US mainstream press notices child migrants, tells half the story

There has been a blitz of stories over the past couple of weeks on child migrants arriving on the U.S.'s southern border. For many of us in Mexico, this is nothing new. But US press attention to it is relatively new, as one major media outlet after another features stories on the plight of unaccompanied minors.

It's a positive step that these kids do not remain invisible. What they go through should be cause for indignation on a global level. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees issued a report last March that found that half had experienced or been threatened with serious harm on the journey north.

But most of these mainstream press stories are telling half-truths about child victims while muddling or downright manipulating the question of who and what is responsible.

The New York Times, AP and others outlets have been running stories that follow a pattern of emphasizing two general conclusions. One, that parents in the United States are selfishly and irresponsibly encouraging this phenomenon and putting their own children at risk by sending them north and, two, that more children are migrating to the United States because they perceive Obama administration policies and practices as lenient on child migrants and think they have a good chance of staying--even if they get caught.

Although many of these stories mention conditions of poverty and violence in the places where the children come from, they almost never mention how these places have become so poor and violent, or much less the direct role that U.S. foreign policy has played in making them that way and forcing the children to leave.

To give a few examples: In April the NYT ran a story on child migration focused on a 12 year-old Ecuadorean girl who apparently committed suicide in a shelter in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. The article stressed the grandparents' reluctance to let her go and the insistence of the parents, who live in New York. It described the lone terror of the girl and her body found in the shower. it did not delve into the circumstances or the allegations that Mexican police captured her before her arrival at the shelter or why her parents could not provide for their family in Ecuador.

Readers were left with the impression that it was the parents that were to blame, not a system of injustice that stretched from the Andes to the US-Mexico border. This induced conclusion was reflected in the gist of many of the hundreds of comments on the page that expressed genuine compassion for the death of the dark-eyed child in indigenous dress, but also many variations on this comment: "The parents are at the root of this crime".

An AP story June 3 leads with a 14 year-old boy heading north with friends, saying that he had heard that minors were being allowed to stay in the U.S. Alhough the story later mentions the conditions of violence in his native Honduras, again there is no context and the boys seem to be going to the border to take advantage of the US government's largesse--a message sure to inflame anti-immigrant forces.

The AP follows up with this interpretation in a June 6 story stating the thesis explicitly: "Rumors of asylum raise hopes for migrant families". These stories present anecdotal evidence of the thesis that the spike in child migration is due to hopes of being allowed to stay, in the form of interviews that often appear to have been reporter-led into giving this as the cause. In fact, none of the unbiased surveys on reasons for leaving list lenient migration practices in the U.S. as a major cause.

The predictable result of the spate of articles on children migrants is to urge the creation of more detention facilities (potentially good news for the private prison industries) and call for an end to releases, as noted in the AP article:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry last week asked that the Department of Homeland Security stop releasing immigrants with notices to appear. On Monday, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer asked the same for the hundreds of immigrants, mostly women and children, who in recent weeks have been flown to Arizona from South Texas for processing.

Following the thread, a New York Times article June 7 called "Child Migrants Strain Make-Shift Arizona Shelter" described a veritable junior brown tide pouring into the US and echoed the criticisms of Arizona's anti-immigrant governor Janet Brewer regarding administration efforts to house the migrants.

“I am disturbed and outraged that President Obama’s administration continues to implement this dangerous and inhumane policy, meanwhile neglecting to answer crucial questions our citizens demand and deserve,” the governor, a Republican, said in a statement late Friday.

Not once did the article bother to cite an immigrant or an immigrants' rights advocate, of which there are, fortunately, many in Arizona. Much less did it or any of the other articles on the issue mention a need for policies that would facilitate family reunification.

Children in harm's way
No one would argue that it is a good idea to attempt to bring a child to the United States without a trusted companion. Note that these children are not usually "unaccompanied". Their parents have paid large sums of money to smugglers to bring them over the border safely. But they often do not know the smugglers and human smuggling has become a big business for organized crime over the past decade, thanks in large part to increased security making it necessary for anyone trying to cross to hire professional help. As the cost of crossing went up, organized crime recognized a new business opportunity and replaced independent coyotes or relatives in getting migrants over the border.

The press stories seek to pull heartstrings over the trials and traumas of the kids, while containing a strong hidden message of opprobrium against the parents. How could they let this happen? How selfish of them to expose their children to such perils! 

Maybe the reporters and publishers don't have children. Or maybe they do, and they simply cannot imagine what it's like to know your son is growing up and you cannot be there for him, or to mark your daughter's birthday on a calendar and wonder what she looks like now. This heart-wrenching tragedy, repeated millions-fold, is the direct result of US immigration policies.

A New York Times editorial at least took a somewhat more compassionate view of the situation, recognizing the "false narrative" of the enforcers:

The crisis comes at a bad moment in America’s stalemated immigration debate, with Republicans gleefully seizing on a situation seemingly tailored to fit their false narrative, that any reform short of an aggressively militarized border will create yet another magnet to pull more of the wretched poor over our border, and that all the chaos in the system is Mr. Obama’s fault.

As an example, it quoted Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee:

“Word has gotten out around the world about President Obama’s lax immigration enforcement policies, and it has encouraged more individuals to come to the United States illegally... Enforcement at the border and in the interior of the U.S. is crucial to end these kinds of situations, not another bureaucratic task force.”

The editorial emphasized the "push" factors and that children "are fleeing for their lives". It called for the government to humanely attend to the flows but did not mention longer-term solutions regarding disastrous U.S. policies in their home countries.

On June 3, President Obama referred to the "humanitarian crisis" and issued a memorandum calling for the formation of a "Unified Coordination Group" to attend to unaccompanied children migrants. He asked for $1.4 billion dollars to create infrastructure for the influx of minors.

An article in VOX notes that the US government seems to understand that the real solution lies in improving conditions in countries of origin but has failed to address them:

Ultimately, any long-term solution has to address not only the "pull factors" that bring children here, but the "push factors" that drive them out of their own countries. The federal government appears to understand this, but there aren't many good ideas for how to deal with it. Last week, Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of Homeland Security, suggested to Congress that the US government could launch a public-awareness campaign in Central American countries to advertise the dangers of migrating to the United States.

Again the "solution" suggested blames the victims for risking the journey.

So why does the mainstream press seek to place the blame on the parents and a supposed softening of immigration policy?

