Don´t expect anything big to come out of today’s meeting between Mexican president Felipe Calderon and U.S. president-elect Barack Obama. The meeting is a courtesy call that past incoming presidents have established to give a nod to the close relationship between Mexico and the United States, an easy meeting considering the normally cordial relationship between the two countries.
This time there will be some thorny issues on the table though. Some of them will be discussed obliquely and others will be mutually acknowledged but explicitly ignored.
One will be Obama´s promise to renegotiate NAFTA. Calderon announced that the economic crisis will be on the agenda and he has often expressed his views that the solution is more free trade and upholding NAFTA. Obama´s calls to renegotiate the agreement have the Mexican president trembling in his boots. Since NAFTA went into effect in Mexico fifteen years ago, the nation´s economy has become dependent on the U.S. market and investment, with domestic small and medium industries forced out of business. The concentration of wealth and financial and productive power propelled by NAFTA created huge oligopolies that are the major pillars of support for Calderon’s National Action Party and severely weakened the small farmer and worker organizations that form the backbone of opposition to Calderon’s neoliberal policies and that call for immediate renegotiation. Calderón is so desperate to avoid renegotiation he issued a subtle threat, stating that if the U.S. renegotiates NAFTA, Mexican migrants will pour over it´s southern border.
The second hot-button issue is security, in particiular the Merida Initiative. The U.S. Embassy in Mexico is really worried that the Obama administration may not want to carry through with this dangerous boondoggle. Last Wednesday, it issued a statement that was picked up in the Mexican press as the release of $99 million of the $400 assigned to Mexico under the 2008 Merida initiative package. The embassy stated that the funds are for aircraft (helicopters and two CASA surveillance planes) and “non-intrusive inspection equipment” (ion scanners) and come out of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, a Defense Department agency. Ambassador Tony Garza noted that the equipment could begin arriving in the fall. He stated that funds have also been released to USAID for training justice officials and civil society in transparency and accountability although no details were provided.
Turns out most all the available funds were actually released when the Letter of Agreement was signed on Dec. 3 and are at various points of the pipeline. When asked about the purpose of the recent press statement, an embassy spokesperson said that the Dec. 3 press reports had been unclear and the embassy wanted to show that the funds were flowing. But the core reason can be found in this statement from Amb. Tony Garza:
“I am confident that the incoming administration will remain committed to our shared goals with Mexico under the Merida Initiative, reducing the threat of crime and violence associated with narco-trafficking on both sides of the border. Our successes in this shared fight over the past years will help cement that commitment and continue building the secure, safe communities that Mexico and the United States deserve.”
The embassy staff is desperate to build U.S. and Mexican public opinion in favor of the initiative beforee it gets the boot. Their palpable nervousness no doubt stems from the fact that the Merida Initiative and Calderon’s war on drugs do not demonstrate “successes” and much less a move toward “secure, safe communities.” Last year the number of drug war-related violent deaths in Mexico doubled to over 5,800. The majority of the population believes the drug war is “unwinnable” when set up as a war between the government and the cartels, and since Calderon sent some 45,000 troops into the field many communities report feeling as threatened by the army as by the drug traffickers.
Although Obama supported the Merida Initiative in his Latin America platform, an announced cutback in planned foreign aid levels, public protest over the program in both countries, and heightened violence combined to push the incoming administration to rethink the aid package before the 2009 appropriations. Obama has indicated that a drug policy based on reducing demand rather that exclusively focusing on supply interdiction could be more effective. Meanwhile in Mexico calls increase for selected legalization to diminish the power and wealth of organized crime, expanded rehabilitation and prevention programs, and serious moves to reduce the flow of illegal arms from the U.S. Expect a very vague statement of "bilateral commitment" and "shared responsibility" to come out of the meeting.
Same for immigration. Obama will have to continue to handle this as a domestic issue due to the landmined politics of the issue in the U.S. Calderón knows this and won´t push hard Finally, an unspoken issue at the meeting will be Calderon’s role in a new Latin America policy. The Bush administration named Colombia and Mexico—the continent’s only two major countries ruled by the right—as bulwarks against what it saw as the pink tide in Latin America, a growing number of nations that elected left-center governments. While many experts lamented a policy of “ignoring” Latin America, in reality the administration carefully seeded division between the nations that support its policies of free trade and military hegemony and others that have embarked on a path toward independence of the modern-day Monroe Doctrine.
