{ "id": "IN11116", "type": "CRS Insight", "typeId": "INSIGHTS", "number": "IN11116", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 610920, "date": "2019-12-11", "retrieved": "2019-12-13T14:58:55.219973", "title": "The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance and the Crisis in Venezuela", "summary": "On September 11, 2019, the United States and 11 other Western Hemisphere countries invoked the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty) to facilitate a regional response to the crisis in Venezuela. As a first step, on September 23, 2019, the countries that have ratified the treaty (states parties) agreed to identify, prosecute, and freeze the assets of certain individuals and entities associated with the government of Nicol\u00e1s Maduro. On December 3, 2019, the states parties approved an initial list of 29 individuals alleged to have engaged in corruption and/or human rights abuses, who are subject to the September 23 sanctions and to entry and transit restrictions. The states parties agreed to meet again in the first quarter of 2020. Congress may track the ongoing deliberations, given their potential implications for U.S. policy.\nBackground\nThe Rio Treaty, which was signed in 1947 and entered into force in 1948, is a collective security pact among 19 of the 35 countries of the Western Hemisphere. The United States ratified the treaty in 1947 after the U.S. Senate provided its advice and consent. Article 3 of the treaty asserts than \u201can armed attack by any State against an American State shall be considered as an attack against all American States,\u201d and it calls on each party to the treaty to assist in collective self-defense. Article 6 of the treaty, which was invoked in this case, empowers states parties to collectively respond to any other \u201csituation that might endanger the peace\u201d of the region. \nThe treaty establishes a Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs as the principal forum through which states parties are to address collective security threats. Any treaty signatory may request such a meeting but must secure the votes of an absolute majority of parties to the treaty within the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States (OAS). On September 11, 2019, the United States and 11 other states parties, including the interim Venezuelan government of Juan Guaid\u00f3, supported a resolution calling a Meeting of Consultation to address the crisis in Venezuela.\nArticle 8 of the treaty authorizes states parties to engage in a variety of collective measures, such as breaking diplomatic and consular relations, restricting economic relations, and using armed force. A Meeting of Consultation may adopt such measures with a two-thirds vote (i.e., 13 of 19 states parties). Decisions are binding on all states parties, with the exception of the use of armed force.\nPrevious Applications\nBefore 2019, states parties had applied Rio Treaty provisions 20 times. The states parties have never called for the use of force but have adopted other significant measures on several occasions:\nIn 1960, states parties convoked the Sixth Meeting of Consultation to consider acts of aggression by the government of the Dominican Republic against the government of Venezuela that culminated in an assassination attempt against the Venezuelan president. They agreed to break diplomatic relations with the Dominican Republic and partially restrict trade, beginning with a suspension of arms sales. States parties withdrew those sanctions in 1962.\nIn 1962, states parties convoked the Eighth Meeting of Consultation to consider threats to peace and political independence in the region arising from the intervention of outside powers. They declared that adherence to Marxism-Leninism is incompatible with the principles of the inter-American system and excluded Cuba from further participation in Western Hemisphere institutions. The OAS partially repealed Cuba\u2019s exclusion from the inter-American system in 2009.\nIn 1964, states parties convoked the Ninth Meeting of Consultation to address acts of aggression by the government of Cuba that threatened the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Venezuela. They agreed to break diplomatic and consular relations with Cuba, suspend all trade with Cuba with the exception of food and medical supplies, and suspend all sea transport to Cuba. States parties subsequently agreed to allow normalized relations with Cuba in 1975.\nThe most recent invocation of the treaty occurred following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States, which states parties recognized as an attack on the entire region.\nApplication to Venezuela\nThe Thirtieth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs convened for the first time on September 23, 2019. During the meeting, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan argued that \u201cmass migration, public health risks, oil shortages, rising crime and violence, criminal groups operating with impunity, and Russian, Chinese, and Cuban patrons\u201d in Venezuela have destabilized the region and pose \u201ca clear threat to peace and security in the Western hemisphere.