcomings of the States to implement tax systems. Another is the close presence of tax havens in the Caribbean, basically linked historically to the United Kingdom. These territories with beneficial tax characteristics have attracted capital from the continent.

History

The history of tax evasion is long. Its relationship with Latin America and the British Caribbean archipelagos, however, has its origins in the fall of the British Empire.

Beginning in 1945, Britain gradually began to lose its colonial possessions around the world. The financial effect was clear: millions of pounds were lost or taken out of operations throughout the empire. To cope with this status and to be able to maintain their global financial power, the bankers of the City of London thought of creating fields of action outside the jurisdiction of the Bank of England, from where bankers from all over the world (especially Americans) could also operate in order to avoid their respective national regulations. A new opportunity then arose in the British overseas territories, some of which did not become independent, but maintained their ties, albeit loose, with the United Kingdom. This was the case of the Caribbean.

In 1969 the Cayman Islands created the first banking secrecy legislation. It was the first overseas territory to become a tax haven. From offices established there, the City banks were generating networks of operations unregulated by the Bank of England and with hardly any local supervision. Soon other Caribbean jurisdictions followed in the same footsteps.

Tax havens

The main tax havens in the Caribbean are British overseas territories such as the Cayman Islands, the Virgin Islands and Montserrat, or some former British colonies that later became independent, such as the Bahamas. These are islands with small populations and small Economics . Many of the politicians and legislators in these places work for the British financial sector and ensure secrecy within their territories.

Unlike other locations that can also be considered tax havens, the British-influenced islands of the Caribbean offer a second level of secrecy in addition to the legal one: the trust. Most of those who hold assets in companies established in these territories do so through the figure of the trust. Under this system the beneficiary holds his assets (shares, properties, companies, etc.) in a trust which is administered by a trustee. These elements (trust, beneficiary, trustee, shell companies, etc.) are distributed in different Structures linked to different Caribbean jurisdictions. Thus, a trust may be established in one jurisdiction, but its beneficiaries may be in a different one, the trustee in a third and the shell companies in a fourth. This is a subject of Structures that are almost impossible for governments to dismantle. Therefore, when overseas governments undertake to share banking information, under pressure from Washington or Brussels, it is of little use because of the secrecy structure itself.

Impact in Latin America

Bank secrecy legislation arose in Latin America with the goal of attracting capital obtained in a licit manner. However, during the 1970s and 1980s, this protection of current account data also attracted capital obtained through illicit means, such as drug trafficking and corruption.

During those years, drug lords such as Pablo Escobar used the benefits of the Cayman Islands and other territories to hide their fortunes and properties. On the other hand, several Latin American dictatorships also used these mechanisms to hide the enrichment of their leaders through corruption or even drugs, as happened with Panama's Manuel Noriega.

Over time, the international community has increased its pressure on tax havens. In recent years the authorities in the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas have made efforts to ensure that their secrecy Structures are not used to launder money for organized crime, but not all territories considered tax havens have done the same.

These opaque networks are used by a considerable part of Latin America's great fortunes. Twenty-seven percent of Latin America's total private wealth is deposited in countries that offer favorable tax treatment, making it the region in the world with the highest proportion of private capital in those places, agreement to a 2017 Boston Consulting Group study. According to this consulting firm, this diversion of private wealth is greater in Latin America than in the Middle East and Africa (23%), Eastern Europe (20%), Western Europe (7%), Asia-Pacific (6%) and the United States and Canada (1%). 

Tax havens are the destination of a difficult-to-precise part of the total of 335 billion dollars subject to tax evasion or avoidance that there was in the region in 2017, a figure that constituted 6.3% of Latin American GDP (4% left out of income tax for individuals and 2.3% in VAT), as specified in ECLAC'sFiscal Panorama of Latin America and the Caribbean 2019 report . This UN economic commission for the region highlights that on average Latin American countries lose more than 50% of their income tax revenues.

The connection with London

There have been several theories about the role played by London in relation to tax havens. These theories coincide in presenting a connection of interests between the opaque companies and the City of London, in a network of complicity in which even the Bank of England and the British government could have participated.

The most important one was expressed by the British author Nicholas Shaxson in the book Treasure Island. The thesis was later developed by the documentary film Spiders Web, produced by the Tax Justice Network, whose founder, John Christiansen, worked as an advisor to the government of Jersey, which is a special jurisdiction.

The City of London has a separate administration, elected by the still existing guilds, which represent the commercial and banking class of the city. This allows financial operations in this area of the British capital to partially escape the control of the Bank of England and government regulations. A City that is attractive to foreign capital and prosperous greatly benefits British Economics , since its activity accounts for 2.4% of the country's GDP.

British sovereignty over the overseas territories that serve as tax havens sometimes leads to accusations that the United Kingdom is complicit with these financial networks. Downing Street responds that these are territories that operate with a great deal of autonomy, even though London sets the governor, controls foreign policy and has veto power over legislation passed in these places.

In addition, it is true that the UK government has in the last decade supported greater international coordination to increase scrutiny of tax havens, forcing the authorities there to submit relevant tax information, although the structure of the trusts still works against transparency.

Correcting the status

Latin America's problems with tax evasion may be more related to the fragility of its own fiscal institutions than to the presence of tax havens close to the American continent. At the same time, some tax havens have benefited from political instability and corruption in Latin America.

The effects of the flight of national capital to these places with special tax regimes are clearly negative for the countries of the region, as it deprives them of greater economic activity and revenue-raising possibilities, thus hindering the State's capacity to undertake the necessary improvement of public services.

It is therefore imperative that certain corrective policies be established. In the field of national policies, mechanisms should be created to prevent tax evasion and avoidance. At the same time, at the international level, diplomatic initiatives should be set up to put an end to the Structures of the trusts. The OAS offers, in this sense, an important negotiating framework not only with certain overseas territories, but also with its own metropolises, since these, as is the case of the United Kingdom, are permanent observer members of the hemispheric organization.

