Showing posts with label Security and Prosperity Partnership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Security and Prosperity Partnership. Show all posts

Mar 28, 2012

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.

Apr 29, 2009

Globalization: Mexico’s Swine Flu and the Globalization of Disease


Alfredo Estrella/Agence France-Presse

Mexico has long been considered the laboratory of globalization. Now a potentially deadly virus has germinated in that laboratory, finding ideal conditions to move quickly along a path toward global pandemic.

Those conditions include: a rapid transition from small livestock production to industrial meat farms after NAFTA established incentives for foreign investment, the failed decentralization of Mexico’s health system along lines established by multilateral lending banks, lax and non-enforced environmental and health regulations as the Mexican government was forced to downsize, the increased flow of goods and persons across borders, and restricted access to life-saving medicines due to NAFTA intellectual property monopolies for pharmaceutical companies.

Mexico under Medical Siege

The swine flu alert in Mexico rose to a level four this week, meaning that it is spreading human-to-human and shows a significant increase in the risk of becoming a pandemic. Schools are closed until at least May 6. The Mexico City government shut down the city’s 35,000 restaurants on Monday. Countries including Canada, Argentina, and several European nations have cancelled flights between Mexico in an effort to contain the spread of the new flu, although Keiji Fukuda of the WHO noted, “closing borders or restricting travel has really little effect in stopping the movement of this virus” now that cases are appearing across the globe.

Here in Mexico City, all public events have been cancelled and people have flocked to the supermarkets in surgical masks to stock up on food. I had to go out yesterday and discovered less traffic (small consolation) but a fairly normal number of people in the streets, many wearing the recommended masks. Traditional practices of greeting each other with kisses and handshakes have been suspended and a cough is seen as tantamount to assault.

But I didn’t feel an atmosphere of panic. Mexicans seem to have accepted the epidemic and changes in their lives with a combination of cultural fatalism and survival instincts although many are skeptical of the government’s claims and the measures taken.

The media has been providing a steady stream of real and generally non-alarmist information out about the risks. The flu is a mutant form of swine flu, human seasonal flu and bird flu. In itself, it is not lethal but it leads to complications of “atypical pneumonia”. It’s atypical because it’s out of season and because victims tend to concentrate in the middle age range. Unlike regular pneumonia that picks off the very young and the very old, deaths of this virus tend to be within the 20-40 range. No-one seems to know exactly why this is. In fact, it is the newness of the virus that has raised the alarm. It can be treated successfully with anti-virals but there is no vaccine for it.

The strategy is to avoid enclosed spaces with large numbers of people. Although people are obeying the measures and following recommendations, increasing doubts exist about the transparency and honesty of government information. A press conference by the Secretaries of Health and Labor on April 29 ended in chaos, with reporters yelling out questions to clear up contradictions between the official version that only 26 cases of swine flu had been confirmed in Mexico and reports of far greater numbers.

Swine Flu and the Smithfield Connection
Because of the population density of Mexico City it continues to be the center of the epidemic. Of the seven deaths from swine flu confirmed by the Mexican government and the WHO, all were in Mexico City—six in the delegation where we live.

However, the first reports came from Perote, Veracruz--home to a huge hog farm co-owned and operated by the U.S. transnational industrial livestock company Smithfield and a Mexican company. In early March, local health officials proclaimed an epidemiological alert due to a flu with the exact same characteristics. La Jornada reported that Perote officials claimed 60% of the population suffered from flu, pneumonia and bronchitis. Federal health officials reportedly ignored the complaints until April 5, when they placed sanitary restrictions on Carroll Farms.
Mexico’s Secretary of Health Jose Angel Cordova discarded the theory that the flu originated in the hog farms of Perote. But the information provided led to more confusion than clarity about that. This needs to be independently and seriously analyzed because the fact remains that the people in Perote show high indices of similar and unexplained illnesses and the government information is partial and inconclusive.

