Outsourcing the Border

by Maggie Ervin

It probably doesn't come as a surprise that the top ten contractors of the US government are all military-oriented corporations: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and the like. Although the Defense Department has long been the most expensive, ever since Bush's declaration of the War on Terror, this has been truer than ever. Private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, ever-modern surveillance technology, unmanned drones and their complex infrastructures, none of this is cheap. Blackhawk helicopters alone cost over 16 million dollars each. It's not like this is anything new, of course. Eisenhower famously and portentiously warned of it 54 years ago.

But these days, when we talk about the military industrial complex, it's not only war we're talking about. It's our border as well. And much like generously funding the Defense Department has both bipartisan support and barely enjoys debate, such is the "securing" of our borders. Few legislators bother calling it into question. Even Obama's executive order around immigration - still stymied by an injunction - uses the rhetoric of security to justify sending more forces to the border. US Customs and Border Protection is already by far the US's largest enforcement agency with over 60,000 employees.

Just like in the business sector, the government sector has also turned to outsourcing. Perhaps it was predictable, that 21 years into NAFTA and with almost certain passage of the TPP (policies which also enjoy bipartisan support), that the globalized economy would not only touch markets, but also the US's security apparatus. (Framing the militarization of the border as a security issue is questionable, of course. The fact that the great majority of undocumented immigrants cite lack of economic opportunities and/or violence in their home countries as the reason for migrating discredits that claim.)

The "Central American unaccompanied minor crisis" of last year was the perfect time to amp up this strategy. At the height of it, in fact, a policy called The Southern Border Plan went into effect in Mexico. Thanks to a well-founded historical resentment and distrust of the US giving orders, President Peña Nieto never touted it as a US plan. However, it's clearly Mexico's response to pressure from its northern neighbor to close the borders. And it's working. A study by WOLA which came out in June 2015 showed that Mexico doubled deportations over the last year, and now detains more Central American migrants than the US.

I stopped in on the local migrant shelter here in Oaxaca, COMI (Center for Orientation of Migrants), where migrants headed for the states can take a few days' break, get medical care, look for temporary work, etc. I asked staff members when impact the Southern Border Plan has had, and if they'd noticed any changes since its implementation. What follows are excerpts from that conversation.

"There are now more checkpoints near the southern border and we've heard they're planning on building five more."

"We hear reports of human rights violations by immigration officials...one where they made a migrant give them everything, including his shoes. There were lots of brambles there, so then he had to walk barefoot. This was a violation of his physical integrity...We hear lots of stories of this type of inhumane treatment."

"This last year we've had more migrants who come through our shelter more than once...For example, maybe they run into municipal police in the north who try to extort them. If the migrant refuses to give them money, the police take them to immigration, they're deported, and as soon as they get off the plane they try again."

"We hear about the same people committing crimes near the border with Guatemala. Even when the migrants file a report, the criminals are allowed to continue...there's collusion and impunity for these criminals."

"Often the immigrant officials are accompanied by the police, like when they make the migrants get off the train. It's as if they're on a manhunt."

mural on a wall at COMI

Election Blog Series - Honduras: Why U.S. Policy Needs a Re-Set

-by Witness for Peace Honduras/Nicaragua Team

Why U.S. Policy in Honduras Needs a Re-Set

Although neither candidate mentioned Honduras in the last presidential debate on foreign policy, Mitt Romney has cited the Obama administration’s reaction to the coup in Honduras as an example marking Barack Obama's failure in Latin American policy.

He is not alone in criticizing the Obama administration’s response to the 2009 coup in Honduras. For reasons starkly different than Romney's, ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Rep. Howard Berman, wrote in a recent letter to Secretary Clinton: “U.S. policy in Honduras needs a re-set.” The current policies overlook the human rights crisis that has erupted in Honduras over the past few years. Out of concern for the alarming rate of human rights abuses and repression, almost 100 members of Congress have called for a suspension of U.S. military aid.