Because the alternative to blaming migrant families themselves is unpalatable to them.

The alternative is to accept that the Central American and North American Free Trade Agreements have left thousands of youth with no economic opportunities.

It is to accept that US security aid for drug wars has armed and aggravated violence in Mexico and Central America.

It is to understand the high cost of supporting the Honduran coup and how the Honduran people and the US population continue to pay that price, as out migration has surged over 500% in the past two years and human rights violations, instability and violence are skyrocketing.

In my travels to migrant shelters and interviews with migrants coming through Mexico I have found that, astoundingly, they do realize the risks and yet decide to make the journey anyway.

The public-awareness campaign we really need is one addressed to U.S. citizens and Congress regarding the impact of economic and security polices on their southern neighbors, and especially on the children.

Then we need a public action campaign to do something about it.

UPDATE: Here's an interesting post on the legal aspects. Note the graph on where the child migrants come from.
NOTE June13: Still trying to get to the bottom of this. These figures indicate that there is no doubt about the surge in detentions of child migrants, in Texas ONLY. No other crossing point even shows an increase while the Texas figure is more than twice as high. Is this at least partly a result of a state of Texas policy decision to apprehend more child migrants?  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/10/number-of-latino-children-caught-trying-to-enter-u-s-nearly-doubles-in-less-than-a-year/

Tamaulipas: Mexico's black hole gets even more dangerous

The English-language press has given an unusual amount of attention to Tamaulipas lately, soon after the federa government declared it the crisis state in turn and launched a federal offensive against organized crime there.

Tamaulipas is, indeed, on fire again, as is Ciudad Juarez. The specific reasons are different, but one thing is clear: that calling in the Army will not solve the problem. We have only to look back at Operation Chihuahua to see that.

A recent piece in InSight Crime titled "How Federal Security Deployments in Mexico Are Set Up to Fail" also argues that the federal efforts will not succeed. InSight Crime analyses are often not very deep and this one isn't an exception. However, they often gather interesting facts in one place and address current issues.

The main argument is that local corruption will always undermine federal law enforcement efforts. The criticism I have is first, the data offered on the corruption of local and state officials is important and undoubtedly affects the effectiveness of federal intervention, but the implication is that federal troops and forces are not corrupt. This is not true. Yet there is no mention of the collusion with crime and corruption that occur among federal forces.

Secondly, he report starts with teh premise that Tamaulipas was a success story last year with a significantly lower homicide rate. I was suspicious of the low 2013 homicide figure and in any case would not accept these government figures at face value. The government practice last year was to under-report violence, including through suppression of the press.

But actually the problem with the report is even worse. When I checked the citation, the number of homicides reported for Tamaulipas in 2013 is actually 1,043--twice what the author states. I requested an explanation from InSight Crime but have not heard back. Another lesson in being wary of reported data. Not only are government sources vastly under-reported (these are only homicides reported to the Public Ministry in a nation and state where few people choose to report crimes), but reporters and researchers make mistakes or manipulate data.

This year, the SNSP--a system of the Ministry of the Interior (Gobernación)--reports 553 murders in Tamaulipas through April, putting it on track to become a record year for violence there under the Peña Nieto administration that promised that public safety rather than the drug war would be its major priority.

In other reports, Washington Post reporter Joshua Partlow has been in Tamaulipas and offers some rare glimpses into daily life there. Most of what he describes has been common for years, although the shoot-outs have stepped up. He interviews residents accustomed to extortion and people who have to go to extraordinary measures to carry out their ordinary activities.

This June 2 piece by the Guardian also tells an interesting story of the death of Tampico over the years.  An earlier article signaled the renewed violence. This article quotes a Mexican government agent reaffirming what was already clear--that in fact the Peña nieto government is bent on fighting Calderon and the U.S. government's drug war no matter what the results are for the population:

The state government spokesman Guillermo Martínez said this week that the resurgence of violence in Tamaulipas was the result of government successes in "squeezing" the criminal groups. "The important thing is that we are facing the problem head on," he said.

I'll be writing more extensively on Tamaulipas within the next couple of months. It is probably among the most difficult places to envision solutions to the fatal combination of governmental corruption and organized crime because the situation is exacerbated by the breakdown and fear among civil society. As the articles note, many have fled across the border an the rest have mostly learned to adapt the an extreme situation.

Tamaulipas has always been the black hole of Mexico--a place where people are unwilling to go into for fear of not coming out, a place where rule of law is practically non-existent and information is scarce.

- Laura Carlsen

The Philippines and Mexico: Emerging Markets? Think Again.

Foreign Policy in Focus, May 16, 2014.  

The Philippines and Mexico: Emerging Markets? Think Again.

Fellow columnist at FPIF Walden Bello, a prominent expert and critic of globalization, has written a fascinating article on Mexico and the Philippines as the new darlings of the international finance world. In the article he brilliantly summarizes the three phases of the global crisis and how these two countries have risen to stardom in the current phase of the crisis.

What we see is a the latest effort to create a self-fulfilling prophesy: by using Wall Street and Madison Avenue echo chambers, speculators hope to generate a climate that attracts investment so their fantastic predictions for these two "emerging economies" will come true.

Of course, as Walden points out, this requires hiding some pretty ugly facts about these nations' economies. Like massive poverty, inequality, crime and corruption. I talked about some of these myths regarding the enthusiasm for Mexico in a BBC article (in Portuguese) earlier this year. 

He concludes:

The aura that surrounds them [Mexico and the Philippines] at present reflects less the realities of their economies than the desperate fantasies of international finance capital and the partisans of a failed globalization.

Well worth a read.   Read the article here.

NYT Article Highlights US NSA Corporate Spying, Mentions Spying on Mexican Oil Company

New York Times, May 21,  "Fine Line Seen in U.S. Spying on Companies"
The New York Times ran an article today noting that the Chinese have accused the NSA of applying a double standard regarding spying on companies to obtain trade advantages. Although the article leaves a lot out and uses language like "digging into corporations" instead of infiltrating their communications, it is exceptionally bold in implying that a double standard exists:

In each of these cases, American officials insist, when speaking off the record, that the United States was never acting on behalf of specific American companies. But the government does not deny it routinely spies to advance American economic advantage, which is part of its broad definition of how it protects American national security. In short, the officials say, while the N.S.A. cannot spy on Airbus and give the results to Boeing, it is free to spy on European or Asian trade negotiators and use the results to help American trade officials — and, by extension, the American industries and workers they are trying to bolster.