Silvia Ribeiro of the ETC Group told the Americas Program that Mexican officials “act like this is something that fell from the sky, but we’ve known for a long time that industrial livestock operations, especially hogs, are a breeding ground for recombinant viruses. Carroll Farms is just one example, an important one in this case, but it’s also true of industrial chicken farms.”
Anybody who has seen an industrial hog farm knows the risk of disease. The unimaginable concentrations of filth, corrals filled with sick and suffering animals pumped full of antibiotics, and buzzing with flies that then carry disease to the human population create a disease paradise.

As Mike Davis points out,
“The paradox of this swine flu panic is that, while totally unexpected, it was accurately predicted. Six years ago, Science dedicated a major story to evidence that "after years of stability, the North American swine flu virus has jumped onto an evolutionary fast track".

NAFTA unleashed the spread of industrial livestock farms in Mexico by creating investment incentives for transnational companies to relocate operations there. The “race to the bottom” –where companies move production to areas where environmental and health restrictions and enforcement are low, is exemplified in livestock farming.

Smithfield has had more than its share of legal problems stemming from its operations in the United States. Most recently it announced a decision to reject a $75 million dollar settlement on claims brought in Missouri by residents complaining of the stench. On August 8, 1997 a federal court judge in Virginia imposed a $12.6 million fine on Smithfield Foods for violation of the Clean Water Act. In September of 1999 an appeal upheld the ruling.

In 1994, the year NAFTA went into effect, Smithfield established the Perote operations with the Mexican agrobusiness AMSA (Agroindustrias Unidas de México S.A. de C.V.). In 1999 it bought the U.S. company Carroll’s Foods for $500 million and began rapid expanision of its operations in Perote.

Banking on Disease
Livestock transnationals are not the only economic interests involved in preserving the dangerous situation that led to this epidemic. In an article entitled “An epidemic of profiteering”, she notes that the epidemic means big business for the pharmaceutical companies who hold patents on anti-viral medicines. “Shares in Gilead rose 3%, Roche 4% and Glaxo 6%, and that’s only the beginning.”

Also to blame is neoliberal globalization and its impact on human health. Ribeiro has in interesting theory on why Mexico City is the focal point of the virus. “People living in the city--and in a way the city itself--suffer from a depressed immunological system. Especially for the poor, the lack of public services, water and health services, stress and poor nutrition means that people die not only from increased contagion but also from low defenses here.”

Mexico’s grand experiment in sink or swim neoliberalism included privatization and erosion of health systems and basic services. Mexican health policy expert Gustavo Leal told the CIP Americas Program that “the notorious delay in the response of the federal government can be attributed in part to the decentralization of healthcare promoted by international finance institutions such as the World Bank. “This broke down the chain of command and the flow of information,” Leal said. Tellingly, the health care network that has responded most vigorously to the Mexican swine flu epidemic has been the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS), an institute that conservatives and the same IFIs have been trying to privatize for years. Armies of IMSS healthcare professionals are attending to cases and reporting from the field throughout the country.

SPP: Integrated Risk Management or Integrated Risks?
It’s ironic and inexcusable that the most integrated region in the world responded so poorly to the recent epidemic. One of the main selling points for the extension of NAFTA into the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) was that a working group was preparing integrated response to epidemics that would make all North Americans safer. In fact, this was one of the few publically announced activities of the secretive working groups that primarily devote their activities to making it easier for the Smithfields and Tysons to do business throughout the continent.

The SPP North American Plan declares that it provides a framework to accomplish the following:
* Detect, contain and control an avian influenza outbreak and prevent transmission to humans;
* Prevent or slow the entry of a new strain of human influenza into North America;
* Minimize illness and deaths; and
* Sustain infrastructure and mitigate the impact to the economy and the functioning of society

The Plan supposedly established mechanisms to coordinate actions, monitor outbreaks, and supervise animal farms.