Now Obama will have to decide if he really wants to place political eggs in the basket of a president who arguably has minimal leadership in the region and lacks credibility among large segments of his own populace. The 2006 elections that brought Calderon to power were marked by accusations of fraud that the courts never resolved. Although Calderon has been far more effective than his predecessor in dealing with Congress, resentments from the elections still simmer, kept alive also by the increasing polarization between rich and poor in the country. Obama may be even less inclined to consider Calderon a point person for his policies in Latin American when he recalls Calderón's endorsement of rival John McCain for the presidency.
To his credit, Obama has shown a willingness to seek reconciliation within the hemisphere. He promised to meet with Hugo Chávez of Venezuela—defined as part of the “axis of evil” by Bush, and prioritize visits to Brazil, Bolivia and Argentina during the early part of his administration. With the aim of reconciliation in mind, he'd do well to take a stance of cool cordiality at today´s meeting.
The MexicoBlog of the CIP Americas Program monitors and analyzes international press on Mexico with a focus on the US-backed War on Drugs in Mexico and the struggle in Mexico to strengthen the rule of law, justice and protection of human rights. Relevant political developments in both countries are also covered.
Jan 12, 2009
Dec 15, 2008
Coping with Crisis, Latin America Seeks New Paths
As the U.S. economy tumbles into greater depths of disaster and ignominy—dragging the rest of the world with it—countries in Latin America have decided it’s time to strike out on their own.
At a Nov. 26 meeting in Caracas, barely mentioned in the U.S. press, the nations that make up Alba (the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas) agreed to form a regional monetary zone. The idea is to immediately create a new accounting unit to be called the “sucre” (standing for Unitary System of Regional Compensation and also the name of a historical figure) and move toward adopting it as the legal tender. The financial ministers of the six Alba countries (Bolivia, Honduras, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Cuba, with Ecuador) subsequently met to begin the technical studies required to carry out the measure.
Venezuela’s finance minister, Ali Rodríguez, stated to the press, “When there’s a crisis that has among its factors the weakness of the dollar—profoundly affected by extremely high levels of speculation—that means that other regions must seek their own solutions, and that’s what is happening.”
While proposals from Venezuela to reduce U.S. influence in the region are nothing new, the other countries at the meeting showed equal enthusiasm for paths that would enable them to escape the shadow of the now not-so-mighty dollar.
Honduran economic minister Pedro Paez affirmed “At a time when the international financial crisis creates a horizon of compression of traditional markets, we are creating new markets to guarantee the adequate flow of resources and defend employment in our countries.”
Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador which is an “observer” to Alba, excoriated the dollar system. “Imperialism of the XXI century is no longer boots, no longer planes, no longer aircraft carriers, ships, or cannons. It’s called ‘dollars’, that’s how they seek to dominate us, and we’ve had enough of these pressures.” Ecuador switched to the dollar in 2000 (last time I was there you bought your sancochos with Sacajawea dollars, which solves the mystery of whatever happened to the second failed attempt to circulate a woman’s image on U.S. currency).
Other proposals to come out of the meeting include decreasing reliance on the International Monetary Fund and other U.S.-dominated international finance institutions (IFIs). The Group of 20 wealthy nations and President Bush have urged using these to bail out developing economies hard-hit by the same policies they promote.
“We’re not going to wait here with our arms crossed for the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund to come and solve the problems that this great threat unleashed on the world,” Chavez said at the Alba summit in Caracas. Although Chavez stopped short of calling for withdrawal from the IMF, both the IMF and the Inter-American Development Bank came under fire for placing political conditions on loans that limit countries’ political options in dealing with the impact of the crisis.
Chavez also criticized the Andean Development Corporation, a regional bank made up of governments and private banks, for operating along the same lines. Chavez proposed strengthening the role of the Bank of the South, and pledged $500 million of Venezuelan funds to establish a regional “common monetary fund” for the region and asked other countries to commit portions of their reserves to back up economies in crisis.
Correa slammed “certain international bureaucracies” in reference to the IFIs and their legal apparatus. He was quoted in the Ecuadorean newspaper El Telegrafo saying, “As usual, they are accomplices to the lenders and exploiters of our country, but they will find a new Latin America, one full of dignity, that will know how to respond in case they try to blackmail us.” Ecuador recently completed an audit of its foreign debt that shows that a large part of the debt was contracted illegally and under unfair terms. At the Alba meeting he got the support of the other six nations to face down the global financial system regarding payment of the illegitimate debt.
It’s true that experience shows that real results in building Latin American regional integration fall far short of the pronouncements. But the recent flurry of diplomatic activity—to be followed up by more meetings and a summit on Dec. 17 in Brazil—has an unprecedented urgency now: the result of not acting could be chaos.