\u201d He asserted that the Venezuelan people \u201ccannot solve this crisis alone\u201d and called on the other states parties to \u201cfinally take corrective action.\u201d\nUltimately, 16 of the 19 states parties approved a resolution to\nidentify, investigate, and prosecute current and former Maduro government officials who have participated in acts of corruption or serious human rights abuses, as well as persons or entities involved in money laundering, drug trafficking, terrorism, or transnational organized crime;\nfreeze those individuals\u2019 assets; and\ncreate a network of financial intelligence and public security units to coordinate investigations into criminal activity linked to the Maduro government.\nStates parties approved another resolution on December 3 that identified 29 individuals subject to the September 23 sanctions and to entry and transit restrictions. The resolution could provide an external legal framework to implement targeted sanctions for states parties that lack domestic legal mechanisms for imposing such measures. The United States has sanctioned more than 200 individuals and entities tied to Venezuela, but some analysts argue coordinated sanctions could increase pressure on Maduro and those around him to facilitate a political transition. \nStates parties plan to meet again in the first quarter of 2020 to consider additional measures. Although some governments have warned that sanctions could be the first step toward armed intervention, that appears unlikely at this time, since a majority of states parties have rejected the use of force. Nevertheless, some analysts are concerned that non-state armed groups operating along the Colombia-Venezuela border could precipitate a conflict with the potential to escalate quickly.", "type": "CRS Insight", "typeId": "INSIGHTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/IN11116", "sha1": "995dca6accb09979cd540892babaecf0ca59f618", "filename": "files/20191211_IN11116_995dca6accb09979cd540892babaecf0ca59f618.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/IN11116", "sha1": "7ff7a2bfdb366c1a7f8329238a445f818da6468e", "filename": "files/20191211_IN11116_7ff7a2bfdb366c1a7f8329238a445f818da6468e.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4847, "name": "Latin America, Caribbean, & Canada" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 605845, "date": "2019-10-03", "retrieved": "2019-10-10T22:21:22.264833", "title": "The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance and the Crisis in Venezuela", "summary": "On September 11, 2019, the United States and 11 other Western Hemisphere countries invoked the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty) to facilitate a regional response to the crisis in Venezuela. As a first step, on September 23, the countries that have ratified the treaty (\u201cstates parties\u201d) agreed to impose targeted sanctions on individuals and entities associated with the government of Nicol\u00e1s Maduro. They also pledged to meet again within two months to discuss additional measures. Congress may closely track the deliberations, given their potential implications for U.S. policy.\nBackground\nThe Rio Treaty, which was signed in 1947 and entered into force in 1948, is a collective security pact among 19 of the 35 countries of the Western Hemisphere. The United States ratified the treaty in 1947 after the U.S. Senate provided its advice and consent. Article 3 of the treaty asserts than \u201can armed attack by any State against an American State shall be considered as an attack against all American States,\u201d and it calls on each party to the treaty to assist in collective self-defense. Article 6 of the treaty, which was invoked in this case, empowers states parties to collectively respond to any other \u201csituation that might endanger the peace\u201d of the region. \nThe treaty establishes a Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs as the principal forum through which states parties are to address collective security threats. Any treaty signatory may request such a meeting but must secure the votes of an absolute majority of parties to the treaty within the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States (OAS). On September 11, 2019, the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, and Paraguay supported a resolution calling a Meeting of Consultation to address the crisis in Venezuela. The interim Venezuelan government of Juan Guaid\u00f3, which is recognized by the OAS and rejoined the Rio Treaty in August 2019, also backed the resolution. Five other countries (Costa Rica, Panama, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay) abstained from the vote; the Bahamas was absent.