Why ‘Plan Bukele’ Does (and Doesn’t) Work
Plan Bukele does not represent a coherent set of policies and tactics, but rather a unique fusion of coincidence, brutality, and hard-nosed calculation.
Plan Bukele does not represent a coherent set of policies and tactics, but rather a unique fusion of coincidence, brutality, and hard-nosed calculation.
The future of cooperation efforts between the U.S. and Latin American attendees of CPAC rely in part on who wins the 2024 U.S. presidential election, which is concerning.
Nayib Bukele’s imminent reelection represents an opportunity for the United States to find new—and politically viable—approaches to public security in the region.
The results of this year’s elections are likely to have a profound effect on the region: either strengthening democratic values or burying them under a mountain of extremism and polarization.
According to Shenai, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala are entangled in a governance trap, which he defines as “a path-dependent equilibrium in which weak states with contested authority fail to penetrate civil society and achieve self-sustaining economic growth
In this article, I would like to explain why I attended the Summit of the Americas, what I learned, and what my experience might mean for Hemispheric cooperation.
El Salvador today is emerging as a new version of the narco-state: a gang state, in which organized crime and authoritarian rule go hand-in-hand.
U.S. leaders have taken exactly the right approach with the new leader of Honduras, welcoming Castro as a partner to resolve the root causes of migration.
El Salvador’s peace has been an imperfect one. But Bukele is mistaken if he believes that erasing the past will build a better future.
Policymakers argue that more aid money will reduce the incentive to emigrate, while remaining stubbornly oblivious to the fact that past money did not fulfill its promise to do the same.