Among the things the article almost says but steps back from the brink of actually documenting with existing information from the NSA leaks, is that:
1) NSA stolen data is used to help US companies compete in the global market. This violation of basic trade rules caused Brazil to snub Boeing and go with Saab for a long-coveted $4.5 billion contract for jet fighters shortly after the NSA scandal broke.

In the context of all we now know about NSA operations thanks to whistleblower Edward Snowden, the defense offered by national intelligence director James Clapper rings hollow indeed:

“What we do not do, as we have said many times,” James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, said after some of the initial N.S.A. revelations last year, “is use our foreign intelligence capabilities to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies on behalf of — or give intelligence we collect to — U.S. companies to enhance their international competitiveness or increase their bottom line.”

2) NSA spying operations make a mockery of the US's draconian global intellectual property crusade.

3) The NSA defends its disregard for international or local laws abroad. The New York Times puts it  euphemistically: "The N.S.A. says it observes American law around the globe, but admits that local laws are no obstacle to its operations." That the law is no obstacle is a polite way of saying that it is wantonly disregarded.

All this is critical to Mexico as it reviews the implementing legislation on energy reforms. We have always known that PEMEX is among NSA targets--and not just for national security reasons. The agency is ascertaining reserves, the shape of reforms, conditions for investment. Glenn Greenwald says in an interview with CNN Español in September of last year:

There are documents that indicate that one of the issues they most spy on Mexico for is energy and oil. They (the NSA) are interested in these issues, not just national security or drugs like most people think. They are interested in economic and energy resource issues." (my translation)

 The Mexican government is carefully controlling information that could affect the future of the energy sector privatization legislation. Information that the Chinese will present regarding NSA spying to benefit U.S. corporations will not help to convince those who are already reluctant to relinquish Mexican natural resource management (and profits) to U.S. oil companies.

Laura's Blog: The Iceberg in the Desert

Mexican new reports state that 162 migrants were rescued from clandestine camps by the Mexican Army on April 3 and freed. During rounds, soldiers of the 45th Batallion discovered four camps in Saric, Sonora, near the U.S. border, located on the edge of the Sasabe desert, a common crossing zone that has recently become an area teeming with organized crime groups seeking to use crossers to carry contraband.

The Secretary of Defense release gave very few details, stating,

Among the persons liberated were 97 mexicanos, 60 Guatemalans, three Hondurans and 2 Salvadorans, who appeared in good health and were placed in the hands of the corresponding authorities.

The brief note leaves a lot of questions unanswered. It does not tell us who was holding the migrants (if they were kdnapped, they had to have guards), nor why, according to the information provided, not one single culprit was arrested. 

It does not tell us if drugs, arms, cash or other possible contraband was found at the scene of the alleged crime. We don't know how many are men, how many are women, what their ages are or where they were heading. We also don't know what states they are from or if they are indigenous.

The authorities have this information but the fact that it has been reserved from publication creates deep doubts regarding any subsequent investigation or judicial process.

Once again, nameless victims make ephemeral headlines under strange conditions. Then they disappear into anonymity, taking the dark secrets of what really happened with them.

For public consumption, there is only this (again, from SEDENA):

With these actions, the Mexican Army and the Air Force are working alongside the efforts of the Government of the Republic to attain a Mexico in peace, affirming its commitment to guarantee the security and tranquility of the citizenry.

The release of captive migrants is cause for celebration. And 162 is a huge number. But I, for one, don't feel tranquil.

If this represents the tip of the iceberg--and that seems to be the case given the number of similar cases in the area within the last year--then we're looking at a tremendous iceberg in the desert. Local newspapers have been reporting an increase in the use of border-crossers as "mules" to carry small quantities of prohibited drugs over the border. Scores of stories report the abduction, confrontations and murder of migrants in run-ins with alleged criminal groups. In most of the reports, the story is unclear and the migrants' themselves seldom speak publicly about what occurred.

The area is famous for flows of drugs, cash, arms and human trafficking. Inexplicably, this all happens under the nose of the 45th Battalion, police and other security agents and in spite of, or sometimes with the help of, U.S. and Mexican government agents. 

The Globalized Grapes of Wrath
In addition to forced recruitment for the drug smuggling that is the lifeblood of cartels, human trafficking for agrobusiness is growing.

Sin Embargo, a Mexican information service, notes of this recent case and others:

The victims of kidnapping are not just migrants from other countries, but also Mexicans from other states, like the case of 54 day laborers from the state of Puebla who were kidnapped in Caborca by a criminal group. The day laborers escaped to denounce that their captors had offered them a well-paid job in Sonora.

Some 57,000 farm laborers arrive in Sonora every year from the states of Puebla, Chiapas, Guerrero and others to work in the grape harvest, where 59 companies install work camps for the harvest. Companies even receive government support and subsidies to bring migrant workers in. The state of Veracruz, for example, announced this year that it will provide $42,000 pesos "to support the day laborers" being sent from the state to Sonora. 

This is not a subsidy to low-wage farmworkers--it's a subsidy to private-sector agribusiness. The government of Tlaxcala also has a program to send migrant laborers to the grape harvest. Sin Embargo and others have documented child labor and the death of several children-workers in the Sonora farmworker camps.

Dossier Político, out of Hermosillo, Sonora notes that in May of 2010 in a similar incident 66 farmworkers were rescued. The workers reported being recruited and held as virtual slaves, working 13-hour days in the vineyards without pay and prohibited from communicating with their families.

The grape industry has sprung up in Sonora since the eighties and especially since NAFTA. Tucson Business reported in 2012 that the Mexican state produces 16.3 million, 19-pound boxes that pass through at the U.S. Port of Entry at Nogales beginning in May for about nine weeks.

Sonora accounts for 90 percent of Mexico’s table grape production. The state exports almost all of its production, dispatching several dozen brands to more  than 30 countries. Some10,000 acres are under cultivation...

the recent abductions could indicate a trend toward the alliance of agrobusiness with organized crime to provide virtual slave labor in the harvest. The possibility merits at least full investigation.

The news reports on the rescue of migrants indicates that at least some were kidnapped as forced labor for the harvest.

The government of Veracruz states that the average wage for the farmworkers is $153 dollars a week, with some workers earning more. However, reports from the region say it's more like ten dollars a day, and half that for children.