\nArticle 8 of the treaty authorizes states parties to engage in a variety of collective measures, such as breaking diplomatic and consular relations, restricting economic relations, and using armed force. A Meeting of Consultation may adopt such measures with a two-thirds vote (i.e., 13 of 19 states parties). Decisions are binding on all states parties, with the exception of the use of armed force.\nPrevious Applications\nPrior to this year, states parties had applied provisions of the Rio Treaty 20 times. They have never called for the use of force but have adopted other significant measures on several occasions:\nIn 1960, states parties convoked the Sixth Meeting of Consultation to consider acts of aggression by the government of the Dominican Republic against the government of Venezuela that culminated in an assassination attempt against the Venezuelan president. The foreign ministers agreed to break diplomatic relations with the Dominican Republic and partially restrict trade, beginning with a suspension of arms sales. They withdrew those sanctions in 1962.\nIn 1962, states parties convoked the Eighth Meeting of Consultation to consider threats to peace and political independence in the region arising from the intervention of outside powers. The foreign ministers declared that adherence to Marxism-Leninism is incompatible with the principles of the inter-American system and excluded Cuba from further participation in Western Hemisphere institutions. The OAS partially repealed Cuba\u2019s exclusion from the inter-American system in 2009.\nIn 1964, states parties convoked the Ninth Meeting of Consultation to address acts of aggression by the government of Cuba that threatened the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Venezuela. The foreign ministers agreed to break diplomatic and consular relations with Cuba, suspend all trade with Cuba with the exception of food and medical supplies, and suspend all sea transport to Cuba. They subsequently agreed to allow states parties to normalize relations with Cuba in 1975.\nThe most recent invocation of the treaty occurred following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States, which the states parties recognized as an attack on the entire region.\nApplication to Venezuela\nThe Thirtieth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs convened for the first time on September 23, 2019. During the meeting, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan argued that \u201cmass migration, public health risks, oil shortages, rising crime and violence, criminal groups operating with impunity, and Russian, Chinese, and Cuban patrons\u201d in Venezuela have destabilized the region and pose \u201ca clear threat to peace and security in the Western hemisphere.\u201d He asserted that the Venezuelan people \u201ccannot solve this crisis alone\u201d and called on the other states parties to \u201cfinally take corrective action.\u201d\nFollowing a discussion closed to the public, 16 of the 19 states parties approved a resolution to\nidentify, investigate, and prosecute current and former Maduro government officials who have participated in acts of corruption or serious human rights abuses, as well as persons or entities involved in money laundering, drug trafficking, terrorism, or transnational organized crime;\nfreeze those individuals\u2019 assets; and\ncreate a network of financial intelligence and public security units to coordinate investigations into criminal activity linked to the Maduro government.\nThe resolution could provide an external legal framework to implement targeted sanctions for states parties that lack domestic legal mechanisms for imposing such measures. The United States has already sanctioned more than 200 individuals and entities tied to Venezuela, but some analysts argue that coordinated sanctions may be more effective and increase pressure on Maduro and those around him to facilitate a political transition. \nThe states parties plan to meet again within two months to consider additional measures. The governments of Uruguay, which opposed the September 23 resolution, and Trinidad and Tobago, which abstained, have warned that sanctions could be the first step toward armed intervention. That appears unlikely at this time because a majority of states parties have rejected the use of force. Nevertheless, some analysts are concerned that non-state armed groups operating along the Colombia-Venezuela border could precipitate a conflict with the potential to escalate quickly.", "type": "CRS Insight", "typeId": "INSIGHTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/IN11116", "sha1": "7c74874a0805187f9a90b1d29f16b85f93bfb234", "filename": "files/20191003_IN11116_7c74874a0805187f9a90b1d29f16b85f93bfb234.html", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4847, "name": "Latin America, Caribbean, & Canada" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 604935, "date": "2019-09-13", "retrieved": "2019-09-16T22:03:53.752838", "title": "The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance and the Crisis in Venezuela", "summary": "On September 11, 2019, the United States and 11 other Western Hemisphere nations invoked the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty) to facilitate a regional response to the crisis in Venezuela. Foreign ministers from the countries that have ratified the treaty (\u201cstates parties\u201d) are to convene in the coming weeks to discuss a range of options that could include the suspension of diplomatic and consular relations, the imposition of economic sanctions, or the use of armed force. Congress may closely track the deliberations, given their potential implications for U.S. policy.