The Importance Of United States' Involvement in Latin America And The Caribbean

By: Charlotte Sparling

Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region are crucial regional trading partners with the United States. Beyond their geographic proximity, these countries share economic interests and security concerns. Therefore, it is crucial to have strong relationships as instability concerns in LAC often impact the United States. 

As such, US Congressional members have sought to strengthen relations with LAC. However, the US is not alone in its interest in the region. China has increasingly inserted itself as a major player. 

Following the Venezuelan elections, which were widely viewed as fraudulent, President Xi Jinping of China was among the first to congratulate Nicolas Maduro on his victory. Instances like these concern the United States that China’s presence in the region is a stability concern.

Currently, the United States provides roughly 31% of LAC merchandise imports and 16% of foreign direct investments to the region. Among LAC, however, Mexico is the United States’s biggest trade partner, accounting for 71% of trade. In turn, 62% of US exports to LAC go to Mexico.

While the United States has sought to continue its regional involvement, US investors face challenges in the region. These include transportation problems, corruption, lacking property rights protection, and nontransparent regulatory and legal frameworks.

Continued efforts, including President Biden’s America’s Partnership for Economic Prosperity plan to increase competition and investment in the region to bolster supply chains, have sought to strengthen relations. However, what has been done so far is not enough. 

Over the past decade, China has surpassed the US as South America’s biggest trading partner. China has sought influence through coordinating financing, trade, and investment. From 2005 to 2020, they provided over $138 billion in loans to Latin America, and from 2000 to 2021, regional trade increased from $12 billion to $445 billion. Such programs have placed China in a valuable role as an indispensable trade partner to several LAC countries. This threatens the United States presence in the region and could disrupt trade relations with the US.

In addition to trade and economic efforts, China has invested in public messaging to boost their image as an invaluable ally through efforts that include bidding for high-profile projects.

Worryingly, since 2012, President Xi Jinping has visited the region eleven times, in contrast to President Obama, who visited the region twelve times, and President Trump, who only visited once during his first term. Undeniably, Chinese efforts have seen success. China’s Belt and Road Initiative has twenty-one Latin American countries' signatures. Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico saw China’s involvement as a net positive. However, there are growing sentiments of weariness over bad behavior by the Chinese, “including debt traps, cheap goods flooding the market, and crowding out domestic manufacturers.”

In Brazil, Chinese investments fell to an all-time low in thirteen years. In Panama, 68% said the Chinese government was “untrustworthy” in both 2018 and 2021, a rise from 48% in 2016. Similar to Chinese involvement in Africa, the Chinese government’s foreign direct investments did not live up to their initial claims. Adding to this, since their peak in the 2010s, Chinese investments have slowed down, creating a window of opportunity for the US.

The United States should prioritize meaningful engagement to address pressing and specific issues through positive messaging. Instead of combating China head on, the US should allow China to continue its existing programs which have already shown the people of LAC the long term associated costs. Instead, the United States should focus on what it can do to improve its own reputation in the region.

Already, US companies have been shown to operate with “transparency, environmental standards, and labor standards.” Unlike the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, the US hires local workers. While benefiting the US, this involvement also helps the region as a whole.

The seeds of doubt towards China have been sowed; it is now time for the US to take advantage of this gap and revamp its efforts in the region to ensure strong US-LAC relations.

Lessons From Ukraine to be Applied to a War Over Taiwan

By: Charlotte Sparling

The war in Ukraine has entered its fourth year. Despite predictions that Ukraine would quickly succumb to the Russians, they are still fighting. 

In response to aerial attacks, Ukraine’s drone strikes targeting airfields, oil refineries, and other critical institutions seek to cripple Russia. Furthermore, since the start of 2025, Ukrainian forces have “stabilized much of the 800-mile front line inside Ukraine, stalling Russian advances and counter attacking” in the surrounding area by the cities of Toretsk and Pokrovsk. 

Through these efforts, Ukrainian forces continue to fight to hold the line.

Russia has responded to Ukrainian defense by employing extensive resources, with North Korean troops only adding to that. Combined Russian and North Korean troops seized villages and cut supply lines to main Ukrainian forces in Sudzha. 

The United States and Europe have continued to provide Ukraine with key support. As questions arise about future American support, the status of Ukraine is becoming increasingly contingent on European aid. The United States currently provides roughly half of the aid to Ukraine. If that is to substantially decrease, Europe would need to quickly step up.