The World Bank’s “optimistic” estimate is for about 2% average growth in the region, while other estimates predict a slight contraction. This compares to an average 5% growth a year over the past five years. In countries where so many people live on the edge, a few points uptick in inflation or a couple of percentage points drop in GDP affects survival. This isn’t a game of statistics.
The macroeconomic statistics, gloomy as they are, don’t even show the worst of it. In the most unequal region of the world, some will suffer more than others—and some will make money off disaster hand-over-fist. Although a few major companies are taking mega-losses, it’s the poor who feel the pain. In Mexico, the average real wage fell again, as inflation ate up the tiny nominal rise. Currency devaluation has pummeled consumers reliant on U.S. imports, and over a quarter of a million jobs were lost in the third quarter. Central American countries are suffering a drop in remittances from family members working in the United States, strangling the many small businesses and family economies that depend on that money. Inter-American Development Bank analyst Santiago Levy says employment will come to a standstill in the region in 2009, announcing plans to divert $6 billion of Bank funds to address the crisis.
The international financial institutions are salivating at the prospect of lending massive amounts of money to rescue Latin American countries and restore indebtedness in the region. Many countries, sick of the neoliberal conditions placed on loans, have turned their backs on the IFIs in recent years and their portfolios were seriously dwindling. Crisis means new clients—unless the Alba plan and others like it take off.
No-one knows how far this declaration of independence from U.S. financial hegemony will ultimately reach. Or even what “independence” looks like, beyond cutting ties to the dollar system. The Alba group promotes a trade model called the Trade Agreement of the Peoples as an alternative to U.S. Free Trade Agreements. While the Central American members have the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) with the United States, the other members have refused to sign FTAs.
The prospect of a unified Latin America that could finally stand up, not only to the U.S., but to the global financial system is not on the near horizon.
Once again, though, a refreshing wind from the south has blown the dust off the conventional “wisdom” of the system. For people in the United States who want to see the crisis open up real avenues for change, building alliances to help our southern neighbors build alternatives makes a lot of sense.
Related Americas Program Articles:
At a Nov. 26 meeting in Caracas, barely mentioned in the U.S. press, the nations that make up Alba (the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas) agreed to form a regional monetary zone. The idea is to immediately create a new accounting unit to be called the “sucre” (standing for Unitary System of Regional Compensation and also the name of a historical figure) and move toward adopting it as the legal tender. The financial ministers of the six Alba countries (Bolivia, Honduras, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Cuba, with Ecuador) subsequently met to begin the technical studies required to carry out the measure.
Venezuela’s finance minister, Ali Rodríguez, stated to the press, “When there’s a crisis that has among its factors the weakness of the dollar—profoundly affected by extremely high levels of speculation—that means that other regions must seek their own solutions, and that’s what is happening.”
While proposals from Venezuela to reduce U.S. influence in the region are nothing new, the other countries at the meeting showed equal enthusiasm for paths that would enable them to escape the shadow of the now not-so-mighty dollar.
Honduran economic minister Pedro Paez affirmed “At a time when the international financial crisis creates a horizon of compression of traditional markets, we are creating new markets to guarantee the adequate flow of resources and defend employment in our countries.”
Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador which is an “observer” to Alba, excoriated the dollar system. “Imperialism of the XXI century is no longer boots, no longer planes, no longer aircraft carriers, ships, or cannons. It’s called ‘dollars’, that’s how they seek to dominate us, and we’ve had enough of these pressures.” Ecuador switched to the dollar in 2000 (last time I was there you bought your sancochos with Sacajawea dollars, which solves the mystery of whatever happened to the second failed attempt to circulate a woman’s image on U.S. currency).
Other proposals to come out of the meeting include decreasing reliance on the International Monetary Fund and other U.S.-dominated international finance institutions (IFIs). The Group of 20 wealthy nations and President Bush have urged using these to bail out developing economies hard-hit by the same policies they promote.
“We’re not going to wait here with our arms crossed for the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund to come and solve the problems that this great threat unleashed on the world,” Chavez said at the Alba summit in Caracas. Although Chavez stopped short of calling for withdrawal from the IMF, both the IMF and the Inter-American Development Bank came under fire for placing political conditions on loans that limit countries’ political options in dealing with the impact of the crisis.
Chavez also criticized the Andean Development Corporation, a regional bank made up of governments and private banks, for operating along the same lines. Chavez proposed strengthening the role of the Bank of the South, and pledged $500 million of Venezuelan funds to establish a regional “common monetary fund” for the region and asked other countries to commit portions of their reserves to back up economies in crisis.