So what kind of a society makes it an attractive business plan to kidnap workers as slaves rather than to pay ridiculously low wages?

A society where life is cheap. And where the criminals know they can get away with murder.

Nobel Peace Prize Winner Jody Williams' Message of Support to the Mexican Peace Caravan

The Caravan for Peace with Justice and Dignity demanded an end to the drug war in the capital of the nation that launched the war. After setting off from AFL-CIO headquarters where the nation's largest federation of unions saluted its efforts, the caravan planted itself in front of the White House, then proceeded to Freedom Plaza.

In the Plaza, as the sun set over the Capitol, Xochitl Espinosa of the National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities read a statement of support from Nobel Peace Prize laureate Jody Williams. Below is the statement in its entirety:

-->

MESSAGE FROM NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER JODY WILLIAMS TO THE MEXICAN CARAVAN FOR PEACE WITH JUSTICE AND DIGNITY.

As a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, as director of the Nobel Women’s Initiative and as a sister peace activist, I send this message to express my support for the Caravan for Peace with Justice and Dignity, and to congratulate all the members of the caravan for the sacrifice and commitment that have brought you across the country to share your pain-- and your hope-- with the U.S. public.

I’m really sorry that I can’t be with you in person today, to welcome the Caravan for Peace to Washington DC, to stand beside you as you deliver your message to stop the drug war that has devastated your country and your families, to support you as you ‘speak truth to power’ here, in the center of power.

I have lived and worked in Mexico and consider that great country not just a neighboring nation, but another home. It has grieved me to see Mexico, and Mexicans, immersed in violence over the past years. As a result of that growing concern, my organization, the Nobel Women’s Initiative along with Just Associates led an international delegation to Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala. We heard hundreds of testimonies from women who are confronting violence. Many of those terrible stories and most of the pain we listened to was caused by the war on drugs.

Our conclusion was that: the war on drugs has become a war on women. We see on this caravan many examples of brave women who have turned their pain into action, who have converted grief into a tireless demand for justice.

And so I send a warm greeting to the Caravan for Peace with Justice and Dignity.

For there is no other kind of peace. There can be no lasting peace without justice. There can be no peace as a result of militarization, and fighting violence with violence. There can be no peace not founded on respect for human rights and dignity.

It is only through collective, non-violent action--where women are recognized as equal partners and leaders--that we can build peace.

That is why the work of Mexico’s peace movement is so important. That is why your presence here in the United States—a nation that continues to support the war on drugs that has claimed the lives of so many of your loved ones--has such meaning for all of us who work for peace.

Thank you. I wish you much success.

Jody Williams received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for her work to ban landmines through the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which shared the Peace Prize with her that year. At that time, she became the 10th woman - and third U.S. woman - in its almost 100-year history to receive the Prize.  Since her protests of the Vietnam War, she has been a life-long advocate of freedom, self-determination and human and civil rights.  www.nobelwomensinitiative.org

Mothers Bond to Heal as Baltimore's Drug War Meets Mexico's

Kimberly Armstrong of Baltimore shares a hug with a caravan mother

As the peace caravan arrived in Baltimore yesterday morning, many of the 100-some people on board still slept, hunched over their seats or slumped on the shoulders of their bus mates. With a light summer rain falling, we began to pass row after row of abandoned houses. A member of a Baltimore host organization explained the background of a city that has been bombed out--not by aerial strikes, but by economic crisis. The results were strikingly similar.

Along North Avenue and Fulton Avenue, entire blocks of houses were boarded up and abandoned. Some have been gutted by time or rehab speculators. Others stand as they have for more than a hundred years, ready to house families behind their strong brick walls. Except that money, racism and the perversion of the financial system have blocked their doors. Families are on the street while houses remain empty.

We drove up to Irvington Park where a coalition of Baltimore groups hosted a picnic with the theme "Keep Them Home". Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle (LBS), a community organization that works with imprisoned and recently released youth, greeted the caravan, along with the NAACP, Casa Maryland and others.

Two women rappers/singers performed works protesting the construction of yet another prison in a community that lacks basic services. Local groups like LBS have managed to block the prison so far and are working to have the multi-million dollar project cancelled altogether.

Kimberly Armstrong, a community organizer, took the stage.

"I don't know Spanish," she told the caravan. "But I know a lot about losing a loved one."

On Sept. 27, 2004, Armstrong's sixteen year old son Eric was shot and killed. Just this February, she said, she heard a knock on the door. "It was the police. They told me they found my son's murderer. he was shot with a 9mm rifle by a 14-year old."

"I thought to myself, 'why do we have 9mm rifles on the ground?  how can it be that we live in a neighborhood where it's easier for a 14-year old to get a gun, than it is to get a tomato.'"

Among the crowd, the many mothers and other relatives of the murdered and disappeared nodded. One woman's lost son became the brother of the other's.

"Now they are all my angels," said Araceli Rodriguez, displaying the photo of Armstrong's son alongside that of her own, kidnapped and disappeared in the state of Michoacan.

Laura Carlsen

Laura's Blog: HSBC: How laundering drug money fuels the drug war violence

Today the Peace Caravan will pay a visit to HSBC Bank, to protest the financial crimes that enable drug cartels to launder their huge illegal earnings. These crimes are rarely punished because of the importance of illegal money to the financial system. HSBC was caught with highly questionable practices between its US and Mexican branches and currently faces charges. They expect to settle for record fines, while avoiding criminal charges.

But financial crimes are not victimless, nor are they non-violent crimes. What looks like white-collar crime on the books is red with blood in the streets. The Caravan will challenge the bankers on Wall Street to look the victims in the eyes and will also call for stricter enforcement and punishment.

HSBC Money-Laundering Fuels Violence in Mexico

FACTS:

* HSBC is a British bank and the largest European bank. HSBC has vast interests in Mexico since 2002, when it bought Banco Bital, Mexico’s fifth largest bank. HSMX (HSBC in Mexico) has $2 billion dollars in assets.

* A Senate investigation found that HSBC transported $7 billion dollars in cash from Mexico to the United States in armed cars or aircraft in 2007 and 2008 alone. The Mexico-U.S. transfers far surpassed that of any other branch. Despite this highly suspicious activity and known cartel activity in the country, HSBC gave Mexico a low-risk rating for money laundering and permitted the transfers.

* A typical strategy of drug cartels to launder money is to smuggle US dollars from drug sales into Mexico, and then use international banks to send them back to the U.S. This is what HSBC did.