The example of Honduras can say a lot about the presidential candidates’ positions on Latin America. Historically the United States has intervened heavily in Honduras. The former "banana republic" played a key role in Reagan’s Cold War-driven mission to crush revolutionary movements in Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 1980s by providing a haven for U.S.-funded military operations.  More recently it was brought to the international radar when the Honduran military ousted democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya on June 28, 2009.

So, what do the two major party candidates have to say about the Honduran coup d’état and human rights crisis?

Obama:

The Obama administration provided a lukewarm response to the 2009 coup. While Obama condemned the coup and called it illegal, the State Department avoided using the term “military coup” in order to maintain greater control over its funding to Honduras. As negotiations about Zelaya’s return to Honduras dragged out, the U.S. government stated it would recognize elections even if Zelaya were not returned beforehand-- which is exactly what it did.

The 2009 elections in Honduras were heavily boycotted by civil society, and well-respected election observation bodies like the E.U. and the Carter Center refused to participate. In the weeks leading up to the elections, the coup regime cracked down of freedom of speech and assembly. Resistance members were detained and beaten by security forces.  While the overwhelming majority of Latin American countries rejected the elections, the U.S. immediately recognized them as free and fair, and reinstated military and police aid soon after the inauguration of Porfirio Lobo Sosa.

Obama was left with a difficult legacy from the Bush years. He attempted to step back from the military interventions and “nation-building” under the Bush era. Obama promised that his foreign policy would re-focus on diplomacy and working within the international community. 

However, in the aftermath of the Honduran coup, the ambivalent U.S. response diverged greatly from other countries in the hemisphere that were calling for Zelaya’s unconditional return and a rejection of the dubious elections. Leaders from other countries that make up the Organization of American States were critical of the U.S.’ position.

In response to criticism that the administration didn’t take a strong enough stance in Honduras, Obama responded:

 “The same critics who say that the United States has not intervened enough in Honduras are the same people who say that we're always intervening and the Yankees need to get out of Latin America. You can't have it both ways.”

Rhetorically, the U.S. did take a step back.  In practice, the U.S. has intervened. Three years later, Honduras is becoming the newest epicenter for the War on Drugs. The U.S. has focused its attention on training and equipping the Honduran police and military, as narco-trafficking has been somewhat pushed from Colombia and Mexico into Central America. In addition, the U.S. has plans to increase military bases in Honduras. The Pentagon increased its contract spending in Honduras to $53.8 million in Fiscal Year 2011, up by 71% from the previous year.

For Hondurans involved in the opposition movement against the coup and post-coup governments, the increased presence of military and police does not make them feel safer. In the words of a member of a Garífuna community that has seen increased military and police presence: “It actually creates fear. It is destroying our communities.” Many indigenous and Afro-indigenous communities as well as small farmers are in the midst of land disputes with large landowners that supported the military coup. They witness collaboration between state forces and private security guards to harass, repress and even murder community members in disputed territories.

From the millions given in security assistance and construction of military bases, to the presence of embedded U.S. officials in Honduran agencies, the U.S. has clearly taken a position.

Romney:

While Obama’s administration has failed to get Honduras policy right, Romney would bring us even further backwards. Romney’s position on Latin America is full of Manifest Destiny and Monroe Doctrine discourse that also borders on invoking Cold War-era warnings of socialism creeping in from our Latin American neighbors.

Romney’s campaign states:

“[Obama] has allowed the march of authoritarianism to go unchecked. In some cases, he has actually encouraged it, as when he publicly backed former Honduran president Manuel Zelaya—a Hugo Chavez ally—despite Zelaya’s unconstitutional attempt to extend his term as president in defiance of the Honduran Supreme Court and legislature.”

Romney’s characterization of the coup misrepresents the facts. Leading up to the coup, Zelaya was promoting a non-binding referendum asking Hondurans whether they wanted include a ballot measure in the upcoming elections that would allow them to vote for an assembly to reform the constitution. The spin perpetuated in U.S. media painted Zelaya in a similar way that Romney has- that he was trying to stay in power indefinitely, thereby insinuating or stating that that warranted the illegal coup. In reality, if Zelaya were hoping to change the constitution so that he could have had another term as president, he was many steps removed.  After the coup, the resistance movement collected 1,250,000 signatures in support of a national constitutional assembly.