\nBackground\nThe Rio Treaty, which was signed in 1947 and entered into force in 1948, is a collective security pact among 19 of the 35 countries of the Western Hemisphere. The United States ratified the treaty in 1947 after the U.S. Senate provided its advice and consent. Article 3 of the Rio Treaty asserts than \u201can armed attack by any State against an American State shall be considered as an attack against all American States,\u201d and it calls on each party to the treaty to assist in collective self-defense. Article 6 of the treaty, which was invoked in this case, empowers states parties to collectively respond to any other \u201csituation that might endanger the peace\u201d of the region. \nThe treaty establishes a Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs as the principal forum through which states parties are to address collective security threats. Any treaty signatory may request such a meeting but must secure the votes of an absolute majority of parties to the treaty within the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States (OAS). The United States, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, and Paraguay supported the resolution calling a Meeting of Consultation to address the crisis in Venezuela. The interim Venezuelan government of Juan Guaid\u00f3, which is recognized by the OAS and rejoined the Rio Treaty in August 2019, also backed the resolution. Five other nations (Costa Rica, Panama, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay) abstained from the vote; the Bahamas was absent.\nAs noted above, Article 8 of the treaty authorizes states parties to engage in a variety of collective measures, such as breaking diplomatic and consular relations, restricting economic relations, and using armed force. A Meeting of Consultation may adopt such measures with a two-thirds vote (i.e., 13 of 19 states parties). Decisions are binding on all states parties, with the exception of the use of armed force.\nPrevious Applications\nStates parties have applied provisions of the Rio Treaty 20 times. They have never called for the use of force but have adopted other significant measures on several occasions:\nIn 1960, states parties convoked the Sixth Meeting of Consultation to consider acts of aggression by the government of the Dominican Republic against the government of Venezuela that culminated in an assassination attempt against the Venezuelan president. The foreign ministers agreed to break diplomatic relations with the Dominican Republic and partially restrict trade, beginning with a suspension of arms sales. They withdrew those sanctions in 1962.\nIn 1962, states parties convoked the Eighth Meeting of Consultation to consider threats to peace and political independence in the region arising from the intervention of outside powers. The foreign ministers declared that adherence to Marxism-Leninism is incompatible with the principles of the inter-American system and excluded Cuba from further participation in Western Hemisphere institutions. The OAS partially repealed Cuba\u2019s exclusion from the inter-American system in 2009.\nIn 1964, states parties convoked the Ninth Meeting of Consultation to address acts of aggression by the government of Cuba that threatened the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Venezuela. The foreign ministers agreed to break diplomatic and consular relations with Cuba, suspend all trade with Cuba with the exception of food and medical supplies, and suspend all sea transport to Cuba. They subsequently agreed to allow states parties to normalize relations with Cuba in 1975.\nThe most recent invocation of the treaty\u2014the first since 1982\u2014occurred following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States. The 24th Meeting of Consultation recognized the attacks against the United States as an attack on the entire region and committed to using all legally available measures to pursue, capture, extradite, and punish any individuals involved.\nPotential Application to Venezuela\nU.