Correa slammed “certain international bureaucracies” in reference to the IFIs and their legal apparatus. He was quoted in the Ecuadorean newspaper El Telegrafo saying, “As usual, they are accomplices to the lenders and exploiters of our country, but they will find a new Latin America, one full of dignity, that will know how to respond in case they try to blackmail us.” Ecuador recently completed an audit of its foreign debt that shows that a large part of the debt was contracted illegally and under unfair terms. At the Alba meeting he got the support of the other six nations to face down the global financial system regarding payment of the illegitimate debt.
It’s true that experience shows that real results in building Latin American regional integration fall far short of the pronouncements. But the recent flurry of diplomatic activity—to be followed up by more meetings and a summit on Dec. 17 in Brazil—has an unprecedented urgency now: the result of not acting could be chaos.
The World Bank’s “optimistic” estimate is for about 2% average growth in the region, while other estimates predict a slight contraction. This compares to an average 5% growth a year over the past five years. In countries where so many people live on the edge, a few points uptick in inflation or a couple of percentage points drop in GDP affects survival. This isn’t a game of statistics.
The macroeconomic statistics, gloomy as they are, don’t even show the worst of it. In the most unequal region of the world, some will suffer more than others—and some will make money off disaster hand-over-fist. Although a few major companies are taking mega-losses, it’s the poor who feel the pain. In Mexico, the average real wage fell again, as inflation ate up the tiny nominal rise. Currency devaluation has pummeled consumers reliant on U.S. imports, and over a quarter of a million jobs were lost in the third quarter. Central American countries are suffering a drop in remittances from family members working in the United States, strangling the many small businesses and family economies that depend on that money. Inter-American Development Bank analyst Santiago Levy says employment will come to a standstill in the region in 2009, announcing plans to divert $6 billion of Bank funds to address the crisis.
The international financial institutions are salivating at the prospect of lending massive amounts of money to rescue Latin American countries and restore indebtedness in the region. Many countries, sick of the neoliberal conditions placed on loans, have turned their backs on the IFIs in recent years and their portfolios were seriously dwindling. Crisis means new clients—unless the Alba plan and others like it take off.
No-one knows how far this declaration of independence from U.S. financial hegemony will ultimately reach. Or even what “independence” looks like, beyond cutting ties to the dollar system. The Alba group promotes a trade model called the Trade Agreement of the Peoples as an alternative to U.S. Free Trade Agreements. While the Central American members have the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) with the United States, the other members have refused to sign FTAs.
The prospect of a unified Latin America that could finally stand up, not only to the U.S., but to the global financial system is not on the near horizon.
Once again, though, a refreshing wind from the south has blown the dust off the conventional “wisdom” of the system. For people in the United States who want to see the crisis open up real avenues for change, building alliances to help our southern neighbors build alternatives makes a lot of sense.
Related Americas Program Articles:
G7 Plus G20 Equals the Rocky Road to Recovery?
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5732The WTO and Other Trade Tales
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5714
Oct 6, 2008
Join us at the Americas Social Forum in Guatemala
Three events in Guatemala City this week at the FSA:
If you can be in Guatemala for the Americas Social Forum (www.fsaguatemala.org) please come see our events, and pass along the information to friends/colleagues that might be in Guatemala for the Forum.
Plan Mexico/Merida Initiative
Oct. 9, 2-5pm, Auditorio EFEPMHungry for Justice: The Food Crisis
Remapping Latin America's Future
Oct. 10, 11-1, S10-201Recent related materials from the Americas Program:
Re-mapping Latin America's Future
Hungry for Justice: How the World Food System Fails the Poor
Oct 5, 2008
Hundreds Gather to Confront Militarization of the Americas
It rains--A LOT--in La Esperanza, Honduras. Over the past weeks the rains have wiped out crops, rural roads and the little that campesinos here have to live on.
But even as the streets become giant puddles and mud holes, and the rivers plan their assault on the fields, the name of the town still translates as "hope".
That at times absurd persistence also characterizes the struggle of the over 700 people from organizations across the hemisphere, gathered in the Second Hemispheric Meeting against Militarization. Absurd, because in just the first few hours of presentations, we already had a vision of a hemisphere under attack. Persistent because despite the threats and hardships, people showed up from all over to find ways to stop militarization and instead of being discouraged by the magnitude of the challenges found real ways to move forward by sharing ideas and cultures, problems and solutions.