* HSBC was also found to have established accounts for Mexican money exchange businesses and other suspicious entities, and cleared billions of dollars in travelers cheques.

* The bank opened US dollar accounts in the Cayman Islands for Mexican clients for more than $2 billion dollars.

* The Mexican regulatory commission fined the bank $27 million in July of this year—a slap on the wrist for one of the world’s largest transnational financial institutions.

* On July 17, a Senate sub-committee published a lengthy report on HSBC case, concluding that it failed to apply anti-money laundering measures.

The over 300-page Senate report, from which most of these facts are taken, can be found here: http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/hearings/us-vulnerabilities-to-money-laundering-drugs-and-terrorist-financing-hsbc-case-history

HSBC in the United States:

* HSBC is being sued in a class action suit for foreclosing on homes of veterans in the U.S. 

As hundreds of families are evicted from their homes due to a crisis caused by the banks themselves, drug money assures the banks themselves see growing profits.

We call for: 

* Real vigilance and strict enforcement of anti-money laundering laws

* Exemplary fines for banks found guilty of money-laundering, like HSBC.

* Divert military/police drug war funding to increased public funding for enforcement of money-laundering laws—destroy the financial structures of the drug cartels, not human lives.

Laura's Blog: Breaking the Silence in New York; Historic Harlem March to End the Drug War

The Caravan for Peace with Justice and Dignity arrived in New York today and hit the ground running. In the early evening, hundreds of caravan members and New York supporters met each other in Riverside Church to hear the testimonies of the drug war's devastation on both sides of the border. A mammoth, neogothic structure built by the Rockefellers, the church has a long history of housing causes for social justice. It was here on April 4, 1967 that  Martin Luther King made one of his last speeches before he was assassinated--a glaring indictment of the Viet Nam war.

In his speech, called "A Time to Break Silence", King cited his reasons to oppose the Viet Nam war. His words apply almost uncannily to the drug war today. Despite the difference in historical contexts and the differences between the two wars, their similarities and the truth of the words stand not only the test of time but the test of conscience as well.

Both wars were, and are, deadly; both unconventional for their time; both fought for motivations distinct from those professed to the people.

The first reason King listed to oppose the war was "the war as an enemy of the poor". He had watched as advances in fighting poverty and inequality were dismantled to feed the war machine. The trade-off was starkly obvious:

I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube.

We also know that today. With a budget in crisis, social programs have been stripped in historic rollbacks of rights and living standards as the defense budget not only maintains its girth but grows. With the Middle East conflicts waning in attention, it's the drug war that has moved in to justify militarism's insatiable appetite.

In Mexico, where the financial crisis, free trade and governmental indifference have created some 12 million more poor people in just a few years, the drug war has absorbed an enormous part of the budget. The war economy in both countries has powerful backers, and the the drug war has the added advantage for them of not only keeping the poor poor, but eliminating a large number of them--behind bars or in mass graves.

That's, of course, King's second reason.

[The war] was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population.We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem.

Today's drug war doesn't even have to send young men and women thousands of miles away. It puts them away right here at home. By the millions and with the same discriminatory criteria that sent the poor and African American to fight and die in Viet Nam.

The peace caravan from Mexico marched in a candlelight vigil through the heart of Harlem, Manhattan's poorest areas. A place where every day youth are plucked to fill the cells and coffers of a private prison system. Where drug laws do the dirty work of justifying criminalization based on race and poverty and treating victims as villains.

Carol Eady of Woman on the Rise Telling Her Story (WORTH), a former prisoner on drug charges who has kicked drugs and become an educator and community activist, explained at the church,

Many women in New York, and probably all over the world, are usually incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses. Most of the time, they started using drugs due to past abuse, abandonment by parents, victimization and sexual assaults. Instead of treating these occurrences as health hazards or diseases, when we turn to drugs to medicate our pain they lock us up.  

More than 400 people marched chanting 'No More Drug War' and calling for justice in the streets of Harlem. The "cruel manipulation of the poor" that King spoke of is the modus operandi of the drug war and the prisons are the new battlefields where young lives are lost.

King's third reason stemmed from his deep commitment to non-violence.

I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. 

Likewise, if we do not oppose the drug war, we cannot claim to be non-violent and credibly stand up against more conventional wars or invasions. The U.S. government's Merida Initiative promotes violence and militarization as a solution to drug trafficking. We either condone that and abandon all pretenses of non-violence or we oppose it, despite its political popularity and remain consistent in our beliefs.

By keeping silent since Bush launched the Merida Initiative in 2007, we have allowed the militarized drug war model to spread. Now both political parties have elevated counter-narcotics efforts to national security, as if a white powder used to get high could blow up the world or a corner dealer were tantamount to a terrorist. This is a blatant lie. We are supporting a prohibition model where Mexican communities suffer the presence of violent and corrupt security forces and drug gangs, both funded and armed, whether directly or indirectly, by our country.

Violence becomes the norm and moral outrage dulls through endless repetition.

Another reason is the "vocation of sonship and brotherhood", a religious calling that--when women are added into the language--demands making common cause and understanding the suffering of others. The peace caravan has over this past month forged those bonds and sought out that common cause. The victims, with their photos of murdered or missing loved ones and their stories of pain, have challenged the U.S. public to consider the devastation wrought by support of a drug war without end. 

The stories at Riverside--45 years later after MLK spoke out on Viet Nam--again broke the silence about the war. Not a war on a foreign continent, but a crossborder war that rages within our communities from Harlem to Jalisco. As the U.S. government extends the failed drug war from Colombia and Mexico, to Central America, the Caribbean and Africa, King's closing words fit as well now as then:

We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent co annihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam [or in the drug war] and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors.

This model of annihilation drags us all into more violence. We have alternatives. As hundreds of marchers moved through New York City with the pictures of the victims, calling for an end to the war--again--they carried us closer to what King called "a creative psalm of peace". 

And this time, the silence was broken in two languages. 

Laura's Blog: Gag order on shooting of Embassy personnel?

A week after a van with diplomatic plates was ambushed by Mexican Federal Police members, wounding two CIA agents, neither the U.S. or Mexican governments have much to say about the incident.

State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland treated a question on the attack like the political hot potato it is. She seemed to plead for the next question, and the lack of diligence by the reporter made for an easy dodge.