Criticism of Maduro, the redimensioning of the Chinese embrace and greater immigration control mark the harmony with Washington after ten years of the FMLN

The surprising use of the army to pressure the Salvadoran Legislative Assembly in early February to approve a security appropriation has raised international alarm about what the presidency of Nayib Bukele, who came to power in June 2019, may hold. Having tightened relations with the United States in his first half year, after two decades of government by the former FMLN guerrillas, Bukele may have thought that his authoritarian gesture would be excused by Washington. The unanimous reaction in the region made him correct the shot, at least for the time being.

▲ Swearing in of Nayib Bukele as president, in June 2019, together with his wife, Gabriela Rodríguez [Presidency of El Salvador].

article / Jimena Villacorta

El Salvador and the United States had a close relationship during the long political dominance of the right-wing ARENA party, but the coming to power in 2009 of the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) meant an alignment of El Salvador with the ALBA countries (Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba, fundamentally), which led to occasional tension with Washington. In addition, in 2018, in the final stretch of the presidency of Salvador Sánchez Cerén, diplomatic relations with Taiwan were severed and the possibility of strategic investments by China was opened, which were viewed with suspicion by the United States (especially the option of controlling the Pacific port of La Unión, due to the risk of its military use in a crisis status ).

Nayib Bukele won the early 2019 elections presenting himself as an alternative to the traditional parties, despite the fact that he was mayor of San Salvador (2015-2018) leading a coalition with the FMLN and that for the presidential elections he stayed with the GANA acronym, created a few years earlier as a split from ARENA. His denunciation of the corruption of the political system, in any case, was credible for the majority of an electorate certainly tired of the Bolivarian tone of recent governments.

During his electoral campaign Bukele already advocated for improving relations with the United States, as it is a more economically interesting partner for El Salvador than the ALBA nations. "All financial aid that comes is welcome and better if it is from the United States", said one of his advisors. These messages were immediately received in Washington, and in July the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, visited El Salvador: it was the first time in ten years, precisely the time of the two consecutive presidencies of the FMLN, that the head of US diplomacy visited the Central American country. This trip served to accentuate the partnership in subject fight against drug trafficking and the gang problem, two shared problems. "We have to fight against the MS-13 gang, which has sown destruction in El Salvador and also in the United States, because we have its presence in almost forty of the fifty states of our country," said Pompeo.

In line with the change of orientation that was taking place, El Salvador began to align itself in regional forums against the regime of Nicolás Maduro. Thus, on September 12, the Salvadoran representation in the Organization of American States (OAS) supported the activation of the Inter-American Reciprocal attendance Treaty (TIAR), after years of abstaining or voting in favor of resolutions supporting Chavez's Venezuela. On December 3, Bukele announced the expulsion from El Salvador of Maduro's government diplomats, an action immediately replicated by Caracas.

In those same months El Salvador accepted the terms of the new immigration approach that the Trump Administration was outlining. During the summer, the White House negotiated with the countries of the Central American Northern Triangle agreements similar to the safe third country mechanism, whereby Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador agreed to process as asylum seekers those who had passed through their territory and ended up in the US by formalizing that application. Bukele met with Trump in September in the framework the United Nations General Assembly and signed the agreement, which was presented as an instrument to combat organized crime, strengthen border security, reduce illegal trafficking and human trafficking. 

The signature the agreement was controversial, as many authorities questioned the guarantees of security and protection of rights that El Salvador can offer, when it is the lack of such guarantees that is driving the emigration of Salvadorans. Rubén Zamora, former ambassador of El Salvador to the UN, criticized that Bukele was conceding a lot to the United States, with hardly anything in return.

Bukele, however, was able to exhibit in October a US counterpart: the extension for one year, until January 2021, of the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) that gives legal coverage to the presence of 250,000 Salvadorans and their families in the US. The total number of Salvadorans residing in that country amounts to at least 1.4 million, the largest number of Latin American migrants after Mexicans. This sample the great link of the Central American nation, where 6.5 million people live, with the great power of the North, which is also the destination of 80% of its exports and whose dollar is the currency of use in El Salvador.

The new Salvadoran president seemed to truncate this harmony with Washington in December, when he made an official trip to Beijing and met with the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping. The US had warned of the risk of China taking strategic advantage of the door that was opening in Central America with the subsequent establishment of diplomatic relations with the countries of the American isthmus, which until a few years ago were a stronghold of support for Taiwan. Specifically, the US embassy in El Salvador had been particularly active in denouncing the alleged efforts of the Sanchez Ceren government to grant China the management of the Port of La Union, in the Gulf of Fonseca, which could be joined by a special economic zone.

However, what Bukele did on that trip was to resize, at least for the time being, that relationship with China, limiting expectations and calming U.S. suspicions. Not only does the question of the port of La Unión seem to have been shelved, but the Salvadoran president also confined Chinese attendance to the field of non-repayable financial aid to development and not to the granting of credits which, in the event of non-payment, condition national sovereignty. Bukele pointed out that the "gigantic cooperation" promised by China was "non-refundable" and referred to typical international cooperation projects, such as the construction of a library, a sports stadium and a sewage treatment plant to clean the sewage discharged into Lake Ilopango, near the capital.

The port of Chancay, to be position by the state-owned shipping company Cosco, will start operations in 2022.

The Chinese pronounce it almost like Shanghai, but it is not in China but in Peru. The port of Chancay, 75 kilometers from Lima, will become the first Chinese logistics hub for the Pacific side of Latin America. It is the only port in the region for the state-owned shipping company Cosco, which once established in Piraeus its entrance to Europe and is now preparing its access of goods to South America through Chancay. The infrastructure represents an investment of 3 billion dollars.

Computer-aided design of the facilities of the new port of Chancay, 75 kilometers north of Lima [Volcan].

article / Gabriela Pajuelo

The port of Chancay intends to become one of China's main connections with the countries on the west coast of South America, serving as a bridge for the growing trade of goods from this region with Asia-Pacific. Through the company Terminales Portuarios Chancay, China's Cosco Shipping Ports is contemplating an initial investment of US$1.2 billion, earmarked for the first phase of the project - construction of new dikes to gain ground to the sea, achieving a greater depth (16 meters) and surface area for operations (one million containers). The total investment will be US$3 billion; entrance into operation is scheduled for 2022.