If Zelaya were authoritarian, as Romney believes, what does that make the U.S.-trained military generals who kidnapped Zelaya from his home and wrecked havoc on civilian protests? What does that make the Lobo administration, which took power under highly-contested elections and has done little to change the pattern of repression? 

Romney’s response to Obama’s policies grossly misses the mark and does not discuss the realities of Obama’s policies in Honduras. If Honduras is an example of how Obama and Romney approach Latin American policy, one thing is clear: no matter who wins the elections on November 6^th, the U.S. needs to drastically change its course. The War on Drugs and militarization in Latin America is a human rights disaster throughout the region.

Join the voices calling for change now! Click here to send a letter to your Senator and Representative asking them to support real change in Honduras policy that promotes human rights and an end to the militarized approach to the War on Drugs.

FTA- Not OK!

By Paul Magno
Finance & Operations Director, Witness for Peace

Last month, the President spent Labor Day in Detroit talking to union workers (and unemployed not-quite workers) about “Jobs, jobs, jobs.”

Next, he spoke to Congress, and pitched the Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) as job-producers, applauded by Republicans and Democrats alike.

The other day he didn’t get his jobs bill, but last night he got his FTAs passed, alas. And since it is what he asked for, he’ll likely sign them in a hurry. But you can still let him know it’s not OK with you.

Mention that working people yearning for a secure livelihood are interested in more than embracing the President’s applause lines. And stress that the FTAs won’t do it for them, really, jobs-wise, in the long run.

Implementing these agreements will have quite predictable and destructive consequences, opposite their advertised benefits

The apparent promise of jobs in the FTAs is seductive on the surface, but belied by the riptide underneath . . . jobs out over time to the bottom-wage third world, and misery and social destabilization with them. Because also going out are US agribusiness exports that undercut local crops and local economies, and people who have been reliant on their land for generations have neither cash nor food for their families.

Eventually the refugees from that chaos pour into the imperial metropolis, aggravating the tea-party/nativists and copping low wage jobs here, undermining the good jobs at good wages profile here too. Immigration from Mexico (with or without papers) is five times higher now than it was before the advent of NAFTA in 1994 because people are destitute and starving, and naturally follow the money that’s been siphoned from their localities back to US-land.

A bible story is illustrative. Jesus watches a widow pay her temple tax with the last coin she has. Traditionally we are told that her faith is admirable because she gives everything she has to the collection plate and that “Jesus was deeply moved.” A closer look and accurate translation: Jesus sees the Pharisees writing eligibility rules for the temple that allow well off folks to easily afford a seemingly small fee to enter and participate in its life. But the widow, to enter the holy place, is compelled to fork over her last dollar. She will feed her children, how? Or pay her landlord, how? Jesus observes and understands the lopsided imbalance written into law by the powers that be, and thus he is “shaking with rage” when he turns to his disciples to illuminate the meaning of the episode. An ungodly rip-off of the already poor in the name of religion. Outrageous!

Thus it is with these agreements. On the altar of Free Trade, we enable the wealthy to enhance their abundant coffers, and compound the poverty of those already living hand-to-mouth in the first place. Obscene!

There are scads of good reasons people all over the country are in the streets, occupying everywhere. What is being done with the FTA schemes is typical. The FTAs work for big business and its profitability, but rob laborers & farmers and their families at either end of the hemisphere of livelihoods, dignity and hope. Are we shaking with rage yet?

Free Trade's Winners and Losers in Latin America

Scrapping tariffs can hurt poor farmers, and a deal with Colombia might boost coca production.

By Jess Hunter-Bowman

President Barack Obama is traveling to Latin America, seeking refuge from budget battles at home by promoting increased trade with countries across the region. During his trip to Chile, Brazil, and El Salvador, he's expected to highlight the benefits of so-called "free trade" to U.S. and Latin American businesses.

