How to save a disastrous summit
At a Summit of the Americas that has been defined by its absences—Maduro, Trump, PPK—the region’s remaining leaders should stand up for free trade and democracy.
At a Summit of the Americas that has been defined by its absences—Maduro, Trump, PPK—the region’s remaining leaders should stand up for free trade and democracy.
Though this year’s summit is likely to be dominated by regional crises, the U.S. and its like-minded partners should still work together to advance a rules-based democratic agenda.
Rumors have circulated that President Trump may not attend the 8th Summit of the Americas when it meets in Lima this April. If true, it will be more evidence of a careless (or willful) ceding of goodwill and leadership in our neighborhood.
Though not without precedent, the decision to send troops to the border comes as attempted crossings reach an historic low. The decision is pure politics, if not ugly, populist racism.
U.S. economic standing in Latin America continues to weaken, while China’s increases. Data sheds light on the drastically different trade approaches driving the trend.
With three visits by high-ranking officials from the U.S. government, February was the busiest month for Latin America in the Trump administration.
Secretary Tillerson’s Latin America trip triggered a wave of criticisms and repudiations from regional leaders and global powers alike.
The Trump administration’s proposal to cut the State Department’s budget for educational and cultural exchange by 75% is bad. Its justification is even worse.
Fear mongering about China’s intentions in Latin America is misguided. The Chinese government is focused on better economic ties and development cooperation.
As China continues to make diplomatic and economic inroads throughout the Western Hemisphere, the U.S. needs to act pragmatically to counter Chinese influence and maintain its own.