China has been Peru's leading trading partner since 2014, replacing the United States. In 2017 China was the destination of 26% of Peruvian exports (US$11.7 billion) and the origin of 23% of its imports (US$8.75 billion). Chinese interest is focused on minerals, the largest Peruvian export sector, and therefore the port of Chancay is emerging as the main exit point for these raw materials to China. Return freight will bring Chinese manufactured goods, not only to Peru but also to neighboring countries.

Beijing's interest in Peru's raw materials already led to the signature in 2009 of a free trade agreement between the two countries, which was optimized last year. It is a relationship that has not been complicated by the granting of large loans that the recipient country then finds it difficult to refund: Peru has only received loans from Chinese public lending institutions amounting to US$ 50 million in 2009, which places it at the bottom of the list of recipients of Chinese loans in Latin America.

Cosco acquired 60% of Terminales Portuarios Chancay for US$225 million in the first half of 2019, sharing a partnership with the Peruvian mining company Volcan, which owns the remaining 40%. This is the first port that the large Chinese state-owned shipping company will control in its entirety in the Western Hemisphere, since its presence in the port of Seattle, in the USA, is limited to the operation of a terminal. Cosco has 34 terminals worldwide, 11 of which are outside China (in Spain it has a presence in the ports of Valencia and Bilbao). Other Chinese companies also have terminals in the region, such as at the mouths of the Panama Canal (China is the second largest Username of this inter-oceanic waterway, after the USA), or are involved in port expansion works, such as in Itaqui (Brazil). Beijing has also expressed interest in managing complete ports -the case of La Unión, in El Salvador-, but Chancay is the first project in this sense.

The new port of Chancay, covering almost 1,000 hectares, will include an entrance complex, a subway viaduct tunnel, and an operational port area. This will have a container terminal with two piers, and a bulk, general cargo, and roll-on/roll-off terminal with another two piers. According to the company, the port will have an annual cargo handling capacity of one million TEUs (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit). It should be added that the port complex will have the capacity to unload Triple E vessels, considered the second largest container ships in the world.

The multi-port is located 75 km north of Lima and will be connected to the center of the country via a highway to Oyón and Ambo, in the Peruvian Andes. This road infrastructure, with a public investment of US$450 million, represents a decentralization effort by the Peruvian government.

The port of Chancay could pose a serious skill to the Callao Port Terminal, managed by DP World Callaobusiness subsidiary of Dubai Ports World), APM Terminals and Transportadora Callao. It is the de facto port of Lima and is the country's main port in terms of traffic and storage capacity, with a port movement in 2018 of 2.3 million TEUs and 56 million tons, representing 51% of the national total.

Cosco Shipping Ports terminals worldwide [Cosco Group].

The Minister of Transport and Communications, María Jara Risco, has announced a plan to double the storage capacity of the port of Callao, but there are questions as to whether this will be enough to compete with the new port of Chancay. President Martin Vizcarra sample convinced that both facilities can work in a complementary way, and that the new infrastructure will allow decongesting truck traffic in the area of the capital.

Chinese investment, in any case, has given rise in some media to talk about "checkbook diplomacy", a concept that refers to the use of investments or loans to establish favorable relations with countries that occupy strategic positions in regions of geopolitical interest. Although an infrastructure such as that of Chancay is highly interesting for the beneficiary country, the latter may be obliged to refund the favor in other ways, perhaps by allowing the exploitation of mineral resources. Apart from that, there are the internal Chinese provisions, which oblige its companies with port terminals in the rest of the world to host the wartime navy if necessary.

China's growing influence in the Western Hemisphere worries the US. Its own Vice President, Mike Pence, warned Latin American countries that these investments represent a potential threat, because at the very least they establish an excessive dependence on trade and credit ties with China, also generating a high trade deficit and high debt. Also, according to Pence, they may negatively affect issues such as environmental care or respect for protected areas. 

In more dramatic terms, the Pentagon has spoken out. In February 2019, Admiral Craig Faller, head of Southern Command, warned that in the future "China could use its control of deepwater ports in the Western Hemisphere to increase its global operational position."

In its ten operational years the "Dome" has shown effectiveness, but a comprehensive political regional solution is needed.

In 2011 Israel deployed its "Iron Dome" mobile defense system in response to the rocket attacks it suffered the previous years from Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Gaza (Hamas). The Israel Defense Force claims that the system has shown an 85% - 90% success rate. However, it offers mixed results when other considerations are taken into account. Its temporary mitigation of the menaces of the rocket attacks could distract Israelis in seeking out a comprehensive political regional solution; possibly a solution that could make systems like the "Iron Dome" unnecessary. 

▲ How "Iron Dome" works; explanation on an image produced by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems

ARTICLE / Ann M. Callahan

The "Iron Dome" is a mobile defense system developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries developed, produced and fielded in 2011 to respond to the security threat posed by the bombings of rockets and projectiles shot into Israel, many of which landed in heavily populated areas.

Bombings into Israel intensified during the 2006 Second Lebanon War when Hezbollahfired approximately 4,000 rockets from instructions in the south of Lebanon. From Gaza to the South, an estimated 8,000 projectiles were launched between 2000 and 2008, mostly by Hamas. To counter these threats, the Defense Ministry, in February 2007, decided on the development of the "Dome" to function as a mobile air defense system for Israel. After its period of development and testing, the system was declared operational and fielded in March 2011.

The system is the pivotal lower tier of a triad of systems in Israel's air defense system.

The "David's Sling" system covers the middle layer, while the "Arrow" missile system protects Israel from long-range projectiles.

The Iron Dome functions by detecting, analyzing and intercepting varieties of targets such as mortars, rockets, and artillery. It has all-weather capabilities and is able to function night or day and in all conditions, including fog, rain, dust storms and low clouds. It is capable to launch a variety of interceptor missiles. 

Israel is protected by 10 "Iron Dome" batteries, functioning to protect the country's infrastructure and citizens. Each battery is able to defend up to 60 square miles. They are strategically placed around Israel's cities in order to intercept projectiles headed towards these populated areas. Implementing artificial intelligence technology, the "Dome" system is able to discriminate whether the incoming threats will land in a populated or in an uninhabited area, ignoring them in the latter case, consequently reducing the cost of operation and keeping unnecessary defensive launches to a minimum. However, if the "Dome" determines that the rocket is projected to land in an inhabited area, the interceptor is fired towards the rocket.

