The Atlantic Council on US-Latin America/Caribbean relations

A comprehensive perspective, just one lacking serious ambition

Jim Nuttle illustration from “America’s New Map”

I am not an expert on Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), so I greatly value good analysis of the region by the true experts, to include the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center at The Atlantic Council, where I spoke last year on America’s New Map.

This year the Center has put out a number of articles and a major report that I’ve found highly informative.

The basic thrust of this cluster of analytic outputs is that China and Russia are exhibiting more ambition across Latin America than the US does.

China and Russia engage Latin America and the Caribbean differently. Both threaten US interests.

The basic argument:

China and Russia operate and influence in a myriad of ways, but the core of their influence is through covert and overt strategies to undermine the US position in the region and to shape the foreign policy preferences in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). For both China and Russia, this includes increasing support for what they call a “multipolar world,” with the United States cast as a declining power, China an increasingly ascendant power, and Russia a great power seeking to assert that status on the global stage.

Meanwhile, the Russians continue in their Cold War ways: military-led engagement since the economics don’t make much sense.

China comes in with real money and plays a much more sophisticated and multifaceted game:

China relies on investment through its state-owned enterprises capable of swaying decision-making and expanding its economic footprint through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) … The power of China’s market … acts as a large magnet for many countries in the region … China’s control of important supply chains and dominance over certain markets also allows it to weaponize economic interdependence with regions such as LAC.

As a rule, I’m trying to get away from the term “weaponize,” because I think “leverage” is less hyperbolic, but the description still fits.