Mexico despite being a poor country with greater risk of disease, had not received the technology needed to immediately analyze flu strains so had to send samples to the Canadian Health Ministry and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta for analysis. About a week was lost in this process. Moreover, as mentioned the CDC didn’t respond quickly or effectively.

Where was this plan when Perote was reporting illness and a local epidemic way back in March? Has this group done serious research on the risks of industrial livestock production? Why did the CDC take nearly a week to respond to reports of the Mexican epidemic?

The answers lie in what Davis refers to as the “global political clout” of the livestock transnationals. Another hint can be found in this phrase from the SPP announcement: “Central to the Plan is a North American approach that undertakes measures to maintain the flow of people, services, and cargo across the borders during a severe pandemic while striving to protect our citizens.”

As is the case with all of NAFTA, the top priority is business as usual. While closing the borders is not the answer, an investigation into the root causes of the epidemic must lead to a full accounting of the risks of globalization and industrial farming. Poor countries with poor health run the greatest risks and yet the current system gives their concerns short shrift and little resources.

A misplaced priority on profits over human health in the context of a globalized world led to this epidemic and its possibilities becoming the world’s latest pandemic.

For More Information:

Jul 16, 2008

Back to Oaxaca


I was in Oaxaca City last week for a workshop on the Security and Prosperity Partnership, Plan Mexico, privatization reforms to Social Security, and job insecurity. That sounds like a wide range of issues, and it is—especially considering the complexity of each one.

But that was the point—to give workers from the state a broad picture in which to understand what´s happening to them. It turned out to be one of those very fruitful gatherings where those of us who analyze “broad pictures” got a chance to work together with those who experience the worst consequences on a daily basis. The workshop was sponsored by the Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras and Mujeres Sindicalistas (Women Union Members), bringing together Oaxaca maquiladora workers, state employees from the Health and Transportation departments, and teachers.

Being back in Oaxaca was a strange experience in itself. I had been back since the uprising but still the images burned into my mind were from late 2006 when federal troops were sent in to put down the teachers’ strike that spread into a popular uprising.

Then it was a city occupied by machine guns and fear. Where you’d turn a corner on a quaint colonial street and run into a row of shield-yielding, riot-geared cops. Where groups playing music or selling crafts shared the sidewalk with heavily armed federal police looking like they didn’t quite know what they were supposed to be doing.

If those images are burned into my memory, they’re branded into the flesh of the participants of the movement. But despite lingering trauma from the torture, repression, assassination and imprisonment they faced, Oaxacans continue to fight back. Now the tourists have returned en force and the hated Governor Ulises Ruiz repeats ad nauseum that everything is back to normal. The crimes committed during and after the uprising have gone unpunished and in most cases the government has failed to carry out even a pretense of an investigation. Given the lack of response from the state government, the Mexican Supreme Court agreed to form a commission to investigate what happened. Oaxaca will be yet another test case of the highest court’s commitment to justice when entrenched political interests are involved.

Apparently “normal” in Oaxaca means a fresh onslaught of offensives. The women workers discussed the way privatization of social security is cutting back their hard-earned pensions and benefits, intensification of work in the maquiladoras means obligatory overtime under the threat of closure, President Calderon’s labor reform—on his checklist of neoliberal “reforms” after social security and privatization of PEMEX—would create “flexible” working conditions and further erode job security and working conditions. The Plan Mexico discussion was lively as participants asked about the plan and discussed the already dire situation of human rights violations in the state.

We just put up a new Human Rights section of the website that contains a series on Oaxaca. These are papers presented at the “After the Barricades” conference sponsored by Simon Fraser University a few months back. They cover many aspects of the conflict and its aftermath: the viewpoint of surrounding rural communities, the linkage between freedom of expression and rights the breakdown of the social compact in Mexico and the dynamics of the conflict.