A radar steers the missile until the target is acquired with an infrared sensor. The interceptor must be quickly maneuverable because it must intercept rudimentary rockets that are little more than a pipe with fins welded onto it, which makes them liable to follow unpredictable courses. It can be assumed that the launchers of the rockets know as little as the Israelis as to where the rockets would end up landing.

Effectiveness

The IDF (Israel Defense Force) claims an 85% - 90% success rate for the "Iron Dome" in intercepting incoming projectiles. Operational in March 2011, to date the "Iron Dome" has successfully destroyed approximately 1,500 rockets. The destruction of these incoming rockets has saved Israeli lives offering physical protection and shielding property and other assets. In addition, for the Israelis it serves as a psychological safeguard and comfort for the Israeli people. 

Regarding the "Dome" as an asset for Israel's National Security Strategy, while standing as an undeniable asset, it has had mixed results regarding its four major pillars of Deterrence, Early, Active Defense and Decisive Victory as well as some unintended challenges. 

For instance, regarding the perspective of its psychological protection for the Israeli people, it is thought to also effect Israeli public in a negative manner. Regardless of the fact that it currently offers effective protection to the existing threats it could, in fact, help cause a long-term security issue for Israel. Its temporary mitigation of the menaces of the rocket attacks could distract Israelis in seeking out a comprehensive political regional solution; possibly a solution that could make systems like the "Iron Dome" unnecessary. 

In addition, while the "Dome" suffices for now, it cannot be expected to continue this way forever. Despite the system's effectiveness, it is just a matter of time before the militants develop tactics or acquire the technology to overcome it. The time needed in order to accomplish this can be predicted to be significantly reduced taking into account the strong support from the militant's allies and the considerable funding they receive.  

Still a comprehensive diplomatic solution is needed

Today, the world's militaries of both state and non-state actors are engaged in a technological arms race. As is clearly known, Israel's technological dominance is indisputable. Nevertheless, it, by no means, stands as a guarantee as destructive technology becomes more accessible and less expensive. As new technologies become more available they are subject to replication, imitation and increased affordability. As technologies develop and are implemented in operations, counter techniques can shift and new tactics can be developed, which is what the militias are only bound to do. Moreover, with the heavy funding available to the militias from their wealthy allies, acquiring more advanced technologies becomes more likely. This is a significant disadvantage for Israel. In order to preserve their upper hand, constant innovation and adaptation is a necessity. 

The confusion between the short-term military advantage the technology of the "Dome" offers and the long-term necessity for a comprehensive and original political, diplomatic solution is seen as a risk for Israel. Indeed, Amir Peretz, a minister in Israel's cabinet, told the Washington Post in 2014 that the "Iron Dome" stands as nothing more than a "stopgap measure" and that "in the end, the only thing that will bring true quite is a diplomatic solution."

Despite these drawbacks, however, in all the positive aspects that the system offers clearly outweighs the negative. The "Iron Dome" stands undeniably as a critical and outstanding military asset to Israel's National Security, even while Israel works to address and mitigate some of the unforeseen challenges related to the system.

The island faces the most serious economic crisis in the last twenty years: Venezuela's collapse and Trump's pressure highlight Havana's immobility

The end of the USSR, a major subsidizer of the Castro regime, did not lead Havana to the economic and political opening that took place in most of the former communist bloc. After a time of severe hardship in the 1990s, known as the "special peacetime period", Cuba got another savior in Venezuela, thus avoiding the necessary reforms. Today, the Venezuelan collapse and the pressure being exerted by Washington once again highlight Havana's unwillingness to change, as it faces another "special period", less intense, but equally painful for the Cuban people.

▲ Street in the historic center of Havana [Pixabay].

article / Patricia Urdánoz

The Cuban Economics could have Closed 2019 with a growth of barely 0.5% of GDP and could repeat that same poor performance in 2020, agreement to estimates by ECLAC, the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. These are figures that place the island on the verge of recession, given that there could be a negative quarter. Although the Cuban government places its economic goal for this year at 1%, its bet of 1.5% for 2019 may have been off by up to one percentage point (international organizations, in any case, cannot audit Cuba's accounts); moreover, the elements contributing to the economic performance have worsened.

The growing economic difficulties have generated fears among Cubans about a return to the "special period", as it is known in the 1990's when the dissolution of the USSR left the island without the massive financial aid provided by Moscow. That time of special hardship was overcome with the financial aid that started to arrive from Hugo Chavez's Venezuela in 2002. The Venezuelan collapse was what encouraged Raul Castro to seek salvation through rapprochement with the Obama Administration, but the new restrictive measures of the Trump Administration have left Havana without prospects.

Cubans have begun to suffer shortages of basic products such as medicines and food, and long and endless queues are once again appearing in the Cuban capital. Economics has been stagnant since 2014: although the following year there was a clear upturn, in 2016 there was a contraction, which the Government set at 0.9% of GDP, which meant having fallen into recession for the first time since the "special period", twenty years ago.

Although it is unlikely that Cuba will reach the dramatic figures of much of the 1990s, when the island's Economics contracted by approximately 35%, some estimates, reported by the Wall Street Journal, consider that if Venezuela were to completely cancel its financial aid there could be a contraction of 8% or 10%.

Before the "special period" the island was 82% dependent on the Soviet Union. Venezuela's dependence is comparatively lower and is also decreasing due to the serious crisis in that country. Venezuelan financial aid , basically by sending oil in exchange for the attendance of doctors, sports coaches and other staff, for which Caracas also pays, accounted for 22% of Cuba's GDP in 2013; in 2017 it had fallen to 8.5%.

The economic outlook, in any case, is not good and a worsening in several areas is to be expected for 2020, which will at least prolong the stagnation.

Venezuelan oil, now in Russian hands

Although Venezuelan financial aid has been decreasing, Caracas' contributions continue to be important, so any further erosion of that aid would have an effect on Cuban Economics . The 100,000 barrels of oil per day that Venezuela has been sending to Cuba for many years has recently been reduced to about 60,000 barrels per day. A further reduction is not to be expected, but the control of PDVSA's production that Russia is acquiring leaves the regime of Nicolás Maduro less room for political control over oil.

