Which regional navies and coast guards (Caribbean and South American) have formal interdiction agreements with the U.S. under JIATF‑South?

1. How JIATF‑South frames “partnership” and interdiction roles

JIATF‑South describes itself as an interagency and international information hub that detects and monitors illicit trafficking and then coordinates with law‑enforcement authorities—including the U.S. Coast Guard and partner‑nation forces—to execute interdictions, because JIATF‑South itself lacks arrest authority ^{[7] [1] [8]}. Official and defense reporting emphasize that interdictions at sea are typically led by the Coast Guard or by foreign partners under bilateral arrangements, with JIATF‑South providing the intelligence cueing and coordination that enable those boardings ^{[1] [6] [7]}.

2. Countries repeatedly named in operational reporting and task groups

Journalistic and military sources name a set of recurrent operational partners: the Netherlands (Dutch Caribbean), France (French Antilles), Jamaica, Costa Rica and Colombia have all been cited as taking part in interdictions, towing seized vessels, hosting liaison officers, or commanding a JIATF task group element ^{[4] [2] [5] [6]}. U.S. accounts also describe JIATF‑South as working with roughly 20 stakeholder countries from Central America, South America, the Caribbean, Mexico, Canada and several European states—an umbrella that implies many bilateral maritime cooperation arrangements even if each treaty text is not published in these sources ^{[3] [2]}.

3. Formality versus practice: what “formal interdiction agreements” means here

The sources make a distinction between JIATF‑South’s coordinating mission and the legal authorities that enable interdictions—those authorities usually flow from U.S. law (e.g., Title 14 for the Coast Guard) or from bilateral agreements permitting foreign ships to be boarded, prosecuted, or turned over for prosecution ^{[7] [1]}. Reporting documents reference “boardings pursuant to a bilateral agreement” and the deployment of Coast Guard law‑enforcement detachments, but they do not publish a consolidated list of the bilateral treaties or memorandum‑of‑understanding texts that each partner has with the U.S. under the JIATF umbrella ^{[1] [6] [7]}.

4. What the sources confirm—and what they do not

Available material confirms that multiple Caribbean and South American navies/coast guards are operational partners—frequently the Dutch Caribbean forces, French Antilles command, Jamaica Defence Force Coast Guard, Costa Rican coast guard and Colombian maritime forces are named in concrete interdiction or exercise reporting—and that JIATF‑South counts roughly 20 stakeholder nations ^{[4] [5] [2] [6] [3]}. The sources do not, however, provide an authoritative public list that maps each partner to a specific, signed “interdiction agreement” under the JIATF‑South program; therefore it is not possible from these citations alone to assert definitively which specific countries have formal, written interdiction treaties labeled as “JIATF‑South agreements” versus those that operate under bilateral maritime security arrangements coordinated through JIATF‑South ^{[2] [7]}.

5. Reading between lines: motives, capacity and geopolitics

The emphasis in official and defense reporting on partner‑led interdictions and task group command posts (for Dutch and French Caribbean elements, for example) signals political interest in sovereign control of law enforcement actions and a U.S. preference for cooperative frameworks rather than unilateral interdiction in regional waters ^{[4] [3]}. Analysts and defense outlets note JIATF‑South’s role as a “gold standard” for interagency ops but also flag overlaps in responsibilities and limits on arrest authority—points that underline why formal bilateral agreements and host‑nation capacities remain central to making interdictions lawful and effective ^{[8] [7]}.