Together, Europe’s resources “constitute a massive air force, giant navy and formidable army.” Yet, the quantity of resources has decreased compared to during the Cold War. Consequently, these countries have begun to revamp their stockpiles. The collective European resource pool surpasses Russian resources, but this rebuilding focus is still crucial.

Global leaders must learn from the Russo-Ukrainian war and apply these lessons in preparing Taiwan for the possibility of a Chinese invasion.  

In East Asia, China continues to pressure Taiwan, as seen by their aggressive posturing. For decades, Taiwan has faced this threat, with China almost every day probing Taiwanese defenses with warships and fighter jets with the aim to “to destroy the sovereignty of a free and democratic Taiwan and subordinate it to communist China.”

Former Director of the CIA, William Burns, noted instructions from Chinese president, Xi Jinping, to prepare for an invasion of Taiwan by 2027.

The implications of an invasion “are enormous, potentially including a global economic crisis far worse than the shock caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.”

Preventative measures are vital to prevent such a calamity for the surrounding region. Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Australia would become especially vulnerable if the US failed to act.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Taiwanese leaders stood by the victim, Ukraine.“ ‘Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow’ is now a commonly used phrase in Taiwan.”

Therefore, the US needs to secure Ukrainian sovereignty if it hopes to do the same with Taiwan. Just like dominos, if one is to stand, so too must the other.

The West failed to deter Putin’s invasion, and Ukraine’s future does not contain a guarantee of a reversal to pre-invasion conditions. Russia probed responses to its actions in 2014 amidst its invasions of Crimea, Donbas, Syria, Georgia, and Chechnya. Later, in 2022, Russia carried out the invasion of Ukraine itself. 

“If you want peace, be prepared for war.”

China is watching America’s reactions to Ukraine to anticipate what American involvement would look like if China invaded Taiwan. While there are heavy economic costs weighing on Europe following their break with Russia, the costs of a Taiwanese invasion would be far greater.

If the US abandons Ukraine, roughly half of its support would disappear. Simultaneously, a Russian victory would embolden China to move against Taiwan.

These two conflicts are intertwined. Accordingly, Taiwanese officials have learned from Ukraine and have made changes such as restructuring their military by lengthening service terms and training. They have also expanded their drone program after observing the key role drones have played in Ukraine.

The war in Ukraine has exposed modern warfare challenges, US and European military readiness to respond, and has brought about crucial lessons for the future. 

While deterrence with Russia failed, there is an increased need for it to work with China.

Lethal Autonomous Weapons: What Are They and How Do We Address Them?

By: Charlotte Sparling

What used to be a myth is now a reality. Lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs), at their core, are weapons that act and make lethal decisions without human intervention, effectively thinking on their own. They are similar to drones but lack the crucial element of human oversight. However, not even the international community has a clear definition of what they are, contributing to the challenge of how to adequately address them. 

The development of these weapons poses several major concerns that must be addressed.

First, there are serious questions about LAWs violating international law. UN Secretary-General António Guterres argues these weapons are morally concerning and violate International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Two of the core elements of IHL are distinction and accountability. LAWs act without human oversight; there is no human verification of targets. Facial recognition is one method to identify targets but opens the door to ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, like any other technology, LAWs will inevitably malfunction, resulting in the question of who is then accountable. If a robot accidentally kills the wrong target, is the machine accountable?

Second, the question of regulation is uncertain and pressing. There is no clear regulation of LAWs, yet their potential to cause such sweeping impacts makes their regulation imperative. To prevent crises, standards must be established. The international community has recognized the importance of discussing this issue, but what exactly those steps would be is unclear. 

Despite this pessimistic outlook, regulation is possible. Land mines, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons were all regulated in some manner. There is no reason why the same could not be done for LAWs, but such regulation must first be preceded by establishment of a solid definition. 

The truth is that LAWs are here. We must move forward, acknowledge, and act accordingly. In the Russia-Ukraine war, there has been talk of Russia deploying weapons with some autonomous capabilities. Turkey, Israel, Russia, and South Korea have reportedly deployed similar weapons. Both the US and China are also investing heavily in this technology. No one wants to be the one without the newest and shiniest toys.

Part of what makes LAWs of interest is their life-preserving abilities. Without having to send troops who are often clouded by emotions into risky situations, LAWs can be more accurate, mitigate the loss of life, and reduce damage to the surrounding areas. It is important to recognize these benefits as the march of innovation cannot be halted. 

