Triple Threat for the Biden Administration

Last Thursday night, U.S. President Joe Biden delivered the annual State of the Union address to Congress, typically aimed at outlining the nation's current domestic and foreign policies. However, it morphed into a spirited campaign speech with Biden frequently targeting his rival in the previous election, former President Donald Trump, albeit without mentioning him by name. Instead, Biden contrasted his policies with those of Trump and the Republican Party. While the address touched briefly on Latin America and the Caribbean, focusing mainly on migration challenges at the U.S. southern border and concerns about illegal immigration among voters, notably absent was any direct mention of Mexico.

Earlier the same day, Assistant Secretary of State Brian Nichols presented a more comprehensive view of the Biden administration's policies and achievements in Latin America and the Caribbean. Speaking at the Council of the Americas, Nichols echoed the overarching principles for the region that Biden has advocated for over the past decade: democracy, security, and middle-class growth. Nichols outlined various lesser-known U.S. initiatives across the region, underscoring the toolkit used by the government in its hemispheric efforts. He also highlighted success stories, such as supporting democratic transitions in Guatemala and Brazil, which faced uncertainty and required international intervention.

Despite Nichols' articulate presentation and the administration's adherence to its values, there remains a pervasive sense of dissatisfaction both domestically and across the hemisphere. This sentiment extends beyond Latin America policy and encompasses broader issues such as the economy. While the U.S. economy shows signs of growth with increasing jobs and wages and decreasing inflation, a significant portion of the electorate remains discontented with both the economy and Biden's management thereof.

In Latin America, dissatisfaction with the administration's approach is poised to worsen due to several ongoing challenges. Foremost among these is the border issue, where criticisms span the political spectrum. Conservatives decry the influx of migrants and the perceived leniency in handling them, while leftists lament the slow and inhumane treatment of migrants and what they see as capitulation to right-wing narratives framing the situation as a national security threat. Moderates and technocrats question the continued chaos and call for more effective management.

The Biden administration has made improvements to immigration regulations inherited from its predecessor and has attempted to address root causes of migration in Latin America. However, despite these efforts, the border situation remains problematic, and ultimate responsibility falls on the president.

In addition to the border crisis, the administration faces imminent challenges in Venezuela and Haiti. The upcoming presidential election in Venezuela is clouded by concerns over fairness, given the regime's restrictions on opposition participation. Similarly, Haiti's political turmoil and gang violence have reached a critical juncture, necessitating decisive action. The administration finds itself in a dilemma, torn between intervening with uncertain outcomes or risking further deterioration by abstaining.

Compounding these challenges is the potential for increased migration from Venezuela and Haiti, exacerbating the border crisis if conditions in these countries do not improve. Read my previous issue on Chinese presence in the Pacific

While U.S. policy in the region may be more coherent than under the previous administration, the Biden administration's slow response to crises like the border, Venezuela, and Haiti undermines its claims of success. Critics argue that these challenges expose the limits of U.S. influence in solving regional problems, contrary to Biden's rhetoric of American exceptionalism. Moving forward, progress on these fronts will be crucial for reshaping perceptions of the administration's regional policy. Failure to do so risks reinforcing the narrative of ineffectiveness, both domestically and internationally.