QUESTION: Additionally, there’s been an increasing controversy in Mexico over the incident with the U.S. diplomatic convoy, particularly the firing on the U.S. diplomatic van. The Embassy in Mexico initially classified it as an ambush. The Mexican Government says it was an accident. Which is it? And then can you confirm some of the – what were these two individuals (inaudible) link – to what U.S. agency were they linked?
MS. NULAND: As you know, the Mexican Government is investigating this incident. Our Embassy is cooperating in that investigation and trying to assist it in any way that we can. I’m not going to get ahead of the investigation – I think we’re going to wait and see what that concludes – nor am I going to get into speculating on any of the specifics until we see what the investigation leads to.
Please.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up: Have you taken any extra steps to protect U.S. borders in Mexico after this incident?
MS. NULAND: Well, we --
QUESTION: Are you worried about this?
MS. NULAND: We always are in a strong security posture around the world as necessary, but we don’t speak about any of the details of that.
Anything else? Please.

It seems both the U.S. and Mexican governments have handed down a gag order on the strange incident. On the U.S. side the DEA came out with a statement denying that any of their agents were involved. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported what the Mexican paper La Jornada had reported earlier:

The two Americans who were wounded when gunmen fired on an American Embassy vehicle last week were Central Intelligence Agency employees sent as part of a multiagency effort to bolster Mexican efforts to fight drug traffickers, officials said on Tuesday.

What do we know and not know about the ambush?

1. The van was taking the two CIA agents to train new Navy recruits at a firing range outside Mexico City. It was clearly identified and well-known to people in the area. The U.S. government has often cited its preference for the Navy and mistrust of the Army in Mexico, so Navy war games having nothing to do with water are common in this drug war.
2. A green Chrysler drove up and blocked the way of the Toyota van. The driver immediately threw the car into reverse to escape. (First question: If this were indeed a case of mistaken identity, how did the driver immediately know this was an attack?)
3. A second car cut off passage from behind. Shots were fired but the Toyota was armored.
4,. The Toyota again tried to escape and manage to proceed to a gas station where it continued to be fired on, with some bullets penetrating the protective shields and injuring the passengers.
5. The assailants fled when police and Navy vehicles arrived on the scene. They were later captured. 6. Twelve Federal Police agents have been arrested.

What does this bizarre incident indicate?

So far both governments seem to be preparing some version of a case of "mistaken identity". The NYT quotes anonymous US government officials as stating that "no evidence had emerged so far that the Americans were targeted because of their affiliation."

However, both Reforma and La Jornada gathered detailed interviews from local residents stating that anybody could see that the vehicle had diplomatic plates and that the agents' comings and goings are common knowledge in the area. The possibility that the Federal Police did not know who they were shooting at is extremely low.

The next obvious question is: why did the Mexican police shoot the CIA agents?

Speculation has emerged that these police were in cahoots with an organized crime group. That's pretty common here. Generally speaking, when organized crime shoots a U.S. agent, it's to send a message, not just to get rid of somebody. They know that the action will have binational ramifications.

In this scenario, it's hard to say what the potential message was. I´m not going to speculate on that until we know more.

The officers' families have offered explanations that it was a simple mistake and/or that their relatives were fired on first. They were quoted as fearing a frame-up to "stay on the United States' good side".

If history is any indication, we may never know what really happened. One certainly gets the impression that this incident is not something either drug-war ally wants to talk about. Compare the response of the U.S. government to the shooting of ICE agent Jaime Zapata on Feb. 15, 2011, when it immediately demanded justice and participated in the investigation. 

Incidentally, the Mexican government also called that a case of mistaken identity, and probably will continue to claim all such cases are mistaken identity, since admitting that US agents are targeted could jeopardize the many programs that send U.S. agents to Mexico

The ambush also shows once again that U.S. funding to the Mexican federal police force, which has run in the millions since the Merida Initiative began in 2008, is funding a force that attacks U.S. agents, not to mention the massive evidence of violation of Mexicans' human rights and attacks on their lives.

The NYT article notes the evident irony:

Through programs like the $1.6 billion Merida initiative, the United States has spent millions of dollars on training and equipping the federal police.

This incident further derails the Washington argument that the police force is an acceptable option for funding the drug war since it is being "reformed".

The conservative Wall Street Journal noted the "embarrassment" to the Mexican government of having its Federal Police Force go for the jugular of the hand that feeds it:

The incident has proved an embarrassment for the Mexican government, which receives millions of dollars annually in U.S. aid for its drug war and which has touted its federal police as the most professional force.

In addition to the embarrassment of Federal Police misbehavior, there is the issue of why CIA agents are training young Mexican Navy recruits to shoot their own people.

U.S. growing involvement in Mexico has raised the eyebrows and the ire of some members of Congress here in Mexico City. Since the ambush, they have called for a hearing and demanded that the Calderon administration give out information on the extent and the activities of U.S. agents.

This is a question that many of us have had for a long time now.

Protests Against Elections Heat Up with "National March Against the Imposition"

Photo: Clayton Conn

Mexicans hit the streets again on Sunday, in the third mass demonstration against the apparent president-elect, Enrique Peña Nieto, in the three weeks since the elections. After months of demonstrations, Mexico's movement to reject the return of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI)
shows no signs of fading away.

The July 22 "National March Against the Imposition" began at the presidential residence and arrived shortly after noon at Mexico City's Angel of Independence. Hundreds of people waited to join at the gold-tipped monument, swelling the ranks as students, unions, and citizens moved on to the central plaza.

At the final destination, tens of thousands poured into the square. They marched in clumps and converged from different routes, making it impossible to grasp the full dimension of the march at any given moment. But what the mobilization lacked in route planning, it made up for in energy, indignation and creativity.

This was about the fifth or sixth march against the PRI and its candidate that I've observed first-hand.  I wanted to check out two questions at this one: 1) what difference, if any, the coalition of organizations forged during the National Convention July 14-15 made and 2) what the main demands are, as election day fades into history and evidence of foul play mounts. I also wanted to see if accusations that the student-led movement is controlled by the opposition Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) had any substance behind them.

Organizations like the electricians union (SME) and the democratic current of the teachers' union (CNTE) that took part in the planning meeting in the town of Atenco turned out, although not in huge  numbers. The march was called just a week after the accords in Atenco and most organizations have to go through a series of assemblies to make decisions. It may take longer to really assess the impact of the formal incorporation of other sectors into the movement against Peña Nieto and the PRI.