Fewer physicians abroad

The uncontrolled inflation suffered by Venezuela could force a reduction in the payment that this country provides for the services rendered by Cuban staff on Venezuelan soil. Carmelo Mesa-Lago, an economist specialized in Cuba, points out that Venezuela, which acquires 75% of that Cuban professional service abroad (an important means of access to hard currency), has already reduced its purchases by 23% between 2014 and 2017 and could be forced to make further cuts. Havana, on the other hand, stopped making cash in 2019 with the doctors it had stationed in Brazil and the same will happen in 2020 with those in Bolivia, after political changes in those countries forced their return to the island.

Below the goal of 5 million tourists

The expectations opened in the subject tourism with the increase in travel from the U.S. due to the facilities provided by President Obama have been frustrated by the restrictions again imposed by his successor. In 2018 there was a decrease in the issue of tourists, which was 4.7 million, and this figure fell by 10% in 2019, to 4.3 million. Although the government says it expects an increase in 2020, it has stopped setting a goal of reaching 5 million tourists. The limitation already imposed by Trump in 2018 on US-based cruise travel is followed by the recently announced limitation on direct flights, which could affect the income left by tourism (those who arrive by plane tend to spend more during their stay).

Moderate exports

Export revenues could improve, but neither production nor price looks set to experience a significant increase. Nickel production has been rather stagnant and sugar production is recovering from its all-time low recorded in 2017-2018.

Remittances will continue to flow

The restrictive measures imposed by the Trump Administration on remittances coming to Cuba from the U.S., which are the majority, do not seem to affect their amount, since the established limit remains above the amount of most of the shipments. As indicated in a study by The Havana Consulting Group, the current average remittance amount is between 180 and 220 dollars per transaction, and since 95% of Cubans who send remittances to their relatives on the island do so once a month, the limit of 1,000 dollars per quarter imposed by Washington, which came into force last October, is not reached. In addition, the study specifies that 45% of remittances to Cuba arrive through informal channels. In 2018, Cuba received $3.691 billion, a figure that practically doubles if non-cash remittances are taken into account.

Insufficient foreign investment

Remittances should play an important role in boosting the national Economics , and in fact, since the economic opening of 2010, they have functioned as a source of income similar to foreign investment, since they were behind the start-up of many "self-employed" businesses. Those self-employed businesses reached 535,000 workers in 2016, according to official statistics, but the stagnation in the growth of tourism is putting that private activity in difficulties. The Havana Consulting Group study concludes that "unlike most Latin American countries, the Cuban government does not take advantage of the potential of remittances as a way to attract investment capital to the country." Foreign direct investment, in any case, has been increasing, but the slowness in making attractive the special zone of the port of Mariel and the added difficulties from the US with the implementation in 2019 of the fourth degree scroll of the Helms-Burton Act, which encourages the presentation of lawsuits for the assets expropriated during the Cuban revolution, dampens the investment attractiveness of the island.

DECENTRALIZATION, BUT TIMID OPENING

The problem of inefficiency in the Cuban Economics is largely due to its centralized model , which creates shortages for consumers and great uncertainty for businesses. Along with other burdens that the country has carried since its beginnings, such as corruption, illegalities, low savings, indebtedness and insufficient export revenues. Cuba's foreign debt between 1958 and 2017 multiplied by 190. And there is a difficult situation for the emergence of the private sector.

The island needs new structural economic reforms by the government; it would also be interesting to follow the economic strategies of countries such as Vietnam and China, which have known how to open up to the international market starting from a communist government. For its part, Washington, for its own geopolitical interests, should take care that its pressure measures do not drive the island into the arms of China and Russia.

Raúl Castro's successor as president of the country, Miguel Díaz-Canel, and the prime minister appointed by him, Manuel Marrero, have announced for this year the beginning of a process of economic decentralization that will give greater autonomy to state-owned enterprises. It remains to be seen whether progress will actually be made along these lines and whether this will increase the efficiency of the Cuban Economics , since the reforms promised by Castro have been a very timid opening, not particularly transforming.

Increasingly distant from the Alliance, Turkey is creating discomfort among its Western partners, but will hardly be invited to leave.

Its strategy in the Syrian conflict, its rapprochement with Russia with the acquisition of the S-400 anti-aircraft system and its desire for projection in the eastern Mediterranean, where it is damaging Greek interests, have in the last few years brought Ankara into continuous friction with NATO. But the Alliance is not in a position to do without Turkey. It is not only its valuable geographical status as a bridge between East and West, but without Turkey NATO would be less able geopolitically to act against terrorism or control refugee movements and would see its military defense capabilities as an alliance diminished.

▲ meeting between the presidents of Turkey and Russia in Istanbul in January 2020 [Presidency of Turkey].

article / Ángel Martos

Relations between the Atlantic Alliance and the Republic of Turkey are experiencing their most tense moment in recent history. Ankara's foreign policy has been in a constant state of flux due to the instability of its governments since the death of the Father of the Fatherland, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. The Kemalist republic projected an image of Asia Minor very different from the one we know today: the secularism and westernization that characterized its bequest has been replaced by an authoritarianism with a moderate Islamic tinge (according to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan himself, President of the Republic and leader of the AKP training ).

This profound evolution has, of course, been reflected in the field of international relations. The doctrine of neo-Ottomanism has gained ground among its foreign policy makers. Turkey now seeks to exploit to the full its position as a bridge between Western and Eastern civilization, while gaining influence among its adjacent states and emerging as the stabilizer of the Middle East.

In this scenario, the main headache for Western statesmen is the substantial improvement of Anatolia's relations with the Russian Federation, NATO's archenemy. This improvement cannot be understood without recalling a series of events that have led Turkey to distance itself from the European continent: the lukewarm reaction of Western governments to the 2016 coup; the reluctance shown to the continuous requests for extradition of Fetulah Gülen's refugee followers in the EU and the US; Greece's refusal to extradite the military refugees after the coup; the European Commission's continuous condemnations towards Turkey's internal politics; and, above all, the truncated dream of Turkey's accession to the Union. This is why Turkey has decided to redefine its diplomacy to serve its own interests only, swinging between Russia's financial aid and that of NATO. The acquisition of the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft system or its recent operations in Northeastern Syria are examples of this.