Ukraine, recognizing these benefits, has invested heavily in autonomous drones and similar technologies. In a war that is not likely to end in a decisive Ukrainian win, any methods to minimize the sacrifice of Ukrainian lives are imperative. While Ukraine’s weapons still require human intervention, they are only one step off from LAWs. How the war develops with these weapons will likely serve as a turning point for the future of autonomous warfare.

On the global diplomatic scale, opinions are mixed. The UN and many countries support a full ban on LAWs or regulation at a minimum. The US supports regulation over a complete ban. China and Russia, meanwhile, have yet to clearly indicate their positions. 

Instead of an outright ban, the solution is to establish regulations. By embracing the reality that LAWs will likely play a crucial role in future warfare, guidelines can help shape the role this technology plays while simultaneously reaping its benefits. Ignoring these weapons could lead to their misuse and make humanitarian violations far more likely. The first step in regulation is to create a singular definition of what LAWs are. It is through these efforts that the international community can adequately address ethical concerns. 

Climate Change Threatens National Security

By: Charlotte Sparling

In the latest UN climate report, the Secretary-General starkly warned that we are in the midst of  “a ‘code red for humanity.’ ” The climate is collapsing and national security is at risk. While green energy is the solution, and investment into the sector is crucial to protect national security, this is not a simple fix.

Globally, accounting for 80% of energy production, 75% of greenhouse gas emissions, and nearly 90% of carbon dioxide emissions, fossil fuels are the largest contributors to climate change. Consequently, the World Health Organization has reported that around 99% of the world’s population breathe in air that has exceeded safe air quality levels, causing millions of deaths a year and $2.9 trillion in health and economic issues. 

This climate crisis extends beyond health concerns and into national security threats. Before Russia’s war on Ukraine, over 40% of Europe’s imported gas and roughly 25% of their oil came from Russia. When Russia turned off the tap, oil and gas prices skyrocketed. 

Energy is fundamental to a successful country. The power and influence fossil fuel exporting countries have over their tethered receiving countries, threatens the recipient’s national security. Hospitals, schools, homes, businesses, and governmental activities are all reliant upon energy. Cut that off, and the country is at its knees.  

Yet, Europe recognized their Achilles heel was their fossil fuel reliance, and shifted faster towards green energy. As they moved, so too did the world, which sped up the global transition towards green energy upwards of five to ten years.

Green is on the rise; out of the renewable energies, solar, wind, and hydropower are the three most promising. This transition to renewable energy is imperative, but the solution is by no means simple.

As a cheap and abundant source of energy, solar appears to be the perfect solution. If utilized to its full extent, one hour of sunlight generates more energy than the world consumes in a year. Yet, solar contributes only 3.6% to electricity production globally. This huge gap in utilizing solar is largely due to how expensive and difficult it is to store the energy. 

Wind, another cheap energy source, also is inefficient with storing excess energy. Simultaneously, wind turbines cause environmental concerns, such as bird collisions, habitat disruptions, and noise pollution. 

Hydropower outproduces all other forms of renewable energy in US electricity production and begins to address the energy storage problem. In these systems, water is pumped up to a higher elevation, from an initial energy source, and is released downhill through a turbine that generates energy when necessary. However, hydropower systems have problems of their own, including specific geographical needs, access to an energy source, and high capital inputs.

While pumped hydropower systems are one approach to the storage issue, batteries are another. The most common option is lithium-ion batteries. Unfortunately, these often utilize fossil fuels in transportation and manufacturing, while also containing nickel and cobalt, which are associated with complications of their own. 

Contaminating the air, water, soil, and natural habitats, nickel mining is extremely costly. The extraction itself produces sulfur dioxide and metal-infused dust. In Indonesia, nickel mining has caused deforestation, water pollution, and human health concerns. 

The mining of cobalt employs unsafe practices, child labor, and unregulated disposal of toxic waste, which causes water and crop pollution. In turn, this destabilizes the local regions and makes them more vulnerable.

The truth is this: no energy source is perfect. Countries must continue to fund research and development to progress this green transition forward. 

Currently, 80% of people live in countries that are net-importers of fossil fuels. To avoid being vulnerable to these countries turning off supply or fossil fuel depletion, green energy should be explored as a safer and a more abundant alternative. However, this assumes green energy is a viable solution, thus stressing the need for more resources to be devoted to solving this issue. 

Simply put, investing in green not only protects the environment, but also releases other countries from the grasp of fossil-fuel producing countries, which, in turn, boosts national security.