To understand the conference, it's important to have a working definition of militarization. To conceive of it as merely the presence of armed forces is insufficient. In Colombia and Chiapas, for example, paramilitary forces constitute a major threat. In many parts of the hemisphere police forces are being used as the shock forces to put down social protest--enforcing plans to wrest control of natural resources from rural communities and create a climate of fear in the cities. Under today's model, the U.S. government, whose overt military interventions are still fresh in the memory of many participants here, can now occupy a nation without being present by training subordinated national armies to their ends and controlling the defense and intelligence infrastructure.
In a major advance, participants mainly from grassroots indigenous, peasant and workers' organizations also analyzed how militarization stems from a mentality, the same mentality of the patriarchy that perpetuates violence against women. Not only by armed forces that see women's bodies as the spoils of war, but also in the household and the streets. Militarization could not flourish if it weren't for this mentality, along with colonial forms of education that feed racism and discrimination.
They also discussed how the justice system plays a dual role. Throughout Latin America, "sons of the Patriot Act" have been born and adopted into national legislation at the express urging of the U.S. government and international finance institutions. These anti-terrorist laws--of no real value in fighting global terrorism--have already been applied to social protest in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Mexico. While new laws criminalize dissidence, on the other side of the dysfunctional justice system lies the impunity granted security forces that have committed all sorts of crimes against their own people, including rape, assassination, assault and torture.
The men and women of the Anti-Militarization Meeting know they are swimming counter-current, in the context of policies such as Plan Mexico and the Merida Initiative, and megaprojects that bring "development" backed up by machine guns. No matter. To get beyond what might seem like a romanticized view of resistance, what I should do is recount the day to day work of the individuals and organizations here. That's probably not possible, so just imagine what happens when you merge the knowledge and commitment of nearly a thousand people from across the continent in defense of their land, their lives and their communities against military domination. Even after the grim recitation of woes, it's enough to inspire action and, yes, joy (pictures of dancing and discussing, along with more details on the meeting, to come soon.)
But even as the streets become giant puddles and mud holes, and the rivers plan their assault on the fields, the name of the town still translates as "hope".
That at times absurd persistence also characterizes the struggle of the over 700 people from organizations across the hemisphere, gathered in the Second Hemispheric Meeting against Militarization. Absurd, because in just the first few hours of presentations, we already had a vision of a hemisphere under attack. Persistent because despite the threats and hardships, people showed up from all over to find ways to stop militarization and instead of being discouraged by the magnitude of the challenges found real ways to move forward by sharing ideas and cultures, problems and solutions.
To understand the conference, it's important to have a working definition of militarization. To conceive of it as merely the presence of armed forces is insufficient. In Colombia and Chiapas, for example, paramilitary forces constitute a major threat. In many parts of the hemisphere police forces are being used as the shock forces to put down social protest--enforcing plans to wrest control of natural resources from rural communities and create a climate of fear in the cities. Under today's model, the U.S. government, whose overt military interventions are still fresh in the memory of many participants here, can now occupy a nation without being present by training subordinated national armies to their ends and controlling the defense and intelligence infrastructure.
In a major advance, participants mainly from grassroots indigenous, peasant and workers' organizations also analyzed how militarization stems from a mentality, the same mentality of the patriarchy that perpetuates violence against women. Not only by armed forces that see women's bodies as the spoils of war, but also in the household and the streets. Militarization could not flourish if it weren't for this mentality, along with colonial forms of education that feed racism and discrimination.
They also discussed how the justice system plays a dual role. Throughout Latin America, "sons of the Patriot Act" have been born and adopted into national legislation at the express urging of the U.S. government and international finance institutions. These anti-terrorist laws--of no real value in fighting global terrorism--have already been applied to social protest in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Mexico. While new laws criminalize dissidence, on the other side of the dysfunctional justice system lies the impunity granted security forces that have committed all sorts of crimes against their own people, including rape, assassination, assault and torture.
The men and women of the Anti-Militarization Meeting know they are swimming counter-current, in the context of policies such as Plan Mexico and the Merida Initiative, and megaprojects that bring "development" backed up by machine guns. No matter. To get beyond what might seem like a romanticized view of resistance, what I should do is recount the day to day work of the individuals and organizations here. That's probably not possible, so just imagine what happens when you merge the knowledge and commitment of nearly a thousand people from across the continent in defense of their land, their lives and their communities against military domination. Even after the grim recitation of woes, it's enough to inspire action and, yes, joy (pictures of dancing and discussing, along with more details on the meeting, to come soon.)
Sep 10, 2008
Chronicles from the Drug War #1: Who are the good guys?