The purchase of the aforementioned long-range anti-aircraft missile system is the subject of much controversy within NATO. Turkey's urgent need for them is obvious, as it faces potential ballistic missile threats from neighboring countries. But the choice of the Russian S-400 system, after several years of negotiations during which it was not possible to reach an agreement for the acquisition of the American Patriot system, has caused a real earthquake, to the point of questioning Turkey's continuity in the F-35 fifth-generation fighter program. Political considerations seem to have outweighed technical aspects in the adoption of this decision, since both systems are incompatible and, being strategic weapons systems, both from an operational and geopolitical point of view, their employment by a country of the Atlantic Alliance is problematic. What concerns the Alliance is the access the Kremlin may have to the organization's information through its radar technology.

The other event that leads us to question the future of Ankara's relations with NATO was the recent Turkish military operation in northern Syria. The Turkish army launched on October 9 an offensive against the Kurdish militias (YPG, which it considers terrorists) in northern Syria. attention the Kurdish people is the great point of dissension between the US and Turkey, since they are staunch allies of the superpower, but at the same time a political and security threat to the stability of Anatolia.

Ankara had been pressing the United States to establish a "security zone" penetrating Syrian territory and had repeatedly threatened to launch unilateral military action if Washington continued to stand in its way. In early October, the U.S. gave the go-ahead for the operation by ordering its military deployed in Syria to withdraw from the border zone. The Trump Administration thus abandoned the Kurds with whom it was fighting the Islamic State to their fate, giving Turkey a free hand for greater control of its border with Syria.

The next aspect that is essential to mention when describing the complex relations between Ankara and NATO is the ongoing geopolitical struggle between Greece and Turkey. Although both have been members of NATO since the 1950s, the relations between these two Eastern Mediterranean countries have always been characterized by the permanent tension that is perceived in them, and which therefore has some consequences on supranational military cooperation. It is worth mentioning here the three main contentions that have shaped, since the end of the 19th century, this bilateral confrontation: the sovereignty of the Dodecanese archipelago, that of present-day Cyprus, and the maritime dispute over the Aegean shelf. Such was the magnitude of the dispute that the Greek government went so far as to decree its withdrawal from NATO in 1974, although it later rejoined.

Although this Greek-Turkish conflict was at its height in the second half of the 20th century, there are many ethnic and historical aspects that make these two countries seem irreconcilable, except in historically punctual exceptions. This makes the eastern flank of the Mediterranean, given its proximity to such an unstable area as the Middle East, a constant source of concern for NATO leaders. While Greece has managed, following its transition to democracy, to emerge as a stable ally of the Alliance, Turkey has not followed the same path. This undoubtedly works against it both in domestic politics and in its aspirations for maritime sovereignty.

Historically, it is worth noting Turkey's growing role as an interregional mediator between the Middle East and the West. Perhaps in response to a strategy designed by Ahmet Davutoglu, who was Foreign Minister under the AKP government, Turkey wanted to distance itself from the US under Bush Jr. Its refusal to collaborate in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 won it certain sympathies in the region, which it has been able to use in countries as diverse as Iraq, Israel and Iran. However, over the years the Islamist government has spoken out several times against Zionism and the threat it poses to the stability of the region.

Its distancing from the European Union and its rapprochement with Russia in economic subject has also marked the image of the Turkish administration in the Alliance. Relations with Russia, despite having been marked by political disputes such as those of Kurdish and Chechen self-determination (antagonistically supported by both countries), remain afloat thanks to the hydrocarbon trade. The outlook is therefore more favorable to the Russian axis than to the American-Israeli one in the region. This, logically, undermines NATO's confidence in this "hinge" country, which is no longer interested in acting as such but as an independent and sovereign power pursuing its own interests, seeking support from the Alliance or from the East as it sample fit.

This departure from NATO's roadmap on the part of the Turkish government, together with a rapprochement in certain aspects with the Kremlin and the authoritarian drift of the country's presidency, is what has led analysts and international leaders to open the discussion about a possible expulsion of the Republic of Asia Minor from the Alliance. However, it is unlikely that the allies will decide to disregard Turkey's strategic importance. Its geographical status makes it a bridge country between East and West. Without Turkey, NATO would be less geopolitically able to act, for example, in terms of fighting terrorism or controlling refugee movements. Moreover, Turkey has the second largest military of all NATO states: an exclusion would severely affect its military defense capabilities as an alliance. On the other hand, Turkey's representations in NATO, while critical of NATO as has the Trump Administration on repeated occasions, have not expressed a clear desire to leave it unilaterally.

Gold mining and oil transport pollute Amazonian rivers

Not only are fires negatively affecting the Amazon, which is undergoing an accelerated reduction in forest mass, but increased activity, driven by deforestation itself - which in turn encourages illegal mining and more fuel transport - increases pollution of the Amazon River and other waterways in the countries that are part of the region. The use of mercury in gold mining is an additional serious problem for the communities living in the basin.

▲ Sunset on the Amazon River, Brazil [Pixabay].

article / Ramón Barba

The increase in illegal mining in the Amazon region, in countries such as Colombia and Peru, and especially in Venezuela, has increased river pollution throughout the basin. Pollution is also aggravated by the transport of oil, which generates crude oil leaks, and by the discharge of wastewater linked to increased human activity, which in turn is related to increasing deforestation.

Illegal mining has spread especially in the last two decades, linked to the increase in the price of minerals. Despite the general fall in the price of raw materials since 2014, the price has remained high in the case of gold, because as a refuge value it resists the global economic slowdown. Obtaining gold requires the manipulation of mercury to extract it and separate it from the rocks or stones in which it is found. It is estimated that illegal mining activity discharges an average of 24 kilos of mercury per square kilometer. As the Amazonian Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO) points out in its report Regional Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis of the Amazon Basin of 2018, it is estimated that the Brazilian Amazon alone received 2,300 tons of mercury until 1994 and then has registered volumes around 150 tons per year.

ACTO indicates that mining is located especially in the Guiana Shield, in the Andean zones of Peru and Bolivia, and in the Colombian piedmont. Information gathered by this organization estimates that between 100,000 and 200,000 people are involved in this activity in Colombia and Peru, a figure that doubles in the case of Brazil.