Some unions and universities walked in contingents but for the most part, the march--unlike most Mexico marches--was made up of citizens with home-made signs who marched without visible organizations. Most were young, some were older, including veterans of past movements. The predominance of seemingly unaffiliated people added to the sense of spontaneity of the demonstration, but also to questions about its longer term direction and longevity.

National March Against the Imposition
Since the elections and accusations of fraud, vote-buying and coercion, the marches against the PRI have focused more on the electoral process. "Imposition" refers to the protesters' belief that Peña Nieto was imposed on voters through a series of manipulations and falsifications that violated electoral laws and the popular will. Recent demonstrations called by the student group "Iam132" continue to before the elections denounced the candidate, the way the highly concentrated mass media openly promoted his candidacy and the possible return of the PRI. Most of the students who make up the movement have no real memory of living under a PRI government, since the conservative National Action Party (PAN) has held the presidency for the past twelve years. One young woman carried a sign that read, "We are the children of the ideals you never succeeded in killing".

Photo: Clayton Conn

They have done their history homework. In one of the first demonstration against Televisa, the giant television conglomerate accused of having sold favorable coverage to Peña Nieto as far back as 2009, students projected scenes from the PRI government's massacre of protesting students in 1968 and 1971 against the wall of the media giant's office building. The ruling elite that controlled a one-party system to perpetuate itself in power eternally is a legend they don't want to repeat.

An Ominous Response
The march was replicated in scores of cities across the country and by groups of #Yosoy132  in other countries. Unlike past marches, the July 22 marches met with a violent response from the government in various cities. In Leon, police picked up several protesters and drove them around for three hours, captive, before taking them into detention.

In Oaxaca City, state and federal police arrested and allegedly beat up youth protesters, sexually threatening and abusing the women.

Here is part of the statement from the #YoSoy132 movement:

We also demand the a full explanation of the physical and legal situation of the 24 young people arrested--including two minors, identified in the #YoSoy132 movement, who were arbitrarily imprisoned by state government officials in Oaxaca City. We call on the competent authorities to investigate the cases and clear their names. We request that the officials involved in the various violation of human rights be sanctioned for their acts.

We repudiate the unjustified or disproportionate use of force, arbitrary arrest, torture, just to mention a few, repression that denies freedom of expression and the free manifestation of ideas, as well as abuse of power, threats and harassment against members of social movements. We therefore demand these cases be cleared up and public officials brought to justice and that state and federal authorities prosecute cases of complaints related to these events.

 The violent and arbitrary response by police in these cities could be an ominous sign. The movement continues to insist on peaceful and non-confrontational tactics as it moves into a series of actions decided at the National Convention. The July 22 march was the first of those actions It showed that the movement still has a great ability to draw people into the streets for organized protests-- even weeks after elections that the media and political elite attempted to portray as an unassailable victory-- and among those protestors the rejection of the PRI candidate runs as strong as ever.

As for the second question--what are longer term strategies, beyond the action plan from here to Dec. 1--in all the enthusiasm of the march, I couldn't discern any. The people I talked to said for now, the focus is on consolidating the movement and making its voice here from now to the inauguration.

Laura's Blog: Elections over, but uncertainty remains

#Iam132 march before the election (Rodrigo Jardon)

Yesterday, we at the Americas Program team spread to various points of the country and participated in the elections, as citizens, accredited observers, reporters or a combination. Despite praise for Mexico's democracy throughout the press, none of us encountered a smoothly functioning electoral system.

I was in Colonia Tortuga, in southern Mexico City and later in the Zócalo, watching the press and checking out the long lines at the various polling places. I've also been doing interviews with international and national press and finding that following the elections, there is little patience for a voice of dissent and criticisms are largely seen as raining on the parade of democratic succession here. With notable exceptions, fraud is not being discussed in polite circles. Pundits are willing to discuss the pros and cons of a return of the PRI but few talk about what happened to democracy itself this time around. Even in the international arena, the pre-written script of the victory of Enrique Peña Nieto seems to require this last scene of universal acceptance to usher in the era of a new PRI that looks identical to the old PRI and has the same DNA.

#Iam132 organized candle-lit march (Rodrigo Jardon) 

President Obama called to congratulate the PRI candidate, days before the official results are out and before his closest opponent, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, has conceded. It seemed a rude and unnecessary form of pressure for the U.S. government to jump ahead of the Mexican electoral authorities in proclaiming a winner.

I wrote this article "From the Perfect Dictatorship to the Imperfect Democracy" directly in Spanish, while watching the results until 4 AM last night. You can see it here. I thought a lot about whether given the dirty tricks and numerous obstacles to the exercise of the vote, the process could be called a "democracy". Some people have questioned the call, but in political science terms, it's correct. Mexico no longer lives in the time of the dedazo, people do vote, and new laws, rules and institutions have sought to push the nation from one-party rule to an authentic representative democracy. That doesn't mean it's there or even that those laws are applied, as described in the article. But you couldn't call it a dictatorship. The articles emphasizes the "imperfect". I will have it here in English by later tonight.

Police at march before election (Rodrigo Jardon)

Today the students of I am 132 marched again in a large demonstration downtown. Lopez Obrador held a press conference and announced that he will challenge the election on legal grounds. Tomorrow official results come out. We will be here, so stay tuned. This is not over...

Laura Carlsen
Photos by Rodrigo Jardon

(To hear and see some of the interviews over the past hectic days, please check this short piece on Uprising Radio of KPFK, and NBC Nightly News with Mark Potter tonight.)

Laura's Blog: Panetta Declares 150,000 Deaths (give or take) in Mexico's Drug War

The Mexican daily La Jornada ran a somewhat confusing front-page article today, headlined "150,000 Deaths in Mexico for Narco-Violence: Panetta". The paper notes that the US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta made the statement at the first meeting of defense chiefs from Canada, the United States and Mexico, held in Ottawa on Mar. 27.

It goes on to quote Mexican Minister of Defense Guillermo Galvan using different figures:

Galván said the war on drugs "has cost the lives of 50,000 Mexicans" and warned that the cartels that operate in the country have links in both Canada and the United States. Likewise, he pointed out that the most recent official statistics released in January of this year in Mexico, indicate that since 2006 47,500 people have died as a result of violence stemming from drug trafficking.

Since the official number is closer to 50,000, the Americas Program decided to track down the 150,000 statement.