It's confusing trying to keep track of the good guys and the bad guys in Mexico's all-out war against organized crime these days. Consider two news stories from the past few days alone:
1. Lorena González Hernández was arrested on Monday in relation to the kidnapping and murder of Fernando Martí, the 14 year old son of the founder of a chain of sports stores. So who is Lorena González? According to press reports and government statements, she's a federal police officer, working in--you guessed it--the kidnappings department. Not only that, she worked for years in the Federal Intelligence Agency (AFI) as an Interpol agent.
Who better than an insider to design a bust-proof operation?
Unfortunately, we're not talking about a Scorcese film here. The case has shaken the entire country due to its brutality(the boy's decomposing body was found in the trunk of a car weeks after the ransom was paid). Gonzalez's family members deny the charges and contradictions have emerged in government statements. But "Comandante Lore" is implicated as the person who stopped the Martí family car at a false police checkpoint, capturing Fernando, the driver (also murdered) and the bodyguard on July 4.
2. A shoot-out between federal police and army, and local police in Torreón Monday left several dead. But aren´t the police supposed to be fighting the bad guys and not each other? National newspapers report that allegedly a number of police officers on the Torreón payroll moonlighted as protection for the Gulf Cartel. The shoot-out began when federal forces set up a roadblock and captured presumed drug traffickers along with several police officers. Other municipal agents then attempted to free their partners and the shoot-out ensued. Over 30 local officers are under arrest.
These news stories are nothing new here in Mexico. What's important about them is the conclusions we draw. They leave little doubt that Mexican police forces on all levels--local, state and federal--are a rat's nest of corruption. Nobody denies that. And yet a truly thorough and committed effort to change the structure of the organizations has not even been designed. Instead these forces will received huge amounts of money from the Mexican and U.S. governments, as well as training that will no doubt be useful when they cross over.
When the lines between the good guys and the bad guys are as blurred as they are in the Mexican drug war, it's important to proceed with caution and an integral, long-term plan. This does not exist--not in the Merida Initiative or in the Mexican government's many rhetorical declarations of force. The Mexican budget includes an increase in the security budget of over 30%, mostly to confront traffickers while leaving many of the root causes of the violence untouched. Pouring weaponry and resources on the problem may only blur the lines further and accelerate the violence.
1. Lorena González Hernández was arrested on Monday in relation to the kidnapping and murder of Fernando Martí, the 14 year old son of the founder of a chain of sports stores. So who is Lorena González? According to press reports and government statements, she's a federal police officer, working in--you guessed it--the kidnappings department. Not only that, she worked for years in the Federal Intelligence Agency (AFI) as an Interpol agent.
Who better than an insider to design a bust-proof operation?
Unfortunately, we're not talking about a Scorcese film here. The case has shaken the entire country due to its brutality(the boy's decomposing body was found in the trunk of a car weeks after the ransom was paid). Gonzalez's family members deny the charges and contradictions have emerged in government statements. But "Comandante Lore" is implicated as the person who stopped the Martí family car at a false police checkpoint, capturing Fernando, the driver (also murdered) and the bodyguard on July 4.
2. A shoot-out between federal police and army, and local police in Torreón Monday left several dead. But aren´t the police supposed to be fighting the bad guys and not each other? National newspapers report that allegedly a number of police officers on the Torreón payroll moonlighted as protection for the Gulf Cartel. The shoot-out began when federal forces set up a roadblock and captured presumed drug traffickers along with several police officers. Other municipal agents then attempted to free their partners and the shoot-out ensued. Over 30 local officers are under arrest.
These news stories are nothing new here in Mexico. What's important about them is the conclusions we draw. They leave little doubt that Mexican police forces on all levels--local, state and federal--are a rat's nest of corruption. Nobody denies that. And yet a truly thorough and committed effort to change the structure of the organizations has not even been designed. Instead these forces will received huge amounts of money from the Mexican and U.S. governments, as well as training that will no doubt be useful when they cross over.
When the lines between the good guys and the bad guys are as blurred as they are in the Mexican drug war, it's important to proceed with caution and an integral, long-term plan. This does not exist--not in the Merida Initiative or in the Mexican government's many rhetorical declarations of force. The Mexican budget includes an increase in the security budget of over 30%, mostly to confront traffickers while leaving many of the root causes of the violence untouched. Pouring weaponry and resources on the problem may only blur the lines further and accelerate the violence.
Sep 1, 2008
The Speech
One thing is clear: after the 2008 convention, the Democratic Party is not the same. It’s not just that Barack Obama accepted the nomination of his party as the first African-American candidate of a major party and a former community organizer, and offered a new course for a country that had reached broad consensus that the current path under Republican administrations is a dead-end. It was the speech itself and the energy it generated that changed the U.S. political scene.