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo argues that collective action under the Rio Treaty is necessary because the political and economic crisis in Venezuela is having an \u201cincreasingly destabilizing influence\u201d on the region. He notes that more than 4 million people have left Venezuela, straining neighboring countries\u2019 resources. Secretary Pompeo also asserts that \u201crecent bellicose moves by the Venezuelan military to deploy along the border with Colombia as well as the presence of illegal armed groups and terrorist organizations in Venezuelan territory demonstrate that Nicol\u00e1s Maduro not only poses a threat to the Venezuelan people, his actions threaten the peace and security of Venezuela\u2019s neighbors.\u201d\nThe United States could push regional allies to harmonize their policies with those of the United States by imposing targeted sanctions against officials in the Maduro government or broader economic sanctions against Venezuela. A Meeting of Consultation offers a possible venue to advance such measures, since most parties to the Rio Treaty have supported other multilateral efforts to exert pressure against Maduro. For example, 14 states parties voted in favor of a January 2019 OAS resolution that refused to recognize the legitimacy of Maduro\u2019s second term; called for new presidential elections; and urged all member states to adopt diplomatic, political, economic, and financial measures to facilitate the prompt restoration of the democratic order in Venezuela. Few states parties have imposed sanctions thus far, however, suggesting many U.S. allies remain reluctant to enact such measures.\nIt appears unlikely that the Meeting of Consultation would authorize the use of armed force against the Maduro government. A majority of states parties, wary of U.S. threats, have rejected \u201cany threat or course of action that involves military intervention.\u201d Attitudes could shift, however, if the Venezuelan military or other armed groups were to attack Colombia.", "type": "CRS Insight", "typeId": "INSIGHTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/IN11116", "sha1": "1fa39c8f9f2a6e6c8b22b7ee0a54ceb5e57a245e", "filename": "files/20190913_IN11116_1fa39c8f9f2a6e6c8b22b7ee0a54ceb5e57a245e.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/IN11116", "sha1": "3fb9798b55c7af41a1447764830ba05eefabe6e1", "filename": "files/20190913_IN11116_3fb9798b55c7af41a1447764830ba05eefabe6e1.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4847, "name": "Latin America, Caribbean, & Canada" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 598198, "date": "2019-05-14", "retrieved": "2019-08-13T22:14:17.875656", "title": "The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance and the Crisis in Venezuela", "summary": "Recent press reports suggest that the Trump Administration and some Latin American governments have discussed invoking the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty) to facilitate a collective response to the crisis in Venezuela. Doing so could provide a basis for multilateral intervention, but it is unclear if parties to the treaty (\u201cstates parties\u201d) would support such an effort. Congress may assess the implications of invoking the treaty as it considers legislative initiatives to require, authorize, or constrain certain Administration actions regarding Venezuela (such as H.R. 920, H.R. 1477, S. 1025, H.R. 1004, and S.J.Res. 11).\nBackground\nThe Rio Treaty, which was signed in 1947 and entered into force in 1948, is a collective security pact among 17 of the 35 nations of the Western Hemisphere (including the United States). In some respects, it mirrors the North Atlantic Treaty that created NATO. Like NATO\u2019s Article V, the Rio Treaty asserts than \u201can armed attack by any State against an American State shall be considered as an attack against all American States,\u201d and it calls on each party to the treaty to assist in collective self-defense through a range of actions, potentially including, but not limited to, military force. It also empowers states parties to collectively respond to any other \u201csituation that might endanger the peace\u201d of the region. \nThe treaty establishes a Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs as the principal forum through which states parties are to address collective security threats. Any treaty signatory may request such a meeting but must secure the votes of an absolute majority of parties to the treaty within the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States (OAS). The Permanent Council, chaired by the United States through June 30, 2019, may act provisionally as an organ of consultation under the treaty until a Meeting of Consultation is held.\nThe treaty authorizes states parties to engage in a variety of collective measures, such as recalling ambassadors, breaking diplomatic and consular relations, restricting economic relations, and using armed force. A Meeting of Consultation may adopt such measures with the votes of two-thirds of states parties. Any parties directly involved in the situation under consideration are excluded from voting. Decisions are binding on all states parties, with the exception of the use of armed force.