For its part, the Amazonian network of Geo-referenced Socio-environmental Information (RAISG), in its study The Plundered Amazon, at the end of 2018, notes that the area in which illegal mining occurs "is increasing", especially in Venezuela, where "the reports change drastically from year to year". The RAISG computes 2,312 points in the Amazon region where there is illegal mining activity, of which 1,899 correspond to Venezuela.

According to the RAISG report , mining exploitation gives a double function to rivers, as they are used for the introduction of machinery and for the disposal of minerals. This has serious environmental effects (soil erosion, contamination of water and hydrological resources, extinction of aquatic flora and fauna, atmospheric impacts...), as well as serious consequences for the health of indigenous peoples, as mercury contamination of rivers affects fish and other living beings moving in the river environment. Given that the main per diem expenses of indigenous peoples is fish, the ingestion of high levels of mercury ends up damaging the health of the populations (cases of loss of vision, heart disease, damage to the central nervous, cognitive or motor system, among others).

Another aspect of mining activity is that it tends to lead to land appropriation and incursion into protected natural areas in the Amazon, increasing deforestation and reducing biodiversity. The Tapajós and Xingú areas in Brazil, together with the Guiana Shield, are the areas most affected by deforestation, according to RAISG. Based on previous programs of study , this organization indicates that deforestation due to gold mining has accelerated in the last twenty years, from 377 km2 deforestation between 2001-2007, to 1,303 km2 deforestation between 2007-2013. In Peru, it is worth noting the case of the Madre de Dios department , where 1,320 hectares were deforested between 2017 and 2018.

Other causes of contamination

In addition to illegal mining, other processes also pollute rivers, such as hydrocarbon extraction activities, wastewater discharge and river transport, as warned by ACTO, an organization that groups the eight countries with territory in the Amazon region: Brazil, Colombia, Guyana, Suriname, Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador.

Hydrocarbon contamination. The status affects the five countries to the west of the Basin (Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Guyana and Brazil), with Bolivia being a potential candidate as it has large untapped gas reserves in the area. Pollution in this case comes from the transport of oil by river from the extraction points to the refineries. This has important environmental and socioeconomic consequences, such as soil degradation and air pollution, which also implies loss of flora and fauna, as well as hydrobiological resources, affecting biodiversity and species migration. In the socioeconomic field, these problems translate into increased operational costs, the displacement of indigenous people, an increase in diseases and the emergence of conflicts.

Pollution from domestic, commercial and industrial wastewater. Despite the large amount of water available in the countries of the Amazon basin, the level of sanitation does not exceed 60%. As a result, rivers become vectors of disease in many rural communities, where sanitation is poorer. Non-updated data indicate urban and domestic waste of 1.7 million tons per liter and 600 liters per second in 2007. At the same time, it is important to take into account the damage caused by agroindustrial activities in river courses, since the large issue of insects and microorganisms implies an abundant use of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. Among the environmental and social problems caused by this activity are the emission of greenhouse gases, the deterioration of aquatic ecosystems, eutrophication and pollution by agrochemicals, and the loss of wages and increased water treatment costs.

Pollution from river transport. The Amazon region has about 24,000 km of navigable rivers, which are the main means of communication. Some 50 million tons of cargo were transported on the Amazon at the beginning of the decade just ended. In addition to fuel leaks, the activity produces a dragging of sludge that is not dredged periodically, as well as contamination of riverbanks and beaches, which is detrimental to Economics and tourism.

Impact on indigenous communities   

For many indigenous peoples, as is the case in Colombia, gold is a sacred mineral because it represents the sun on earth. They consider that the extraction of this mineral implies the loss of life in the territory and to extract it the shamans of the area must "ask permission" through a series of ceremonies; to do so without the granted permission implies negative consequences, hence the indigenous populations associate the improper extraction of gold with illness and death. An example of this is the area of the Aaporis River, also considered sacred, where Yanomami leader Davi Kopenawa speaks of the xawara wakémi (the smoke epidemic), derived from the burning of gold and which is, according to him, the cause of death of some inhabitants of the area.

However, members of indigenous communities also engage in artisanal mining, either because they reject the tradition in entrance face of the economic benefits of illegal extraction, or because they are forced into this occupation by the lack of opportunities. The latter is the case in the Peruvian communal reservation of Amarakaeri, which has been greatly affected by extractive activity, where its inhabitants have been forced to practice artisanal mining under pressure from their subsistence needs and from external mining interests that end up exploiting them.

Uncontrolled mining, on the other hand, has a negative impact on the environment in which indigenous people live. In the Ecuadorian province of Zamora Chinchipie, for example, a mega open-pit mining project was carried out, the impact of which has involved deforestation in the area of 1,307 hectares between 2009 and 2017.

It should be noted that mining not only implies an attack against certain indigenous cultural aspects, but also a serious attack against their human rights in that, despite the fact that they are peoples living in voluntary isolation, mining companies interfere in these reserves and force displacements and uprooting. This status is especially critical in Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru, countries in which there is a "gray zone" between legality and illegality in artisanal mining, increasing the Degree involvement in indigenous areas. At the same time, it is worth mentioning the repressive activity of the states in the destruction of dredges and rafts, which leads to a violent response on the part of those affected, as occurred in the Humaita revolt in Brazil.

Indigenous life has also been affected by the presence in these territories of guerrilla or paramilitary groups, as well as organized crime groups. In Colombia, armed groups have taken advantage of mining to finance their activities, which they develop in areas with high levels of poverty and difficult access for the Government. Between 2017 and 2018 there was a 6% increase in this activity, in places where coca can also be grown, whose production has also increased in recent years. The 2016 OECDreport Due Diligence in the Colombian Gold Supply Chain indicates that the FARC, ELN and criminal gangs began their mining activity in the 1980s and increased it in the 1990s as a result of the rising price of gold and the increased difficulty of obtaining stable drug revenues. In 2012, the FARC and ELN had a presence in 40% of Colombia's 489 mining municipalities. Recently, ELN presence has been witnessed in illegal mining in Venezuela, especially in the state of Bolivar, to which FARC dissidents sheltered in Venezuelan territory could be added.