We’ll be posting more there over the next few days, so check back in as documents from the Oaxaca Women’s Coalition, Section 22 of the Education Workers Union and the Human Rights Commission report go up.

http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5364

Jun 19, 2008

Security vs. Prosperity?

It’s difficult to hold a discussion on NAFTA’s Security and Prosperity and Partnership (SPP) because everyone has a different point of entry to the subject. Add to the perspective problem, the fact that there is no document to analyze, no comprehensive set of rules and guidelines to critique. The result is a lack of coherent public policy focus that in itself reveals a lot about what’s wrong with the SPP.

Last week the University of the Americas in Puebla held a two-day conference called “Critical Perspectives on SPP: Comparisons Between Canada and Mexico.” The organizers have to be commended for taking on an issue that’s not in the news but has huge ramifications for both countries. And they did it by welcoming rather than avoiding the diversity of viewpoints.

That makes it a little hard to sum up the event or come up with conclusions. Here are a few reflections.

1. There is a conflict between the security and prosperity agendas within the SPP. This observation was echoed by most of the Mexican presenters. Alejandro Estevil of the Foreign Ministry emphasized the need for Mexico to move the focus of SPP from the security agenda to a prosperity agenda aimed at Mexico’s development needs and addressing social issues including immigration. Jose Luis Valdes noted an even stronger contradiction between the security and prosperity agenda, saying the former has been aimed at “unification of the security scheme based on the U.S. model” which has strained the Canada-Mexico relationship. Mexico’s lack of a national security plan has made it easy to impose the U.S. regional plan. Both Canada and Mexico have felt the contradiction in border measures that inhibit trade, and immigration dealt with as a security rather than integration issue. Valdes also pointed out that the central economic issues for Mexico—poverty and inequality—aren’t even on the “prosperity” agenda.

Strategies for dealing with this problem vary. The Foreign Ministry believes that accepting the U.S. security agenda will aid chances to push a stronger prosperity agenda in the future. Others believe that the way to gain attention to social issues is to include them in a broader definition of “human security.” Although there was considerable criticism of the limited nature of both security and prosperity paradigms, there was little sense of the way out.

2. Washington’s influence has hampered Canada and Mexico’s abilities to defend national interests in the SPP and to create a stronger alliance. Canada’s Ambassador Guillermo Rishchynski described North America as a sandwich, with Canada and Mexico as the bread and “the problem is the filling.” U.S. power and particularly its power to set the agenda in the SPP has clearly diminished the possibilities of an effective Canada-Mexico alliance or defense of issues central to those two countries.

3. The Bush government has set the security agenda while mostly U.S.-based transnational corporations lead the prosperity agenda. Whether related to the U.S. counter-terrorism agenda or the recent Merida Initiative, the Bush administration has defined the security focus in the SPP. On the economic side, the North American Competitiveness Council of the SPP has controlled the process from a business rather than public policy perspective.

Civil society’s role in all this has been first as a watchdog, trying to determine what is happening in the process and how it will affect the populations of the three countries. Groups have also tried to affect the trinational agenda, forming their own networks and setting their own agendas, with a special emphasis on the need to integrate immigration reform into the process.

For more information see our articles:

Dissecting the North American Summit Joint Statement: Bush's Last Stand
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5178

Time to Renegotiate NAFTA, Not Expand It
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5175

Apr 18, 2008

The People's Summit - Parallel to SPP Meeting in New Orleans

Check out the response to the "three amigos" meeting next week in New Orleans. Behind closed doors they will make decisions about the future of North America, while the people's summit will take place both April 21st and 22nd, where there will be workshops in the morning and afternoon on Tuesday the 22nd. The three hour workshops will speak to the ways in which free trade and security policy affect everyday people, especially in relation to increased militarism, privatization, forced immigration and migration, and abuse of the environment.

For more information on the people's summit, check: www.summitneworleans.org

Background on the Security and Prosperity Partnership:
Extending NAFTA's Reach
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4497