It seems that the Canadian press confirms that the figure 150,000 was used, with some attributing it to Panetta and CBC to Mexico's Defense Secretary Guillermo Galvan. The general consensus among press present at the Ottawa trilateral defense meeting is that Sec. Panetta said it, while citing the Mexican government as the source. The DoD has not clarified to date, although CNN is tweeting that Panetta says that's the figure the Mexican officials gave him--with no time frame attached. Mexican officials jumped in, issuing a communique saying the figure refers to all of North America, according to the La Jornada article. 

Amid the who-said-what confusion, what's interesting about this apparent lapse is:

1) It doesn't seem to make much difference to the Sec. of Defense Panetta whether the number is 50,000 or 150,000. The sloppiness about the difference of 100,000 human beings could contribute to the way in which Mexican lives seem pawns to U.S. security strategy--a perception that is widespread here and of particular concern to many Mexicans, especially on the border;

2) The emphasis on the "bloody drug war" is being used to intensify the threat perception and support the need to regional-ize the response, under U.S. direction. 

The important issue underlying the attention-grabbing headline is how the newly strengthened alliance between the three countries will relate to respond to Mexico's undeniable crisis. Mexico has historically been reticent, to say the least. about U.S. involvement in its national security. The Pentagon is aware of this political fact, prompting curious disclaimers like this one.

The Calderón administration significantly changed that situation by opening the door to a far greater degree of U.S. government and private security sector involvement in Mexico. 

The other question is whether this tripartite military alliance will attempt to consolidate  the failing  current drug war model--focused on interdiction and enforcement and heavily promoted by the U.S. government and the outgoing Calderón administration. If so, it will be working against the will of a growing number of Mexicans (and some U.S. citizen groups) who want to see some major changes to stop the bloodshed.  

Watch for more fallout from this trilateral defense meeting in the weeks between now and the North American Leaders Summit on April 2. The vague announcement of a mechanism for closer alliance probably refers to the U.S. Northern Command, but it's unclear. NorthCom posted the joint statement from the March 27 trilateral defense meeting. Here are the conclusions:

Our meeting today has established the framework necessary to build North America's resilience by pursuing a practical agenda built on sustained trilateral cooperation on issues related to defence. We intend to:

- Develop a joint trilateral defence threat assessment for North America to deepen our common understanding of the threats and challenges we face.

- Explore ways to improve our support to the efforts of civilian public security agencies in countering illicit activities in our respective countries and the hemisphere, such as narcotics trafficking.

- Explore how we can collaborate to increase the speed and efficiency with which our armed forces support civilian-led responses to disasters.

- Continue to work together to strengthen hemispheric defence forums.

The last point is especially vague. In the interests of informing the public in all three countries about issues that closely affect their taxpayer dollars, their sovereignty and their safety, we'd like to know more about the mechanisms and proposed forums for regional security cooperation--if anyone out there has additional information, please send to info@cipamericas.org or post here.

Laura's Blog: More Hokum From the Folks who Bring us the “Global War on Drugs”

By Laura Carlsen

The White House has been floating a new concept in its war on drugs—Colombia as an “exporter of security.” The phrase has popped up in government statements several times just over the past week.

Actually, this isn’t the first time. Then Defense Secretary Robert Gates praised Colombia as an “exporter of security” back in April of 2010. The phrase seems to have gone dormant for awhile after that, although the Pentagon and State Department have been talking about and using Colombian security forces to train regional forces, in part to avoid the domestic and international political costs of having U.S. agents on the job on foreign soil.

First, Under-Secretary for Political Affairs, Wendy Sherman, used it again on Feb. 28 to describe her Mexico-Colombia-Brazil tour

We also discussed Colombia’s growing regional and global outreach in support of international peace and security. For example, over the last three years, Colombia has trained over 11,000 police from 21 countries in Latin America and Africa, as well as Afghanistan. Colombia has also been a leader in the SICA-led Central American donor coordination process. Colombia is succeeding in leveraging its experience in the fight against cartels and terrorists in a way that positions it as a net exporter of security far beyond its borders.

Next up was Dan Restrepo in a March 1 press briefing for VP Joe Biden’s visit to Mexico and Honduras this week:

We've also continued to work, for example, with our partners from Colombia, who have become a very significant exporter of security to Central America -- work to ensure, for example, in the last few weeks, the head of the National Police of Colombia traveled to Guatemala as part of the new Guatemalan government's effort to revamp the national security strategy in that country to ensure that it is facing what we all recognize to be a growing challenge in the region.

In the globalized world where everything’s a commodity, we’ve gotten used to being told the world is just a giant conglomeration of products and consumers, but I’d never seen security commodified like this before. It’s a dangerously false concept.

What does “exporter of security” mean? You can export security equipment (aka weapons or intelligence hardware), but security? This is the dictionary definition of security:

So if security is the absense of threats and danger, how do you export it? If “security” pertains to a situation in a certain State how can it be shipped off to another country and context?

Even more baffling, how did Colombia get to be an “exporter of security”? Does that mean it somehow has produced a surplus of security that it can now export?

Last time I checked, Colombia had active organizations officially listed as “terrorist” operating within its borders (on both the left and the right). In January of this year, paramilitary organization called Los Urabeños paralyzed five departments in an “armed strike” just to show they could. Paramilitary forces were found to control 30% of the National Senate. Some five million people have been displaced from their homes and communities by violent conflict and the country has the second-highest number of landmine victims in the world. While a declining homicide rate is laudable, this just doesn’t like a surplus of security.

Or, following the trade logic set up by the Obama team, maybe it’s that Colombia has a comparative advantage in security. A comparative advantage in security would have to mean that a nation had few threats and a high level of public safety (see above definition).

Again, not the case with Colombia. The country still suffers from a longstanding internal conflict, and is home to violent drug cartels and unscrupulous land-grabbers.

When we add Sherman’s qualifier of “net exporter of security”, the concept gets even more semantically unbelievable. A “net exporter” means that the amount of exports are greater than the amount of imports. So Colombia exports more security than it imports? What does this security look like as it’s being shipped around? Sherman’s additional qualifier of Colombia as a “net exporter of security far beyond its borders” is just compounded silliness—you can’t export within your borders.

Safety is a consequence of preventing and eliminating threats, not importing and exporting some abstract entity called “security.”

The safety of a state or organization against criminal activity such as terrorism, theft, or espionage: "national security."