While the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and many conservatives in Congress will cheer him on, the truth is that free trade has been a curse for farmers and the poor throughout Latin America for years. It's time for a better approach.

Avid free-traders will tell you trade between the U.S. and Mexico has grown nearly five-fold since NAFTA was enacted in 1994. They'll say two-way trade between the United States and Central America and the Dominican Republic was $37.9 billion in 2009, a significant expansion thanks to the CAFTA-DR free trade agreement.

While free trade can dramatically increase exports--and boost corporate profits--its impact on the working class and poor isn't so rosy.

Examining impact of NAFTA--the hallmark free-trade agreement among the United States, Canada, and Mexico--provides a glimpse at free trade's impact on Latin America's poor. Research has shown that the 1.3 million jobs created in Mexico during the peak period of the maquiladora industry between 1994 and 2001 only provided a small portion of the jobs needed to cover the millions of workers pushed off their farms or forced out of Mexico's devastated domestic industries.

Researchers have found that only 10 percent of Mexicans have seen any rise in their incomes or standard of living thanks to NAFTA. In fact, the vast majority are far worse off.

Mexican corn farmers--the cornerstone of Mexico's agricultural economy before NAFTA--have been hit the hardest. Some estimates suggest millions of Mexican corn farmers were driven off their land, unable to compete with highly mechanized U.S. corn imports. Left with no job options at home, many have come here.

Now Obama wants Congress to ratify a free-trade agreement with Colombia signed during the Bush administration. This deal won't just turn a blind eye towards egregious labor rights violations in Colombia, where more union leaders were assassinated in 2010 than the rest of the world combined. Most likely, it will push more farmers into producing coca, the raw material for cocaine.

A free-trade agreement with Colombia would devastate that country's small farmers--just as NAFTA did in Mexico. The escape valve for Mexican farmers has been emigration to the United States, with an estimated 30 crossing the border every hour. The escape valve for Colombian farmers will be farming coca.

Colombia is already the world's leading cocaine manufacturer and a top producer of coca, the drug's main ingredient, with an estimated 120,000 hectares in production. It's slightly more profitable than farming food crops. A free-trade agreement that floods Colombian markets with cheap U.S.-produced grains would put poor farmers in an unenviable position: fall deeper into poverty or switch to coca production.

That's why the Chamber of Commerce isn't the only group salivating over the prospect of Congress ratifying the U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement. Drug traffickers would welcome the surge in coca production that tariff-free trade with that South American nation would trigger.

Jess Hunter-Bowman is the Associate Director of Witness for Peace, a nonprofit organization with a 30-year history monitoring U.S. policy in Latin America.

The Elephant in the Room with Obama and Calderón

By Moravia de la O
International Team - Mexico
Witness for Peace

Amid rising tensions between their governments, yesterday Presidents Obama and Calderón addressed the small problems while ignoring the elephant in the room: the U.S.-backed war on drugs is failing. The presidents reiterated their commitment to continue current anti-drug strategies.

From the beginning of his presidency in 2006, President Calderón has deployed thousands of soldiers to the streets to fight the drug cartels. Since then, nearly 35,000 people have lost their lives. Thousands more have seen their communities torn apart by fear and insecurity. The U.S. has played a large role in this conflict, providing Mexico with millions of dollars in military equipment and training since 2007 through the Mérida Initiative.

In the last four years, the number of human rights abuses in Mexico has also skyrocketed. Since 2007, over 5,000 complaints of human rights violations by the military have been filed with the Mexican National Human Rights Commission. Among the most common complaints are disappearances, rape, torture and excessive use of force.

Despite continued pressure from civil society organizations and the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, the Mexican government has failed to implement comprehensive reform to prosecute human rights abuses by the military in civil courts.

There is little evidence that the current anti-drug strategy is producing positive results. In fact, the 2011 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, released by the State Department this week, estimates that drug production in Mexico has increased dramatically in the last few years. Impunity is also at an all-time high.