Geothermal energy already accounts for 7.5% of the Central American electricity mix, with installed capacity still far below the estimated potential.

Central America's volcanic activity and tectonic movement offer optimal conditions for the region's small countries to take advantage of an alternative energy source to imported hydrocarbons or an ever more polluting coal. For the time being, installed capacity - the largest in Costa Rica and El Salvador - is barely 15% of the most likely estimated potential.

▲ San Jacinto-Tizate geothermal plant in Nicaragua [Polaris Energy Nicaragua S. A.] [Polaris Energy Nicaragua S. A.].

article / Alexia Cosmello

Central America currently has an installed geothermal capacity of 645 megawatts (MW), far from the potential attributed to the region. This may reach, in the highest band of estimates, almost 14,000 MW, although the most likely estimates speak of around 4,000 MW, which means a current utilization of approximately 15%, according to World Bankdata published in 2018.

The energy obtained constitutes 7.5% of the total electricity generation in Central American countries: a not insignificant figure, but one that still needs to grow. Forecasts point to an expanding sector, although attracting the necessary foreign investment has so far been limited by the risks inherent in this industry and national legal frameworks.

Geothermal energy is a clean, renewable energy that does not depend on external factors. It consists of harnessing the heat of the earth's interior - high temperature resources in the form of hot subway fluids - for electrical and thermal generation (heating and domestic hot water). It is governed by the magmatic movement of the earth, which is why it is a scarce resource and limited to certain regions with a significant concentration of volcanic activity or tectonic movement.

Latin America

These characteristics of the American isthmus are also shared by Mexico, where the geothermal sector began to develop in the 1970s and has reached an installed capacity of 957 MW. The friction of the tectonic plates along the South American and eastern Caribbean coast also gives these subregions an energy potential, although less than that of Central America; its exploitation, in any case, is small (only Chile, with 48 MW installed, has really begun to exploit it). The total geothermal potential of Latin America could be between 22 GW and 55 GW, a particularly imprecise range given the few explorations carried out. Installed capacity is close to 1,700 MW.

The World Bank estimates that over the next decade, Latin America would need an investment of between US$2.4 billion and US$3.1 billion to develop various projects, which would add a combined generation of some 776 MW, half of which would correspond to Central America.

Attracting private capital is not easy, considering that since the 1990s the Latin American geothermal sector has had less than US$1 billion in private investment. Financing difficulties are partly related to the very nature of the activity, as it requires a high initial investment, which is high risk because exploration is laborious and it takes time to reach the energy production stage. Other aspects that have made it less attractive have been the policies and regulatory frameworks of the countries themselves and their deficiencies in local and institutional management .

Geothermal energy, in any case, should be a priority for countries with high potential such as Central America, given that, as the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) points out, it constitutes a source of low-cost electricity generation and also stimulates low-carbon economic growth. For this reason, this organization has order on the governments of the Central American region to adopt policies that favor the use of this valuable resource , and to develop legal and regulatory frameworks to promote them.

The World Bank and some countries with special technological expertise are involved in international promotion and advice. Thus, Germany has been carrying out a geothermal potential development program under the German Climate Technology Initiative (DKTI) since 2016. Cooperating in the project are the Geothermal development Fund (GDF), implemented by the German development bank KfW, and the Central American Geothermal Resource Identification Program, supported by the German Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR). The initiative is also supported by the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), which has organized technical courses, together with the LaGeo business , located in El Salvador, for geothermal plant operators, teachers and researchers in the subject, with the goal of achieving better management of the installations and more efficient development of the energy projects.

By country

Although Central American countries have shown a high dependence on imported hydrocarbons as an energy source , in terms of electricity generation the sub-region has achieved a significant development of renewable alternatives, made available to all members of the Central American Integration System (SICA) through the Electrical Interconnection System for Central American Countries (SIEPAC). The executive director of the administrative office General of SICA, Werner Vargas, highlighted at the beginning of 2019 that 73.9% of the electricity produced at the regional level is generated with renewable sources.

However, he indicated that in order to cope with the growing electricity demand, which between 2000 and 2013 increased by 70%, the region needs to make greater use of its geothermal capacities. Greater integration of geothermal energy would save more than 10 million tons of CO2 emissions per year.

The share of geothermal energy in the electricity mix varies from country to country. The highest share corresponds to El Salvador (26%), Nicaragua (15%) and Costa Rica (12.5%), while the share is small in Honduras (3%) and Guatemala (2.5%).

In Costa Rica, the Costa Rican Electricity Institute (ICE) delivered last July the Las Pailas II geothermal plant, in the province of Guanacaste, at a total cost of US$ 366 million. The plant will contribute a maximum of 55 MW to the electricity network , so that when fully operational it will raise the total installed capacity in the country from 207 MW to 262 MW.

Costa Rica is followed by El Salvador in electricity generation from geothermal energy. The national leader in production is the business LaGeo, manager of almost all of the 204 MW installed in the country. This business has two plants, one in Ahuachapá, which produces 95 MW, and the other in Usulután, with a production of 105 MW. With lower electricity consumption than Costa Rica, El Salvador is the Central American country with the highest weight of geothermal generation in its electricity mix, 26%, double that of Costa Rica.

Nicaragua has an installed capacity of 150 MW, thanks to the geothermal interest of the Pacific volcanic mountain range. However, production levels are clearly below, although they account for 15% of the country's electricity generation. Among the geothermal projects, the San Jaciento-Tizate and Momotombo projects are already being exploited. The first, operated by the Polaris Energy business , was built in 2005 with the initial intention of producing 71 MW, to reach 200 MW by the end of this decade; however, it is currently producing 60 MW. The second, controlled by the ORMAT business and the participation of ENEL, was launched in 1989 with a capacity of 70 MW, although it has been producing 20 MW since 2013.

Guatemala is slightly behind, with an installed capacity of 49 MW, followed by Honduras, with 35 MW. Both countries recognize the interest of geothermal exploitation, but have lagged behind in promoting it. The Guatemalan government's ownprograms of study highlight the profitability of geothermal resources, whose production cost is US$ 1 per MW/hour, compared to US$ 13.8 in the case of hydroelectric power or 60.94 percent for coal.