\nThe United States and Venezuela are among the original signatories of the Rio Treaty. The United States ratified the treaty in 1947 after the U.S. Senate provided its advice and consent. Venezuela withdrew from the treaty in 2013, but the country\u2019s National Assembly\u2014recognized by the United States and the OAS as Venezuela\u2019s only democratic institution\u2014began the process of rejoining the agreement on May 7.\nPrevious Applications\nStates parties have applied provisions of the Rio Treaty 20 times but only once since 1982. Although the measures adopted have varied considerably, states parties have undertaken significant collective initiatives on several occasions: \nIn 1960, states parties convoked the Sixth Meeting of Consultation to consider acts of aggression by the government of the Dominican Republic against the government of Venezuela that culminated in an assassination attempt against the Venezuelan president. The foreign ministers agreed to break diplomatic relations with the Dominican Republic and partially restrict trade, beginning with a suspension of all arms sales.\nIn 1962, states parties convoked the Eighth Meeting of Consultation to consider threats to peace and political independence in the region arising from the intervention of outside powers. The foreign ministers declared that adherence to Marxism-Leninism is incompatible with the principles of the inter-American system and excluded Cuba from further participation in Western Hemisphere institutions.\nIn 1964, states parties convoked the Ninth Meeting of Consultation to address acts of aggression by the government of Cuba that threatened the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Venezuela. The foreign ministers agreed to break diplomatic and consular relations with Cuba, suspend all trade with Cuba with the exception of foodstuffs and medical supplies, and suspend all sea transport to Cuba.\nThe most recent invocation of the treaty occurred following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States. The 24th Meeting of Consultation recognized the attacks against the United States as an attack on the entire region and committed to using all legally available measures to pursue, capture, extradite, and punish any individuals involved.\nPotential Application to Venezuela\nThe U.S.-recognized interim government of Juan Guaid\u00f3 asserts that the crisis in Venezuela \u201chas national security consequences\u201d for Venezuela and its neighbors. The deteriorating situation has allowed organized crime to flourish and caused an estimated 3.7 million Venezuelans to leave the country. The Guaid\u00f3 government also argues that foreign forces in Venezuela\u2014including Cuban intelligence agents and Russian military personnel\u2014place the region at risk. To date, however, no parties to the Rio Treaty have openly expressed support for using the treaty\u2019s collective defense mechanisms to address the situation.\nParties to the treaty have supported other multilateral efforts to confront the regime of Nicol\u00e1s Maduro. For example, 14 of the 17 states parties voted in favor of a January 2019 OAS resolution that refused to recognize the legitimacy of Maduro\u2019s second term; called for new presidential elections; and urged all member states to adopt diplomatic, political, economic, and financial measures to facilitate the prompt restoration of the democratic order in Venezuela. If states parties opt to pursue aggressive initiatives that are unable to win approval within the OAS or other international forums, they could try to advance such measures under the umbrella of the Rio Treaty.\nNevertheless, many parties to the treaty have urged restraint. A majority of states parties, wary of U.S. threats to use armed force, have rejected \u201cany threat or course of action that involves military intervention.\u201d Likewise, although most states parties have expressed support for sanctions, many have been reluctant to impose them. Recent regional efforts have focused on building broad support for a political solution rather than pursuing measures that could fracture the international coalition working to resolve the crisis. Attitudes could shift, however, if the situation in Venezuela deteriorates further and continued migration flows begin to destabilize neighboring countries.", "type": "CRS Insight", "typeId": "INSIGHTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/IN11116", "sha1": "f9861cfa0740152d72e0a5853ead21df17cc6c93", "filename": "files/20190514_IN11116_f9861cfa0740152d72e0a5853ead21df17cc6c93.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/IN11116", "sha1": "6457755be652be9eef75bbb8003d79e70e27ec7d", "filename": "files/20190514_IN11116_6457755be652be9eef75bbb8003d79e70e27ec7d.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4847, "name": "Latin America, Caribbean, & Canada" } ] } ], "topics": [ "CRS Insights", "Foreign Affairs" ] }