But you didn’t find either Calderón or Obama acknowledging that yesterday. Instead, they eased tensions by addressing a trade dispute that prevented Mexican trucks from operating on American highways. Since the signing of NAFTA in 1994, the U.S. has refused to abide by a provision that granted Mexican trucks these rights.

Although the advancement is small, it points to the grey cloud that hangs over the failed drug war in Mexico: the fact that U.S. economic policy, in the form of NAFTA, has done much to facilitate poverty and drug violence in Mexico.

“We are very mindful that the battle President Calderón is fighting in Mexico is not just his,” Mr. Obama said. “It’s also ours. We have to take responsibility, just as he’s taking responsibility.

His statement rings true. Although there are no easy fixes to the drug trade, the United States could take some important first steps by redirecting funds away from a military strategy in Mexico and towards policies that control the sale of assault weapons and significantly reduce demand for drugs in the US.

The United States is the biggest consumer of illegal drugs in the world. However, the Mérida Initiative does not allocate any of its funds to reduce drug consumption. Neither does it focus sufficiently on poverty-reduction.

About 90% of weapons used by cartels in Mexico come from the United States. In fact, the weapon used to kill Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agent Jaime Zapata last week was purchased in Texas.

It is time for both the governments of the U.S. and Mexico to reevaluate their unsuccessful drug war policy and chart a new path for anti-drug cooperation.

A Partial Victory for Immigrants’ Rights

By Beth Baker-Cristales

The infamous law SB 1070 took effect in Arizona on July 29th with some key provisions of the law blocked by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton in response to arguments by the U.S. Justice Department. For example, provisions requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they believe are involved in criminal activity as well as the requirement to check the immigration status of individuals being released from jail were blocked. Five other suits have been filed against the law, and the legal battles will likely continue for years.

Passage of the law reflects the xenophobia and anti-immigrant hysteria that is increasingly common in Arizona and other parts of the country. Now legislatures in 17 states are considering legislation similar to Arizona’s SB 1070 and some states and municipalities are implementing mirror policies without passage of legislation.

Although Judge Bolton’s ruling is a key victory for advocates of immigrants’ rights, we have to continue to put pressure on the Obama administration and the Congress to pass meaningful, comprehensive immigration reform. Unfortunately, there has been little public education about the real roots and impacts of immigration in the U.S. In fact, much of the immigration in the past several decades has been fueled by free trade agreements that devastated local economies in Latin America or by U.S. military intervention abroad.

Economists have concluded over and over again that immigrants do not take jobs away from U.S.-born workers and that immigrants contribute much more to the U.S. economy than they consume or utilize in the form of benefits. But in a time of declining standards of living and a faltering economy, blaming immigrants is a convenient and easy tactic for politicians and activists who are unwilling to analyze the real sources of economic decline – corporate greed, government deregulation, and an economy based on consumption and profit rather than human needs and sustainability.















Our economy and our society have much to benefit from immigration reform that allows the full incorporation of immigrations who currently are denied legal permanent residence and citizenship. The keys to achieving comprehensive immigration reform are public education and continued pressure on Congress and President Obama. The past several years have shown that together, activists can make a change in the national political environment. And this election cycle is a perfect time to educate those around you about the issues and to push for reform now – stay tuned for details about Witness for Peace’s fall campaign.

Beth Baker-Cristales is on the board of Witness for Peace – Southwest.

Mexico Supports Lawsuit Against the SB 1070

Mexico has formally offered its support for the lawsuit being put forth by a wide list of civil rights organizations calling on the Supreme Court of Arizona to declare SB 1070 unconstitutional. The announcement followed a visit to the U.S. where Calderón’s openly criticized SB 1070 before Congress.

Mexico’s stance on the law brings into question the country's own position on migration. While Mexico wants an immigration policy that allows Mexican workers to safely work in the U.S., joint economic policies continue to push millions of Mexicans to make the difficult and dangerous journey north .