When Barack Obama took the stage before some 80,000 enthusiastic supporters, he delivered the speech of his campaign and the speech of a generation. Whether you agree with all his positions or not, the August 28 speech was impressive--for its political acumen, the masterly delivery and the response of the crowd.
This convention was billed as an “open convention.” This meant that instead of accepting the nomination in the Pepsi Center where entry was restricted to some 20,000 delegates, press and donors, it was taken outside to Mile-High Stadium where capacity was quadrupled to permit entry of campaign workers from throughout the state of Colorado, representatives of unions and organizations, and supporters who just wanted to be a part of it all.
Like any good organizer, Obama did not stand up to say ‘I will lead this nation into a new era.’ He stood up to say we will change this country.
“Across America something is stirring. What the naysayers don’t understand is that this election has never been about me--it’s about you.”
The Obama team underlined the collective nature of the challenge by presenting short speeches by average citizens carefully selected to make a plea to critical sectors of the population, coordinating on the spot over 30,000 text messages in support of the candidate from the stadium and viewers, and announcing the launch of a massive voter registration drive.
Before the speech, analysts speculated on the content. Would it seek to assuage the doubts of independent voters about his abilities or consolidate the support of democratic stalwarts? Would it be lofty rhetoric or detailed policy positions? Would it be the firebrand or the family man?
Surprisingly, it was all of the above.
Much of the personal part of making the candidate someone millions could identify with was left to the short video before his appearance. The carefully crafted message was that although he wasn’t typical (race being, as usual, an implicit sub-text) his was a uniquely American story—that with hard work, commitment, family support and a vision anyone can make it.
Obama touched briefly on the personal then launched into a hard-hitting attack on John McCain and the Bush administration for abandoning the poor and middle class. The ground had been prepared by the many “ordinary people” speeches, many of them extraordinarily effective (Barney Smith, a displaced factory worker, got the line of the night with “We need a president who puts Barney Smith before Smith Barney”)
There was no reaching across the aisle here—in fact, if anything Obama widened the aisle by emphasizing that McCain had voted with Bush 90% of the time, plans a continuation of failed economic policies and in foreign policy “has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans, democrats and republicans, have built…” Instead, many of the speeches of the night were from former Republicans crossing over.
The attacks on McCain were tough. Saying “John McCain doesn’t get it”, Obama ripped into the Republican candidate, citing his gaffes regarding the number of houses he owns and similar statements to show a man out of touch with middle class America.
In foreign policy, he called for withdrawal from Iraq, direct diplomacy in Iran, new partnerships, and restoring the U.S. government’s moral standing. Some of the ideas are vague but they’re big ideas, in the context of the smallness of mind that characterizes current foreign policy.
I’ve been criticized by progressives since writing about my guarded optimism on Obama’s Latin America policy (pretty much absent during the convention except for a commitment to pay more attention to the region in Spanish from Bill Richardson). Most comments note the areas where Obama diverges from the positions many of us hold, especially on security policy, and accuse me of a lack of realism.
But after this speech, I’m more convinced than ever that we have something to work with here. It’s even a little beyond the lesser of two evils. Obama’s discourse and organizing style—very successfully reflected in the convention—has brought up issues in the mainstream that many of us thought lost during the long years of imprisonment in the Washington Consensus and War on Terrorism: trickle-down as a “discredited philosophy”, the relationship between globalization and workers’ rights, the disaster of the Iraq invasion, corporate excesses.
The new consensus being forged on these issues is largely the result of years of work by citizen organizations and the evident failure of the Bush administration. But they are messages taken on eloquently by the candidate and echoed, finally, in the mainstream media as a result.
The Democratic Party changed perceptibly Thursday night. The party leadership was outflanked from above and below. From above, by a candidate who has certainly not broken with party positions but who has pushed further than most on issues of trade and displacement, corporate power and influence, and social programs for the poor. From below, by a base that has been mobilized to take the initiative in this campaign—through fresh faces in the ranks, grassroots funding, community organizers on the ground where traditionally party officials ran the show, and a level of involvement both physical and emotional that was evident in Denver last week.
We can’t know what policies will actually come out of it. But the second major impact of Barack Obama’s candidacy is the re-enfranchisement of important segments of the U.S. population, especially groups that had been excluded or ignored. This “something is stirring in America” may sound a little corny but even hardened political announcers found the energy in Mile-High Stadium after the speech contagious, and the thousands of campaign workers will go home with more than souvenirs.
If you believe that a new foreign policy must be built from the bottom up, like all change, that can only be a good sign.
