Indeed, the more things change, the more they stay the same in the broader sense. I think one of the sticky problems with immigration is that the vast majority of academics and political figures lack the appreciation for nuance common sense at times will dictate. For instance, in the United States, the real battle is not whether there should be any immigration at all; rather, it is a question of how well such immigration is regulated in the national security, economic, and social interest of the region as a whole. While most Americans are polled to be found somewhere in this happy medium, most in Washington, in academe, and certainly the media seem to polarize to one extreme or the other. Unfortunately, as you point out, not resolving this issue not only opens the door for terrorists to enter, it also opens the door for substantial funding of those same terrorists, so that we are doing half the work Russia, China, Iran, et al are doing in the region already. Common sense is a great place to begin where we consider the notion of preventing conflicts; however, that seems to lack in many places. As you point out, the League of Nations did have language to deal with terrorism, and it’s interesting to note that today the UN cannot so much as agree on a definition. Again, such things merely make established institutions appear nothing more than a circus to the bad guys, which, as Alex points out, is partly why neither China nor Russia have any regard for the Monroe Doctrine of old. Not intending to sound partisan, because I give Jack Kennedy and his predecessors their due, there once was a time thereafter when only Democrat presidents permitted the expansion of dangerous outside influences in our hemisphere. Sadly, however, that time seems to have long since passed.

Hi Alex,
Part of your sentence in the last paragraph “…cooperation with anti-U.S. governments and movements in Latin America, directly violating the long-standing Roosevelt Corollary, is a sort of tit-for-tat action on the part of Russia.”

Instead of a Russian tit-for-tat, and knowing some of Venezuela’s history, it reminds me of a Venezuelan tit-for-tat. Instead of the long-standing Roosevelt Corollary, I prefer to correlate it to Thomas Jefferson and his sense of behavior modification against the Barbary pirates who were menaces, yet who was not in a position to enforce a regime change at the time. Though posturing has been done for centuries, I believe the actions by Venezuela and Russia working in unity (if they do) will express their conduct in the future.

Christopher Hitchens who is a columnist for “Vanity Fair” magazine expressed the historical information very well in the following:
“Jefferson's determined use of naval and military force to reduce the Barbary States of the Ottoman Empire, which had set up a slave-taking system of piracy and blackmail along the western coast of North Africa. Our third president was not in a position to enforce regime change in Algiers or Tripoli, but he was able to insist on regime behavior-modification (and thus to put an end to at least one slave system). Ever since then, every major system of tyranny in the world has had to run at least the risk of a confrontation with the United States, and one hopes that the Jeffersonians among us will continue to ensure that this remains true.”¹

Yet, are we seeing Venezuela’s President Cha΄vez reacting as Castro did during the historical Cuban Missile Crisis when Castro decided to go Communist and seek the Soviets as allies? The Soviets weighed the benefits of: (1) Cuba provided a Communist outpost in the Western hemisphere. (2) Cuba provided a potential military facility and “listening post” on the U.S. (3) Cuba provided a military force and civilian technical assistance personnel.

Kruschev saw this as advantageous for spreading Communist throughout Latin America and to protect Cuba after the Bay of Pigs event, while Castro sought to take nationalistic revenge against the U.S. for a decision President Eisenhower had made in the past and to eliminate Cuba’s dependency on the U.S.

As quoted by Anatoly I. Gribkov, General of the Russian Army, the Soviets had brought to Cuba: twenty-four R-12 launchers, 1.5 missile loadings, six Luna launchers, with 1.5 missile loadings each with nuclear warheads and six launchers, nine tactical nuclear rockets; tactical Luna missiles and had established 42,000 Soviet troops in Cuba.²

Thank you Alex for commenting towards the important issues this article presents.

¹Christopher Hitchens, “The Export of Democracy: Jefferson's Ideas Presaged the Bush Doctrine”, Wall Street Journal, July 12, 2005: p. A16 http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006950

²Globalsecurity.org
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/1995/LMM.htm

Hi Martin,
It is interesting how when terrorism and activism work in hope to divide others, it more often then not unifies them. You present a good question and the answer lays both in past history immigration, asylum seekers, and the United States WWII economic needs to the events that had and have transcended past 9/11. Plus terrorism and activism both have a need for an audience and the media.

It causes me to reflect on how during the mid 1930s, the League of Nations actually drafted a Convention for Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism. They also drafted the Creation of an International Criminal Court for the purpose of trying political assassination and terrorism. During that time there were concerns of spreading terrorist dogma, the problems of counterfeiting, and of drug trafficking.¹

We see the same issues resonating today, with the same concerns and arguments of whether to open or close our borders as other countries are doing who are working to sustain their own national security issues and to prevent conflicts.

Thank you Martin for commenting towards the important issues this article presents.

¹League of Nations, Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism, L.546(1).M.383(1).1937V, Geneva, 16 November 1937; and, for the draft convention on the ICC, see League of Nations, Committee for the International Repression of Terrorism, C222.M.162.1937.V, Geneva, 26 April 1937, Appendix II.

As we know, asymmetry includes terrorism and activism. With our borders wide open, one only wonders what we might see.

Shelley, thanks for another informative article. I agree with you that recent developments are alarming, but I believe the danger lies primarily in what you call "Russia's recent power posturing."

It is a well-known fact that Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister, is a believer in a strong Russia, one that should regain its former role as a superpower. Since the United States has appeared to "beat" the Russian government within the former Soviet sphere of influence, namely by expanding NATO membership into former Warsaw Pact countries and providing support and training to Georgia in its conflict with Russia, Russia, with Putin at the helm, sees the need to retaliate.

I believe this cooperation with anti-U.S. governments and movements in Latin America, directly violating the long-standing Roosevelt Corollary, is a sort of tit-for-tat action on the part of Russia. Not only is the sale of weapons a major source of income and impetus for the development of military technology in the Russian Federation, but the sale of weapons and providing assistance to "anti-American" factions in our own backyard shows a willingness on Russia's part to escalate tensions by retaliating in kind against our perceived transgressions.