The ‘Shield of the Americas’ Cannot Protect Latin America

Abelardo de la Espriella was officially sworn in as president of Colombia on Aug. 7. Subsequently, the United States declared that it will furnish $1 billion in security aid against drug cartels and organized crime. Although this may seem magnanimous, the true intentions behind the U.S.-led “Shield of the Americas” coalition are dubious.

The “Shield of the Americas” is in fact the shield of America. Since Donald Trump’s administration took office in 2025, it has rapidly elevated the importance of Latin America in U.S. foreign policy. At the Pan-American security summit in Florida in March, the United States proposed the establishment of a security framework encompassing the Western Hemisphere. This appears to be American aid, but the underlying motivation is anything but altruistic. Right-wing conservatives in the United States view Latin America as the source of social problems including illegal immigration, organized crime and drug trafficking. They believe Latin American immigrants steal American jobs and that gangs from nations like Mexico and Venezuela bring their criminal underworld to American streets. Moreover, they blame Colombian cocaine and Mexican fentanyl for the tens of millions of American drug addicts.

Consequently, this extremism has led the United States to pin the blame for these issues not within its own borders, but squarely on Latin America. It has tried to pressure its southern neighbors to support U.S. domestic security agendas, even to the extent of direct military intervention. This insistence that its domestic ills have a foreign cure only highlights America’s self-serving nature.

The “Shield of the Americas” cannot, in fact, resolve Latin America’s security woes. According to the Americans, the only way the U.S. can eradicate organized crime, large-scale human trafficking and coca production is by strong-arming or enticing Latin American countries to join its security alliance. However, the root cause of these issues is Latin America’s arrested development stemming from generations of American control and exploitation.

Many Latin American countries escaped Spanish colonial rule in the 19th century only to fall, one by one, into the grasp of American capitalism. Monopolies like the United Fruit Company turned small, feeble Latin American countries into “banana republics” centered around supplying the U.S. with coffee, tobacco and fruit. This simplistic economy and unbalanced industrial structure displaced and impoverished countless peasants. This compelled many to join gangs or grow narcotics to eke out a living. Latin American countries have faced a series of development bottlenecks and are currently experiencing their third “lost decade” in 40 years. To address the root of these problems, Latin America needs investment, trade opportunities and the prioritization of industrial and technological reform. Within this context, prioritizing the sale of weapons and law enforcement training is like drinking poison to quench a thirst; it may exacerbate existing conflicts and create further security complications.

Many of Latin America’s security issues do not originate within their own borders, yet this “security framework” proposed by the U.S. government is functionally a rebrand of the Monroe Doctrine. The new U.S. national security strategy fails to conceal its actual intention: to reestablish American dominance over the Western Hemisphere and ensure that countries in Latin America are completely subservient to the United States. In early January, the U.S. used the pretext of domestic law enforcement to invade Venezuela and abduct President Nicolas Maduro and his wife. Now the U.S. is using the pretext of defensive cooperation to coerce countries in Latin America into political obedience, diplomatic exclusion from nations worldwide and economic concessions on tariffs and industrial centralization. From all this, it is evident that the “Shield of the Americas” is the United States’ newest weapon against Latin America. Not only will it fail to deliver the domestic security these countries hope for, but it may also exacerbate social and political issues.

In recent years, Ecuador has faced extreme domestic unrest, and its government has pinned its hopes on defensive cooperation with the United States. As a result, it has enthusiastically participated in the “Shield of the Americas” coalition and even agreed to the deployment of U.S. military personnel at a base near Manta. However, there has been no substantial improvement in the situation since the beginning of the year. On the contrary, conditions in the capital and major cities on its northwest coast have further deteriorated. The Ecuadorian government recently declared a state of emergency in the capital and deployed more than 4,000 troops to maintain civic order. The situation in Ecuador is comparable to that in Colombia and could serve as a cautionary tale for Colombia’s new government. The “Shield of the Americas” plan has evident shortcomings.

For countries in Latin America, the sturdiest shield will be government by its own people, economic diversification and regional cooperation. Putting their national security at stake for a U.S.-led alliance would be like drinking poison to quench their thirst.

The author is director of the Institute of Latin American Studies at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations.