"Water YES, Life YES, Cyanide NO, Mine NO"

Environmentalists in Mexico and across the world celebrated on Nov. 19, after Canadian company New Gold announced that it was to suspend activities at the controversial San Xavier mine. The decision comes on the back of mounting criticism and legal threats over the company’s operations in the town of Cerro de San Pedro.

The controversy dates back to 1995, when New Gold’s Mexican subsidiary MSX arrived at the small town in central Mexico, ostensibly to carry out a project in search of minerals. After setting up shop in Cerro de San Pedro, the company began blasting the nearby mountain in search of silver and gold.

The plan entailed the use of 25 tons of explosives per day to extract 80,000 tons of raw material for processing. The project involved the creation of a crater, 0.6 miles wide and almost 1000 feet deep inside the mountain. The project also involved untold damage to the town, a heritage site and “protected area” due to its historical importance as it was settled in 1583 and is the first town of the Mexican state of San Luis Potosí.

The San Xavier mine in the town of Cerro de San Pedro

There were also health concerns over the project. The capital city of San Luis Potosí lies only 5 miles from the MSX site. Its 1.5 million residents soon began to receive a dangerous cocktail of dust, gas, ammonium nitrate, diesel and TNT, generated by the project’s explosions and carried by westerly winds to the nearby population center. MSX also revealed that 25% of the hydrogen cyanide used in the mining process evaporated, creating clouds containing hydrogen cyanide that journeyed ominously towards the city of San Luis Potosí. It was also claimed that local water supplies were contaminated as a result of pollution from the project.

In 1999, to the bewilderment of environmentalists and despite local opposition, the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) issued an environmental impact permit to MSX. The permit was cancelled in 2004 by the Federal Tribunal of Administrative Justice, which ruled that an environmental permit could not be granted for the project under any circumstances.

The permit ping-pong persisted when in April 2006 SEMARNAT ignored the Tribunal ruling and issued a new permit based on a new environmental impact assessment. In September of this year, the court again cancelled MSX’s permit. In its ruling it chastised SEMARNAT for its role in the debacle, and lambasted MSX for continuing to operate illegally. This weekend’s celebrations were triggered when SEMARNAT officially informed MSX of the decision on Nov. 13, forcing parent company New Gold to announce suspension of activities at the MSX mine.

MSX was dealt another blow on Sunday when the Broad Opposition Front (FAO), the principal group opposing the mine, announced that it plans to register criminal charges against the San Xavier mine director, Jorge Mendizábal Acebo, for damage to the country, abuse of power, operating without a permit and other environmental crimes. It also announced the commencement of legal proceedings against New Gold and against Profepa, Mexico’s environmental law enforcement agency.

Beyond the maelstrom of legal activity, environmental activists are overjoyed at what appears to be a happy ending to a lengthy battle. Organizations such as the FAO and REMA have demonstrated the ability of grassroots movements to mobilize and defeat government organizations and powerful transnational corporations. As the local residents and environmentalists undertake an operation to restore Cerro de San Pedro to its previous historical and environmental status, fellow activists around the world should take inspiration from such a valiant victory.

Michael Collins, December 2009

michael.mc.collins(a)gmail.com

Emiliano Zapata Campesino Organization

Seventeen members of the Emiliano Zapata Campesino Organization-Carranza Region (OCEZ-RC) have been occupying the offices of the UN located in San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas since Oct. 30. They have refused to leave and are demanding the release of three of the organization’s leaders: José Manuel Hernández Martínez (Chema), José Manuel de la Torre and Roselio de la Cruz González. The three men, residents of the community of 28 de Junio in the municipality of Venustiano Carranza, Chiapas, were detained earlier that month by the Federal Attorney General’s Office.

The OCEZ-RC has a long history of fighting for campesino rights, especially the right to land.  Chiapas—one of the poorest states in Mexico—was by all accounts forgotten by the Mexican Revolution of 1910 and the land reform that resulted. Since the beginning of the 1980’s, the OCEZ has been moderately successful in occupying underused lands throughout the state and then gaining legal title for its small farmer members. This long and at times bloody conflict over land rights most recently came to a head last July when the OCEZ-RC occupied some 500 hectares.

José Manuel Hernández Martínez (Chema)

Two and a half months later, on Sep. 30, the leader of the organization, José Manuel Hernández Martínez, was arrested and charged with damage to property, robbery and invading territory. In the past, he has also been accused of being a leader of the EPR, a Mexican guerrilla group, which both he and other members of the OCEZ-RC have denied. A month later, on Oct. 24, two more leaders of the OCEZ-RC were arrested and accused of being members of a drug and arms trafficking organization known as Los Pelones.

Several national and international human rights organizations have called for investigations into claims made by the detained OCEZ-RC members of torture and forced confessions. The arrests of the three OCEZ-RC leaders do not represent a new or isolated incident in Chiapas, but is set against the background of an increasingly hostile environment for human rights defenders and social movements. The sit-in at the UN offices in San Cristobal is accompanied by a contingent of approximately 150 members and supporters of the OCEZ-RC that are engaged in a sit-in in the plaza of the San Cristobal cathedral. In addition to demands for the release of the OCEZ leaders, the group has demanded the cancellation of 11 arrest warrants for other members of the organization.

OCEZ-RC Demonstration in San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas

On Nov. 9, the OCEZ-RC held a press conference with the National Front of Struggle for Socialism (FNLS) announcing a new “National Campaign to Denounce and Reject the Criminalization of Popular Sturggles”. The campaign will continue until Dec. 15 and calls attention to the nationwide issue of the criminalization of social protest in Mexico.

For More Information (In Spanish):

Communiqué from the OCEZ-RC (29/10/09)

“National Campaign to Denounce and Reject the Criminalization of Popular Sturggles” (FNLS)

Urgent Action: The communities of Laguna Verde and 28de Junio, municipality of Venustiano Caranza, harassed and threatened by police. (Centro de Derechos Humanos Fray Bartolomé de las Casas, 25/10/09)

Mexico should carry out investigation into the torture of two campesinos. (Amnesty International-Mexico, 29/10/09)

Sunday’s march in Mexico City drew of thousands of demonstrators

Laura Carlsen

Last Saturday, before scheduled Monday talks between the Central Light and Energy Company (LFC) and the government, federal police were ordered to take over more than 50 electrical installations just before midnight. The police assaulted the premises by jumping fences and using metal-cutters to break chains and locks. Just moments after the security forces occupied the premises, President Felipe Calderon issued an executive decree to liquidate the company. The move seeks to open the state-owned utility up for privatization and eliminate one of the nation’s most active independent unions.

The decree follows a union conflict that the government fueled and then took advantage of to eliminate the company and its union. The union elections last June were contested by the losing group amid rumors that the federal government was actively fomenting division. In a warning sign, on Oct. 5 the Secretary of Labor, Javier Lozano, rejected registration of the new union leadership without waiting for a decision from the Labor Tribunal.

What’s been dubbed the “Sabadazo” or Saturday Offensive took place when the union and the government were in the middle of talks and awaiting a promised response from the Calderon administration. Once again, the Mexican government showed a propensity for unilateral blows and the use of force over dialogue. Although it had previously taken aggressive stands against unions, this is by far the biggest union-busting measure yet and has sparked widespread indignation among workers and the public.

In the middle of an economic crisis that has stripped a million people from jobs in the formal sector, some 44,000 families of electrical workers have been left without a breadwinner from one day to the next. The government has said it will pay more than $1.6 billion dollars in severance pay and benefits to the workers and over 22,000 retirees of the company. The union says members will not accept the buy-off package.

The reasons for liquidating the Central Light and Energy Company (LFC), a decentralized company of the federal Energy Commission, were 1) excessive losses, 2) energy loss due to technical causes and lack of payment for services, and 3) excessive costs for public works. Union leaders state that much of this is due to the government’s own mishandling in the administration of the entity and the lack of public investment in the company. The company receives massive state subsidies for its operations. President Felipe Calderon and the ministers of Energy, Government, Treasury, Social Development, Economy, Communications, Labor, Public Works, Environment and Agriculture signed the decree.

The Mexican Electrical Workers Union (SME, by its Spanish initials) is among the most active and independent unions in a country that has been dominated by government-affiliated unions. Its membership has led the many battles for defense of labor rights and standard of living in the country. SME leader, Martin Esparza, declared the Calderon takeover “unconstitutional” and has vowed to fight against the liquidation of the company and of the union contract. In a joint interview on MSVRadio, he spoke alongside the defeated union candidate, Alejandro Munoz, in which both declared common cause to fight against the administration’s union-busting move.

The union made it clear to the public that any interruption in services would be the fault of removing trained union electricians. The country has reported some power outages although so far service remains overall. Government spokespersons have attempted to blame the union for any interruption of services, stating that it expected acts of “sabotage.” The union adamantly denied having any intention of interrupting services.

There have been constant demonstrations since the middle-of-the-night takeover Saturday. Sunday’s march drew of thousands of demonstrators, chanting slogans against the Calderon administration and in defense of workers’ rights. One worker told this observer that even though they expected a long battle, the workers would not give up and had already received support from other Mexican unions and the public.

A flyer handed out at Sunday’s demonstration, which blocked major streets in the downtown area, notes “The federal government, through Javier Lozano Alarcon head of the Ministry of Labor, has decided to declare war on Mexican workers and especially on the Mexican Electrical Workers Union faced with its absolute failure to comply with the campaign promises of Felipe Calderon Hinojosa.”

It states that Calderon came to office promising employment and that so far in his term 1,200,000 jobs have been lost and real wages have plummeted. “What is at the bottom [of these acts] is the attempt to liquidate LFC, to privatize the electrical industry.” The government has long wanted to privatize the state-owned company as part of the third generation of structural reforms dictated by the World Bank and since the fiber optics networks are coveted by powerful economic groups in the private sector allied with the administration.

The union planned to present evidence of contract violations at the Monday meeting and enter a grievance in the courts, which according to Mexican legislation is the step prior to declaring a strike. The administration’s take over of the installations and plan to liquidate the entire company was a pre-emptive move to deny workers a right to defend their labor rights through strike if necessary. Six thousand police and security agents were sent to control the installations. There have been reports of minor skirmishes.

Luis Hernandez Navarro of La Jornada writes that the SME is the oldest union in the nation, founded in 1914. Internally, the union has a structure that combines frequent assemblies and elections with referendums and maintains real participation of the rank-and-file. Hernandez concludes, “The police and military assault on the electrical workers is a serious step backwards in the democratic life of the country. It provokes a major short circuit. It establishes a terrible precedent. It attempts to resolve a conflict created by the government itself through violence and takes us back to the darkest stages of authoritarianism. Three years into his administration, Felipe Calderon’s weakness is severe. His latest move against labor will deepen it even more.”

The decree to liquidate the LFC effectively liquidates one of the country’s most active and democratic unions at a time when the defense of workers’ rights is crucial.

The government has said it is not privatizing the state-owned enterprise but Esparza revealed that two former Secretaries of Energy, Fernando Canales Clariond and Ernesto Martens, have formed a private company to use the publicly funded LFC fiber optic network for Internet and voice services called WL Communications. Esparza reports that the businessmen have already negotiated government discounts and subsidies for the lucrative enterprise. The pattern is familiar—the majority of Mexico’s billionaires made their initial fortunes off state privatizations under scandalous terms during the Salinas administration.

The union is appealing to the Congress and the courts to declare the takeover of LFC unconstitutional. Major demonstrations will be held all week. Labor organizations around the world have issued declarations of protest against the Calderon antiunion action and in support of the SME.

Note to readers: The Americas Program will continue to cover this major event in Mexican history. We do not anticipate an interruption of services but when an entire trained workforce is replaced overnight, problems can occur. We receive our power from LFC. If you don’t hear from us, it is because we have experienced a problem and will seek other means of communication.

Letters can be sent to:
President Felipe Calderon at felipe.calderon@presidencia.gob.mx
Mexican Electrical Workers Union (SME) sinmexel@sme.org.mx

Harper, Calderon and Obama at the North American Leaders Summit. Source: EFE

Laura Carlsen

Times of crisis require bold leadership and innovative solutions. They are a sign of the need to break out of failed paradigms and unite people to create new ones.

Exactly the opposite happened when the leaders of Canada, Mexico and the United States met at the North American Leaders Summit in Guadalajara on August 9-10. Instead of leadership, Presidents Calderon and Obama and Prime Minister Harper showed a penchant for generalities, conflict avoidance and the formulaic proposals of a discredited past.

Faced with profound economic, environmental, health and security crises, our heads of state proved once again that North America doesn’t exist as a united bloc by punting on the shared issues. U.S. and Canadian leaders used the forum to reaffirm their priority on national policies, while beleaguered Mexico received little more than declarations of support for Calderon’s faltering drug war.  The lack of regional proposals and agreements raised doubts about the purpose of NAFTA’s Security and Prosperity Agreement (SPP)—the leaders didn’t even mention the executive pact that launched these summits.

Summit meetings like this are often a symbolic show of unity while the real work goes on at lower levels, below the public radar. They don’t tend to produce many “deliverables.” However, this is no excuse for the shallowness and contradictions of the Guadalajara Summit. Given the critical situation in the region, this one should have taken the bull by its horns. The populations of all three countries need deliverables from their governments—and fast.

Civil society organizations in all three nations have long protested that the NAFTA-SPP proceedings don’t represent their interests. These protests tend to flare and fade depending on the Summit calendar.

By looking at four major issues, how the leaders responded and how they could have responded, we can get a better idea of what went wrong and what a more sustained civil society agenda for regional integration could include.

1. The Crisis and NAFTA Renegotiation

The economic crisis that began in the U.S. economy has deeply affected its neighbors. The Mexican government calls it the worst crisis in thirty years: Mexico faces a 7% contraction in its economy this year; 600,000 workers lost jobs in the formal sector, real wages fell, social programs have been cut back and the foreign debt rose. The combination of lower oil income, reduced U.S. demand and other factors has hit the poor the hardest, resulting in a spike in poverty.

The Summit’s joint statement only pays lipservice to the volatile situation in Mexico, affirming, “By working together, we will accelerate recovery and job creation, and build a strong base for long-term prosperity.” It shunts the issue off to the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh, dominated by wealthy nations, and ignores regional obligations. Its calls for a stronger role of international financial institutions, especially the Inter-American Development Bank, ignore demands for reforms in those institutions to provide greater representation of developing countries and more sustainable and unconditioned loaning in the crisis.

Instead, the three leaders emphasize further deregulation of business and reject “protectionism”, with no stated role for governments, as U.S. injects unprecedented amounts of public funds into the private sector. The declaration calls for stronger intellectual property protection, confirming Mexico’s role as net payer as its government imposes crisis-induced cutbacks in education and research.

A responsible trilateral strategy for the crisis could have included the following points:

• A full review carried out by each country with input from civil society on the integral impact of NAFTA to prepare for renegotiation. Obama stated before the Summit that renegotiation would not be on the agenda, despite his campaign promises to renegotiate. While political timing is important and understandable in the United States, a review can begin immediately to provide information for a future commitment to renegotiate. The minimal reviews to date have focused only on investment and trade flows, ignoring the social and environmental impacts with no civil society participation. The effect of the agricultural chapter on Mexican farmers must be a central point of the review.
• Establishment of a trilateral crisis-response fund. This fund could be directed at sectors and regions where the crisis has hit the hardest and Mexico where the government has little budgetary capacity to restore its economy. Funds could be transferred from scandalously security-heavy aid currently flowing primarily to U.S. defense contractors and private security firms and concentrate on Mexican regions of out-migration, as well as long-term solutions of capacity building in education and research.

2. The Drug War.

The Mexican war on drugs is in its third year and the U.S. Merida Initiative is up for its last year of appropriations under the three-year package proposed by the Bush administration and authorized by Congress. Obama used the Summit to announce his continued support of the Initiative and express his “great confidence in President Calderón’s administration applying the law enforcement techniques that are necessary to curb the power of the cartels, but doing so in a way that’s consistent with human rights.” Canada also pledged support.

His statements respond to concerns about human rights violations in the Mexican drug war that led to a refusal from Sen. Leahy’s office  to accept a report from the State Department to approve 15 percent on part of the Merida Initiative funds held up by human rights conditioning.

This isn’t lack of initiative—it’s an irresponsible repetition of past errors. The results of the Calderon war on drugs and U.S. Merida Initiative include: the presence of 45,000 Mexican Army troops in the streets of Mexican communities; a sixfold increase in reported human rights violations by the army; 12,300 drug-related homicides; and no measurable decrease in the flow of illicit drugs to the U.S. market.  Drug cartels have entered into violent turf wars and a process of reorganization as a result of arrests, but interdiction actually fell by about half between 2007 and 2008, according to the 2009 U.S. Narcotics Control Strategy Report. Polls show Mexican citizens losing faith in the strategy, which has no end in sight.

Trinational commitments should have included:

• A critical review of the results of the Merida Initiative and a commitment to build a more integral and peace-oriented approach to aid to Mexico that places a high priority on human rights in the fight against organized crime. No more funds from the U.S. or Canada should be authorized until this is carried out.
• A full examination of alternatives including a health-oriented approach to addiction treatment and reduction of consumption, selective legalization and regulation to remove economic incentives for organized crime, and focused intelligence cooperation on financial structures and criminal activities. Although Obama emphasized co-responsibility, reduction demand in the U.S. has suffered a proportional decrease in funding under his administration.

3. The Swine Flu Pandemic.

North American has a responsibility to the world to get to the bottom of what happened with the swine flu pandemic. The H1N1 virus first broke out in a community called La Gloria in Mexico and was quickly dubbed the NAFTA Flu because the community is located next to a Smithfield hog farm that moved down after NAFTA and the virus spread due to the movement of pigs and labor within the region. No independent investigations have been carried out on this relationship.

The Summit “Declaration on H1N1” repeated platitudes about cooperation and a commitment to “inform future public health decisions, including the use of vaccine, antiviral, and non-pharmaceutical interventions”–mostly end solutions that enrich pharmaceutical companies.  It did not report any specific funding for research or prevention, nor discuss the heightened risk for poor populations and women.

The three governments touted the response to the swine flu as a “success story” of the SPP. In fact, nearly a week was lost in responding to the crisis. The SPP never provided the most vulnerable partner, Mexico, with the capacity to analyze viruses. Instead samples were sent to the Center for Disease Control for analysis where the process was delayed, adding to the delay by Mexican authorities in reporting the outbreak in La Gloria.

By emphasizing “the flow of people, services, and cargo across the borders during a severe pandemic while striving to protect our citizens” the SPP mistakenly prioritized trade and investment over the needed technology transfer and prevention. The press reported that Mexican officials admitted that the trilateral strategy to confront the flu pandemic includes no obligations on the part of the U.S. and Canada to assist Mexico, despite being ground zero and suffering from a seriously deficient health system.

The response of strong leaders to the swine flu epidemic should have included the following measures:

• Create a trilateral scientific commission to investigate the origins of the outbreak, with a focus on the “ground zero” discovery of the virus in La Gloria. This commission would demand independent analysis of pigs at the farm and hygiene conditions found there. Although the AFTA countries purposely missed the opportunity to do this when the disease first broke out and so may not be able to establish a cause and effect relationship after the fact, the Commission should include a scientific assessment of the possibilities for factory farms of this sort to incubate new and even more lethal viruses.
• Request NAFTA’s Commission on Environmental Cooperation to do a fact-finding report on environmental conditions at the Smithfield-Carroll and other industrial feedlots, and the relationship between NAFTA and increased environmental risks stemming from the location of these operations in Mexico where environmental laws and enforcement are weaker.
• Announce a commitment to establish a fully funded and equipped Viris Analysis Center in Mexico, including open technology transfer and licensing for public production of needed antivirals and vaccines in a public health emergency, expected in the winter flu season.

4. Migrants

At the Summit, President Obama told the press that his administration will draft legislation at the end of the year under the leadership of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, to present in early 2010. He said “I have a lot on my plate right now,” listing the priorities of healthcare and energy reforms.

Political timing is understandable, but Obama’s emphasis on building up the existing broken system while awaiting reform is not. Today, issues of immigrant detention, raids, human rights violations, the wall, Canadian visa requirement for all Mexicans and the enforcement crackdown on the U.S.-Mexico border have become as much a part of the immigration problem as the reform. Calderon did not publicly bring up these issues, nor did Obama. No mention was made of NAFTA’s contribution to soaring migration from Mexico over the past fifteen years, or the effect of the economic crisis on migration and remittances.

Calderon maintained that U.S. and Canadian investment are the key to providing jobs and keeping migrants at home, as if the last fifteen years of record investment and record out-migration had taught us nothing about the perils of leaving labor flows to market forces.

Canadian Prime Minister reaffirmed the fact that when it comes to free movement of people, NAFTA integration stops short. He said that he would not eliminate the new visa requirement for Mexicans and dumped responsibility on Parliament for failing to reform a refugee system that has receive “too many” requests from Mexicans.

Real proposals should have included:

• The U.S. and Canadian governments pledge to finance a fund for job generation in sending communities to stem the flow of out-migration and contribute to local development. This would cost a fraction of what the U.S. spends on immigration enforcement and again could be transferred out of financing for the disastrous drug war strategy.
• Canada announces a deadline for elimination of the visa requirement for Mexican citizens. While the leaders claim a commitment to more complete integration, imposing an onerous visa requirement on all Mexican citizens to filter asylum requests contradicts the commitment. Canada must develop screening processes within the refugee system and address the legitimate reasons behind increased Mexican requests, which include threats of violent reprisals from organized crime, economic refugees due to job displacement caused by NAFTA, domestic violence against women and refugees from environmental disasters. 

Organizations from these three nations have long complained that the Bush administration carefully designed the SPP as a forum for a renewed corporate offensive on national laws and interests and a staging ground for U.S. military and intelligence expansion, with no citizen input and a lack of transparency.

Integrated Risks

After fifteen years, rather than a united region with common interests, NAFTA-SPP has created a region of integrated risks rather than risk management. Regional cooperation must find ways to resolve increasingly conflicting national and domestic interests by incorporating all stakeholders. NAFTA and the SPP as they stand now formally exclude all but security and commercial interests. As Obama has noted repeatedly, the subordinated labor and side agreements do not mitigate that central fact. 

If North America really functioned as a bloc in the international market, or even as a region of shared challenges, the three leaders would have tackled the issues above, instead of  assuaging them with rhetoric.

If the three leaders are unwilling to produce publicly announced, substantive results in the SPP process—or whatever they currently choose to call the summits—then U.S., Canadian and Mexican taxpayers should demand a halt to the costly summits until a new structure is in place that takes into account citizens’ diverse interests and grapples with issues firmly, fairly and openly.

Mexico’s militarized drug war.  Source: militarismomexico.blogspot.com

Last week Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) made it clear that he would block the human rights report on Mexico that is set as a condition for releasing remaining funds through the Merida Initiative.  The report is to be presented by Sec. of State Clinton to the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee that  Sen. Leahy chairs, but was held up late last week despite efforts on the part of officials from both the U.S. and Mexico to negotiate with the State Department and several U.S. legislators for a favorable report.

Leahy’s foreign policy aide, Tim Rieser, told officials that there is evidence that the Mexican government has not complied with the four conditions put down in the Merida Initiative legislation.  Leahy’s office has concurred with several Mexican and international human rights organizations that human rights violations continue in Mexico’s war on drugs and in fact have increased. In Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s short two and a half years in office, violations have risen 600%, with an average of 140 complaints filed against the army per month. These includes serious violations such as torture, homicide, forced disappearances and illegal raids.

A Breakdown on Merida Initiative Conditions

Under the Initiative, also known as Plan Mexico, Congress must withhold 15 percent of a portion of the funds pending a State Department report proving progress in four areas of human rights:

1. Improve the transparency and accountability of Federal police forces and to work with State and municipal authorities to improve the transparency and accountability of State and municipal police forces through mechanisms including police complaints commissions with authority and independence to receive complaints and carry out effective investigations;
2. Conduct regular consultations with Mexican human rights organizations and other relevant Mexican civil society organizations on recommendations for the implementation of the Merida Initiative in accordance with Mexican and international law;
3. Ensure that civilian prosecutors and judicial authorities are investigating and prosecuting, in accordance with Mexican and international law, members of the Federal police and military forces who have been credibly alleged to have violated internationally recognized human rights, and the Federal police and military forces are fully cooperating with the investigations; and
4. Enforce the prohibition, in accordance with Mexican and international law, on the use of testimony obtained through torture or other ill-treatment.

This will be the first report issued by the State Department, although the Merida Initiative has received funding for 2008, 2009 and a supplemental for 2009 for a total of $1.1 billion—all of which contain the report requirement. The exact amount of funds conditioned is not easy to calculate. The complex language and hidden sections of the legislation have brought about different estimates from different sources. In the 2008 appropriations the funding under the headings for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) and Foreign Military Financing (FMF) are subject to the human rights withholding, adding up to $24,675,000 of the total $400,000,000. In the Merida Initiative section of the 2009 Omnibus bill some $33,750,000 is withheld out of the $300,000,000 for Mexico approved by Congress.

CASA 235

More recently there has been additional spending approved by Congress including a supplemental bill that allocated another $420,000,000 in funds to aid Calderon.  In the Supplemental spending, the conditioning changed. To make sure that the Mexican Navy would receive the three CASA 235s that the U.S. had promised, the supplemental exempts FMF funding—the most sensitive in terms of in human rights violations—from all conditioning.  In addition, no specific amount is given for the “judicial reform, institution building, anti-corruption, and rule of law activities” exceptions to the conditioning for the remainder of the funds.  However, based on the prior legislation, an educated guess can be made that some $13,000,000 could be withheld.

The Merida Initiative´s final year of authorized funding awaits approval in Congress now. It would grant an additional $236,000,000 to Mexico´s drug war.  Again, the legislation does not spell out the amount exempted from conditioning, but it is likely to be around $24,500,000 if previous rules apply. In all, it’s safe to say that if the Calderon administration cannot prove that it is making real progress on reigning in human rights violations by its security forces it stands to lose a total of nearly $96,000,000 in U.S. support.

Human rights organizations and the press have been questioning the State Department about the missing human rights report in the face of increasing evidence of human rights violations by the Mexican military prompting suspicion that the Mexican government would not pass on the conditions. With the North American Leaders’ Summit coming up Aug. 11 in Guadalajara, the State Department wanted to show full support for Calderon’s offensive against drug cartels by releasing the funds. Leahy´s objections to a whitewash on Mexican human rights sent them back to the drawing board with their report.

Robert Wood, the State spokesperson said that “the report is still in the draft stage. And we’re currently reviewing information that we’ve received over the last week for inclusion in the 15 percent report. I just want to be very clear here. Our goal is to try to produce as comprehensive a report as possible, so as – that Congress can fully understand the steps that the Mexican Government is taking to deal with protecting and expanding human rights in Mexico.”

His response shows that the State staff is not looking to produce a balanced report, but to marshal evidence that will convince Congress to rubber-stamp a pass for the Mexican government. To the frustration and disappointment of human rights and citizen groups on both sides of the border, the Obama administration has decided that the Merida Initiative military and security financing is the test of friendship between the neighboring nations, virtually ignoring development or poverty alleviation funding as Mexico faces its deepest crisis in the past decades.

It also ignores the imbalance and lack of results of the Calderon-Merida model. Wood dodged a question on that issue:

QUESTION: “But I mean, what he’s (Leahy) complaining about is he feels that there’s an overemphasis on military strategy and not enough about the rule of law and human rights and the other things that make up into a counternarcotics strategy.

MR. WOOD: Well, look, we’ve had conversations with the senator and his staff. And I know that there are those concerns out there. But certainly, we believe President Calderon is doing everything he can to try to improve the situation in Mexico with regard to human rights, particularly as it concerns the security forces. What we’re trying to do is to, as I said, get as comprehensive a picture for Congress so they can understand the steps that the Mexicans are taking.”

Militarization: A Failed Policy

Despite all of the numbers and reports and legislation, Mexico cannot be approved on the human rights conditions in a fair and honest report. As reports of human rights violations increase (and many go unreported for lack of faith in the justice system), the Armed Forces refuse to submit to civilian courts. Although the offensive targets drug-traffickers, human rights organizations have shown that often the victims of human rights violations are innocent civilians. Reports from the border indicate the widespread use of torture as an interrogation technique in the drug war. In addition—and perhaps more importantly—the militarization of Mexico has increased at an alarming rate since Calderon began his war on drugs.  This has meant more fear and fewer liberties.

Detained members of the Indigenous Me’phaa People’s Organization. Source: SIPAZ

One of the first freedoms on the chopping block has been social protest. Popular organizations and their leaders, human rights defenders and progressive movements have been targeted in this war with the pretext of fighting drug trafficking and organized crime.  This is most evident in places like the state of Guerrero where indigenous and campesino rights defenders have been harassed, imprisoned and even killed in the last year.

Even the non-military sections of the Inititiave have been criticized by members of the Mexican Congress and civil liberties experts. Changes to the justice system supported by the U.S. and funded in part through USAID with funds from the Merida Initiative create a two-track system of justice whereby individuals accused of organized crime may be treated differently and subjected to unconscionably long periods in police custody with little or no communication with the outside world before they are even charged.  This practice known in Mexico as arraigo has been documented as the point in which most torture and falsification of crimes takes place.  With a definition of organized crime that is much broader than that used in the U.S., this system can be used against social organizations as evidenced in the recent case of Zapatista supporters in Chiapas, accused of organized crime and placed under arraigo.

Even staunch supporters of Calderon have come out against the interdiction/enforcement model reinforced through the Merida Initiative. Ramón Galindo, a Mexican senator and Calderon supporter, voiced his concern stating that, “The people of Mexico are losing hope, and it is urgent that Congress, the political parties and the president reconsider this strategy.”  The senator has called on the president to reconsider his tactics and push for stronger local communities while relying less on the military.

What the U.S. Should Do

In light of growing human rights violations and increasing militarization, the real question is not whether the less than 15 percent should be released or not, but why the Obama administration has decided to make a dangerous and demonstrably ineffective security initiative its flagship program in one of its most sensitive and critical binational relationships. The initiative bolsters President Calderon but forgets that he governs in a nation of 110 million, not one. At least part of the population has serious misgivings about accepting the social costs of applying the drug war model. The report that Leahy blocked declaring that Mexico is making acceptable progress in human rights would have been a slap in the face to Mexican human rights organizations documenting the increase in violations and to citizens who live amid the violence unleashed in the drug war and the repression of military-occupied cities and communities.

Obama is traveling to the Mexican city of Guadalajara this coming week to meet with Calderon Canada’s Prime Minister Harper in a meeting of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). The Merida Initiative arose out of the larger scheme of the SPP, which pushed “security” to the forefront of relations between the three North American neighbors. As the U.S. accelerates and arms the drug war in Mexico, it has done little to stop the flow of arms to Mexico or abate the demand for the illegal drugs that the Mexican cartels supply.  This is not helping the security of either nation and has proven counterproductive in terms of citizen safety.

Rather than continue the decades-old “war on drugs” model, Obama and his administration should be supporting long-term solutions that strengthen Mexican civil society rather than too-often corrupt security forces. Such a strategy, or combination of strategies, must focus on reducing demand and addressing the public health issues that drug abuse poses rather than fighting a war that cannot be won and includes citizens and their rights among the casualties. It must include more effective intelligence cooperation to attack the financial structures of the cartels, rather than funding military occupation and confrontation. The Bush-era Merida Initiative should be totally revamped, conditions or no conditions.

 

Obama and Calderon met in Mexico City on April 16

President Obama’s visit to Mexico has produced vague and contradictory statements, centered on worn-out strategies. Many people who had hoped for a new approach that would seek to redress the inequities of the binational relationship will find little in these declarations to pin their hopes on.  

Obama began by enthusiastically endorsing President Felipe President Calderón. He expressed his “admiration” for Calderon’s “courage” in the increasingly bloody drug war and went so far as to promote Calderon’s bid to host the next UN Climate Change meeting.

These overtures no doubt served to decrease tensions between the two governments that built up following U.S. statements of the Mexico as a near “failed state” that was losing a grip on its own territory to drug cartels, and a potential national security threat.  But by focusing the trip on the person of Calderón and seeking to bolster his leadership rating, Obama forgets that Calderón is a polemical president in a deeply divided nation as a result of both his rightwing policies and the doubts of legitimacy that hang over his presidency.

Obviously, Calderón is Obama’s formal counterpart but the unnecessary accolades rankle among the 50% of the population who felt defrauded by his court-determined ascendency to office.  Note that Calderón did not spend time praising the person of Obama who, in fact, was not his preferred candidate in the 2008 elections.

The proposals held forth by the two presidents for the most part were either too vague to evaluate or did not respond to the needs of their respective publics. Calderón offered proposals to deepen NAFTA by building infrastructure on the border to increase economic flows, reforms in customs rules and elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers. In doing so, he fell back on the debunked argument that by competing as a bloc in an unregulated global economy, both countries will someday enjoy prosperity.  This at a time when that model has collapsed, leaving millions of people out of work on both sides of the border.

Meanwhile, Mexican peasant farmers who have been forced off their land by U.S imports were preparing a demonstration to call for renegotiation of the agricultural chapter of the agreement.

As predicted, both presidents confirmed their commitment to a militarized and unsuccessful “war on drugs” in Mexico. Obama did state that the binational relationship should not be defined only by security issues, but in terms of real programs–of putting one’s money where one’s mouth is–that remains the case. The Merida Initiative increased aid to Mexico tenfold in one area—security. This model, which employs the army to cut off the supply of illegal drugs, has no record of success in any part of the world. On the other hand, we know it causes extensive environmental damage, violence, displacement, violation of human rights and curtailment of civil liberties.

The energy and “green jobs” proposals were unclear. Mexicans are wary of proposals to commit energy resources in the way that the Canadians have had to under NAFTA and there is also considerable criticism of carbon markets as a market-based alternative to needed regulation on polluting emissions.

The bright spot on the horizon of this troubled US-Mexico relations is the issue of immigration. Obama reiterated his commitment to legalization of Mexican undocumented workers established north of the border, while paying some penalties. Recent news stories indicate that he is moving on this commitment. Calderón offered no concrete proposals to generate or preserve jobs in areas of high expulsion nor did Obama offer proposals in this crucial area.

Up to now, both have avoided controversial issues—the renegotiation of NAFTA, corruption, inequality or, directly, the economic crisis. They did not speak of specific measures to generate employment in Mexico or alleviate the crushing poverty that affects millions of Mexican families.

The involvement of the U.S. government in Mexico’s national security apparatus, advanced through the Merida Initiative–the military and police aid package designed by the Bush administration and passed by Congress, raises sensitive issues of sovereignty. Tagging on measures within the U.S. does not erase those fears or the ill-conceived emphasis on Mexico’s part of the transnational problem.

Likewise, good intentions and empty declarations do not resolve the problem of the profound asymmetries and inequalities locked in by NAFTA that feed migration from Mexico to the U.S.

These issues will be a part of the agenda at the Summit of the Americas. There, the alternatives to corporate-led globalization that are being developed throughout the hemisphere will have a central place, putting into relief the failure of the old models. 

Presidents Obama and Calderon have an obligation to revise their proposals and seek a “new era” that really responds to the multiple crises—economic, financial, environmental, social and security—that characterize this moment in the binational relationship.

The “model city” of Medellín whitewashes the violence and poverty of everyday life in the outlying comunas. [Source: www.skyscraperlife.com]

I arrived in Medellin to participate in a series of events called “IDB: 50 years of Financing Inequality” held parallel to the annual meeting of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). It was late and the airport was filled with escorts who shepherded the suit-and-tied official delegates to waiting cabs. The usual response at these meetings when you say you’re with the alternative civil society groups is a shrug that means “you’re on your own,” so I was surprised when the IDB guys insisted I go in one of their free cabs.

I later realized the insistence was part of the campaign to make sure that Bank visitors experienced only the official version of Medellin. The city has been billed as the hemisphere’s success story in the drug war. In October of 2002 the government came in with Black Hawks and troops, rooting out leftist guerrillas and drug cartels and killing scores of residents. The second phase was demobilizing paramilitaries. Homicides dropped from a world record rate in the mid-nineties and a series of heavily financed infrastructure projects helped polish the city’s new image.

But I couldn’t help noticing the way camouflage-garbed soldiers with machine guns that suddenly appeared along the side of the road like a shoot-‘em-up video game. Or how when the hotel’s street was barricaded by armed police and shields, the cab driver wouldn’t let me walk the half block by myself.

The stories and rumors of a very different reality in Medellin began surfacing immediately. One friend was assigned a security escort to accompany him to the university, with the instructions, “If there’s a bomb or shooting, just do what he does.” Another was full body-searched as he stood talking to a group of young men. Bogota papers reported that an anonymous note was sent out throughout the city warning mothers that if they wanted to keep their sons alive they should keep them in the house after 10 o’clock at night. Four thousand police were sent into the slums to make sure the poor behaved for the bankers’ reunion.  Gay men, prostitutes and bums had been rounded up and removed from public view.

What I was seeing and hearing contradicted the official propaganda so I set out to make sure I wasn’t exaggerating and confirm the rumors. But things just got worse. A local organizer explained that the 10 p.m. curfew had been announced not only in Medellin but throughout the department of Antioquia. Nobody knew for sure who made the threat—the paramilitaries or the army itself. Newspapers and residents confirmed the other rumors.

As we set out to visit a poor comuna—slum area—the driver described the “vacunas” or vaccinations, a form of extortion where the paramilitaries charge small businesses for protection. Payments are in cash or a promise to buy from paramilitary-run businesses. The paramilitary forces are far from demobilized here. They are armed and active.

In fact, the homicide rate has been rising sharply in Medellin. In some areas, inter-mafia turf wars have erupted again. Violence touches so many lives here. In some neighborhoods in the Santo Domingo comuna where we met with a resident organization, 70% of residents are “desplazados” who moved there after being uprooted from their homes and losing loved ones. The residents explain that government repression against citizen movements is so heavy that major public protests are out of the question. When the neighborhood forum broke up and the participants marched a few blocks together, nearly fifty police emerged from where they had been monitoring the event and moved on to another area.

I know the differences between Mexico and Colombia. But I can’t help thinking we could end up like this if Mexico continues with present policies.  The militarization of society is already a reality and in some places citizens have lost freedom of movement. A corrupt government emboldened by the war on drugs extends its own power while criminalizing dissidence and youth.

Let’s hope Medellin is not a mirror of Mexico’s future.

For More Information:

IDB annual meeting to showcase Medellin renaissance (People’sDaily, 27/03/09)

Medellin cleans up its act (Los Angeles Times, 26/03/09)