On September 17, 2008, SID-Washington hosted the LAC/Security and Development workgroup event "Development and Security on the Third Border:  Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation in the Caribbean and Latin America." The panel included:

Dr. Johanna Mendelson Forman, Senior Associate, Americas Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies

Alistair Millar, Director, Center on Global Counterterrorism Cooperation

Brian Finlay, Senior Associate, Cooperative Nonproliferation Program, The Henry L. Stimson Center

The three panelists offered conceptual and operational perspectives regarding the linkages between development and security in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Dr. Forman started the discussion by touching upon points of concern within the Caribbean, including transnational threats, the poverty of a nation that is disguised by tourism, and the negative effects of climate change that are worsened by poor governance, leaving little civil defense.  She also spoke of the interconnection between the economy of the United States and the Caribbean, mentioning, in regards to the economy, that when the U.S. has a cold, the Caribbean catches pneumonia.  Dr. Forman then went on to say that the Island States are not a center of known terrorism other than a few exceptions.  The prevention of terrorism, Dr. Forman explained, is reached through development.  She noted that Latin America has been more successful in acquiring Foreign Direct Investment rather than U.S. foreign aid.  And, that fortunately, the region is well structured from a multilateral point of view, which makes diplomatic and/or cross government communication easier.  Currently, there are countries in the region adopting policies that have a corrosive spillover effect on gains made on democratic governance.  Dr. Forman used the example of Venezuela selling its oil for less than the current market price to Cuba and Nicaragua who then sell it for profit.  Due to issues such as these, Dr. Forman concluded on a cautionary note, explaining that the relationship between the US, the Caribbean, and Latin American countries is becoming become more tenuous due to a conflict of national interests.

Mr. Millar provided insight on issues surrounding UN mandated measures that focus on non-military prevention to address terrorism.  He introduced this topic by giving a brief overview of the UN Security Council Resolution 1373 of September 28, 2001, which was an attempt to improve border control in order to prevent the financing of terrorism.  He went on to say that many countries were reluctant to comply with this resolution.  Many lacked the capabilities necessary to control and monitor their borders to the degree that the UN had mandated.  Some were reluctant to comply because they considered the resolution as a way in which the US could further promote their political agenda.  Subsequently the UN recognized that there needed to be a more universal response to terrorism that would take place on the ground.  The UN agreed upon a holistic strategy that consisted of four pillars:

1st Pillar: Root causes of terrorism – implementation millennium development goals (education, unresolved conflict, etc.)

2nd Pillar: Resolution 1373

3rd Pillar: Capacity Building

4th Pillar: Human Rights

Mr. Millar then reiterated that there was no credible evidence of international terrorism, making it more difficult to address it as an international priority. Mr. Millar insisted that working with civil society groups and organizations on the ground was crucial in assessing threats and providing correct assistance for prevention.  However, there is the potential for such a strategy, but it has yet to be discussed or implemented.  He noted that the first steps towards action are a framework for both parties, providing underlying context for police forces, and a dialogue about human rights, development, and national security.  On a positive note, there has been increasing awareness in the past seven years that the security first approach does not work and that prevention tactics need to be taken into account.  Mr. Millar concluded with the reminder that “there is no development without security and there is no security without development.”

Mr. Finlay began the discussion by creating a parallel between Dubai and the Caribbean to demonstrate how economic development can lead to security issues.  Dubai’s discovery of oil led to an economic boom and industrialization was soon to follow.  By the 1980s, Dubai had begun to diversify its oil economy through infrastructure projects, making massive investments in ports and transportation facilities.  Now Dubai has the 7th largest container port facility in the world, while oil comprises only 6% of the country’s 37 billion dollar economy.  Although this economic shift produced a rise in the standard of living, it also produced a rise in other issues such as weapon proliferation, terrorism, and smuggling. This success story, Mr. Finlay explained, points to the “dark side” of economic development that can have effects on the long term stability of a country.  An example of this Mr. Finlay said, is Pakistan and Dubai being accused of assisting Libya, North Korea and Iran with obtaining nuclear weapon technology.  This example also proves the fact that as dual-use technologies make their ways into more and more hands, it can be both beneficial and harmful.  It is vital that we work on getting our development models right since more and more countries are becoming cogs in the proliferation chain.  Mr. Finlay then spoke on the importance of an enhanced attention to diplomacy and development, which will help security aims, and vice versa.  Security resources could be prolonged to promote development goals and scarce dollars could be leveraged on both sides for mutual support. 

Countries in the Caribbean have also looked into transshipment ports as a way to diversify their economies.  During the Bush administration the Maritime Transportation Security Act was put into effect to protect United States ports.  However, it also led to increased pressure on Caribbean countries to comply with a new set of U.S. standards, which led to more funding for security needs instead of domestic needs, making sustainable development a harder goal to reach.  The United Nations Resolution 1540, that puts into effect certain security standards to control weapon proliferation, attempted to rectify this problem by allowing developing countries to call upon wealthier donor countries for financial assistance.  Mr. Finlay concluded by saying that selling this model to the donor community had mixed reviews due to the difficulty in breaking down “institutional stovepipes”.  According to Mr. Finlay, however, it is not difficult to get developing countries on board with this type of model.