When Barack Obama took the stage before some 80,000 enthusiastic supporters, he delivered the speech of his campaign and the speech of a generation. Whether you agree with all his positions or not, the August 28 speech was impressive--for its political acumen, the masterly delivery and the response of the crowd.
This convention was billed as an “open convention.” This meant that instead of accepting the nomination in the Pepsi Center where entry was restricted to some 20,000 delegates, press and donors, it was taken outside to Mile-High Stadium where capacity was quadrupled to permit entry of campaign workers from throughout the state of Colorado, representatives of unions and organizations, and supporters who just wanted to be a part of it all.
Like any good organizer, Obama did not stand up to say ‘I will lead this nation into a new era.’ He stood up to say we will change this country.
“Across America something is stirring. What the naysayers don’t understand is that this election has never been about me--it’s about you.”
The Obama team underlined the collective nature of the challenge by presenting short speeches by average citizens carefully selected to make a plea to critical sectors of the population, coordinating on the spot over 30,000 text messages in support of the candidate from the stadium and viewers, and announcing the launch of a massive voter registration drive.
Before the speech, analysts speculated on the content. Would it seek to assuage the doubts of independent voters about his abilities or consolidate the support of democratic stalwarts? Would it be lofty rhetoric or detailed policy positions? Would it be the firebrand or the family man?
Surprisingly, it was all of the above.
Much of the personal part of making the candidate someone millions could identify with was left to the short video before his appearance. The carefully crafted message was that although he wasn’t typical (race being, as usual, an implicit sub-text) his was a uniquely American story—that with hard work, commitment, family support and a vision anyone can make it.
Obama touched briefly on the personal then launched into a hard-hitting attack on John McCain and the Bush administration for abandoning the poor and middle class. The ground had been prepared by the many “ordinary people” speeches, many of them extraordinarily effective (Barney Smith, a displaced factory worker, got the line of the night with “We need a president who puts Barney Smith before Smith Barney”)
There was no reaching across the aisle here—in fact, if anything Obama widened the aisle by emphasizing that McCain had voted with Bush 90% of the time, plans a continuation of failed economic policies and in foreign policy “has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans, democrats and republicans, have built…” Instead, many of the speeches of the night were from former Republicans crossing over.
The attacks on McCain were tough. Saying “John McCain doesn’t get it”, Obama ripped into the Republican candidate, citing his gaffes regarding the number of houses he owns and similar statements to show a man out of touch with middle class America.
In foreign policy, he called for withdrawal from Iraq, direct diplomacy in Iran, new partnerships, and restoring the U.S. government’s moral standing. Some of the ideas are vague but they’re big ideas, in the context of the smallness of mind that characterizes current foreign policy.
I’ve been criticized by progressives since writing about my guarded optimism on Obama’s Latin America policy (pretty much absent during the convention except for a commitment to pay more attention to the region in Spanish from Bill Richardson). Most comments note the areas where Obama diverges from the positions many of us hold, especially on security policy, and accuse me of a lack of realism.
But after this speech, I’m more convinced than ever that we have something to work with here. It’s even a little beyond the lesser of two evils. Obama’s discourse and organizing style—very successfully reflected in the convention—has brought up issues in the mainstream that many of us thought lost during the long years of imprisonment in the Washington Consensus and War on Terrorism: trickle-down as a “discredited philosophy”, the relationship between globalization and workers’ rights, the disaster of the Iraq invasion, corporate excesses.
The new consensus being forged on these issues is largely the result of years of work by citizen organizations and the evident failure of the Bush administration. But they are messages taken on eloquently by the candidate and echoed, finally, in the mainstream media as a result.
The Democratic Party changed perceptibly Thursday night. The party leadership was outflanked from above and below. From above, by a candidate who has certainly not broken with party positions but who has pushed further than most on issues of trade and displacement, corporate power and influence, and social programs for the poor. From below, by a base that has been mobilized to take the initiative in this campaign—through fresh faces in the ranks, grassroots funding, community organizers on the ground where traditionally party officials ran the show, and a level of involvement both physical and emotional that was evident in Denver last week.
We can’t know what policies will actually come out of it. But the second major impact of Barack Obama’s candidacy is the re-enfranchisement of important segments of the U.S. population, especially groups that had been excluded or ignored. This “something is stirring in America” may sound a little corny but even hardened political announcers found the energy in Mile-High Stadium after the speech contagious, and the thousands of campaign workers will go home with more than souvenirs.
If you believe that a new foreign policy must be built from the bottom up, like all change, that can only be a good sign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)