Many immigrant rights advocates consider Mexico’s stance to be hypocritical, as Central American migrants passing through the country hoping to reach the U.S. often face severe human rights abuses both at the hands of Mexican authorities and organized crime. Failing to address the roots of migration for both Central American and Mexican migrants ensures that mass immigration will continue. While this link remains missing in government debate, Obama and Calderón’s joint stance against SB 1070 law does acknowledge that the legal and social system that many workers will continue are entering does need fixing.

Obama’s Ratings Down Among Latino Population

This month, polls are showing a decrease in President Obama’s popularity among Latinos in the United States. Some say that the numbers reflect growing frustration over Obama's inaction on immigration reform.

"You have large segments of the Latino population who have as their number one legislative priority immigration reform," said Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, D-San Antonio. "The bottom line is that they haven't seen evidence of the legislation being moved in congress."

At the end of April, amidst widespread criticism of Arizona SB 1070, Obama announced that he was dropping immigration reform from his administration’s agenda this year.

A May 1st immigration rights rally (Photo Credit: National Immigration Forum)

However, controversy surrounding legislation like SB 1070 has provided an important catalyst for grassroots mobilization pushing for comprehensive immigration reform. It’s a critical time to keep the pressure on Obama and on our Congressional representatives. And based on the polls, Obama will have incentive to pay attention.

Obama and Calderón’s Washington Meeting Points to Need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Nonviolent Solutions to Drug Trafficking

By the Mexico International Team

At last week’s state meeting between Presidents Felipe Calderón and Barack Obama, the Mexican leader found himself having to answer to growing concerns about high-profile violence in Mexico. First, there was the disappearance of former PAN (National Action Party, to which Calderón also belongs) leader Diego Fernandez last week. Media reports are uncertain, but many think he has been kidnapped or murdered. Then there was the murder of mayoral candidate Jose Maria Guajardo, also of the PAN party, in the state of Tamaulipas, which media sources refer to as a “drug-plagued region”. These more recent incidents, in addition with general reports of violence along the border, leave Calderón with the duty of addressing the violence in Mexico as necessitating aid from the U.S, while assuring that the situation can be controlled and the aid will not go to waste.

Early on, Calderón attacked the Arizona immigration law, arguing that the law is discriminatory. President Obama agreed that the law “has the potential of being applied in a discriminatory fashion” and stated that it is currently under review by the Justice Department. John McCain, Republican senator from Arizona, later stated that it was “unfortunate and disappointing” that Calderón chose to comment on this particular item of policy during this state visit.

President Obama took this opportunity to address general immigration reform, saying that "the Arizona law expresses some of the frustrations the American people have had in not fixing a broken immigration system." He called upon Congress, saying that he needs 60 more votes in the Senate. However, the need for immigration reform was illustrated much more poignantly by a little girl in Maryland, whose school was visited by First Ladies Michelle Obama and Margarita Zavala on May 19th. The girl asked if Barack Obama was really “taking away” undocumented immigrants, adding that her mother “doesn’t have papers.” Michelle Obama also called upon Congress in fielding the question, stating that “everybody’s got to work together on that in Congress.”

During his address of a joint session of Congress, Calderón referred to the record number of extraditions of high-level traffickers to the United States as proof that Mexico is taking the drug war seriously. With funds provided by the U.S. through the Mérida Initiative, Calderón has carried out an intensive military strategy to deal with the drug violence. However, during this visit, President Obama took some responsibility for the role of the U.S. has played in creating this problem: both drug demand and arms imported from the U.S. fuel drug trafficking and ensuing violence in Mexico.

In the face of increasing violence, it is clear that the Mérida Initiative’s emphasis on police and military funding is ineffective. Even record numbers of extraditions have done little to quell drug trafficking. The violence does, however, force many people to seek work and homes elsewhere, and many choose to migrate to the U.S, where they often face discrimination.

Ironically, President Calderón, said that “the time has come to reduce the causes of migration and turn this into a legal, orderly and secure flow of workers and visitors,” when it is so often policies created collaboratively by the U.S. and Mexican governments that are at the roots of migration. As long as policies putting free trade and militarism over people continue, people have no choice but to leave their homes.