The governor of the Mexican state of Veracruz has called for an independent investigation into the operations of Carroll Farms, the livestock company co-owned by Smithfield Foods and AHMSA of Mexico. The massive industrial farm animal production facilities are located near the village where the first case of the swine flu outbreak was confirmed in an eight-year old boy, Edgar Hernandez.
“We should have an independent authority to have extra assurance that there is no link whatsoever between what happened and what was at the beginning a link to the swine flu,” Governor Fidel Herrera told Al Jazeera reporters.
The governor’s announcement follows a long line of denials and cover-ups regarding the role of the hog farm in the outbreak of the A/H1N1 virus in Mexico. An outbreak of unusual respiratory disease began in communities surrounding the farm in early March, with some indications dating back to January. Local health authorities attributed the outbreak of what is being called “acute respiratory infection” to the open-pit lagoons of manure and biological wastes surrounding the farms.
On April 5, local health authorities declared a health cordon in the area but tests were not carried out to determine an exact diagnosis of the strange disease. Meanwhile, the U.S. Center for Disease Control determined on Apr. 17 that two patient samples from California were a new H1N1 virus, and on Apr. 21 the CDC issued an early dispatch to its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report to warn of the discovery of a new virus. The San Diego cases were then linked to the suspicious cases popping up in Mexico and the alert went out of a possible pandemic.
Emergency measures in Mexico were not declared until Apr. 23. On April 25, the World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General declared the outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.
As of this writing the United States reports 2,254 confirmed cases and two deaths. International cases according to the World Health Organization stand at 3,440. On May 7, the Mexican Secretary of Health confirmed 1,364 cases and 45 deaths.
System Slow to Respond to Protect Public Health
Three warning signs indicating the existence of a new virus went unheeded in Mexico: 1) an atypical outbreak of flu outside the normal flu season, 2) victims in the middle-age range--35 of the deaths are of people between 20 and 39 years of age—rather than concentrations among the very old and the very, and, 3) the proximity of the outbreaks to the hog farm.
The delayed response on the national and international level of even a few days, meant the difference between epidemic and “imminent pandemic” according to various experts.
According to a May 1, Science article:
“Both CDC and WHO have made clear that the careful plans developed over the past 5 years to squelch pandemics at their source don't play a role at all now because the virus is already too widely dispersed. In papers published in 2005 in Science and Nature, scientists concluded that it might be possible to stop a budding pandemic locally by aggressive, targeted use of antivirals and measures such as shutting down transport and schools. WHO had stashed away some 5 million treatment courses of oseltamivir that could be used to that end.
The scenario might have worked for swine flu, says Longini (A University of Washington epidemiologist)-if it had been tried much earlier. "There were 800 or 900 [suspected] cases before it hit the global radar screen; that's way beyond a containable outbreak."
Finding the answer to why diagnosis and response were delayed following these initial warning signs should be a major point on the follow-up agenda for the Mexican health system and international agencies.
Factors include: a lack of response to the initial reports from Perote, possibly to protect the hog farm from bad publicity; the fact that Mexico’s North American partners under NAFTA had not developed technology transfer and training to enable the Mexican government to test and detect suspicious outbreaks that did not fit known patterns; an inexplicably slow response on the part of the Center for Disease Control; evidence of efforts to explain away cases with misdiagnoses in local and state health facilities in Mexico (Oaxaca and Veracruz); and problems in communication and coordination within Mexico’s decentralized health system. Some reports that poor people were discriminated against and their complaints dismissed also weigh into the inquiry.
Another factor was the lack of tracking and regulation of swine diseases, even though scientists have known for decades that pig and human diseases can and do cross the species barrier.
Defending the Factory Farm
Experts have long warned that “industrial farm animal production” (IFAP) leads to potentially serious human health impacts. A tragically prophetic study done by the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production of 2008 concludes, “…one of the most serious unintended consequences of industrial food animal production is the growing public health threat of these types of facilities. In addition to the contribution of IFAP to the major threat of antimicrobial resistance, IFAP facilities can be harmful to workers, neighbors, and even those living far from the facilities through air and water pollution, and via the spread of disease.
“The study continues (references in original), “Workers in and neighbors of IFAP facilities experience high levels of respiratory problems, including asthma. In addition, workers can serve as a bridging population, transmitting animal-borne diseases to a wider population. A lack of appropriate treatment of enormous amounts of waste may result in contamination of nearby waters with harmful levels of nutrients and toxins, as well as bacteria, fungi, and viruses, all of which can affect the health of people both near and far from IFAP facilities.”
As local residents protested the stench and pointed to the hog farm as the source of their sickness, Veracruz authorities seem to have gone out of their way to divert suspicions that Smithfield’s Carroll Farms had anything to do with the unusual illnesses being reported. Although health officials sprayed the village of La Gloria to kill off swarms of flies coming from the company’s nearby open-pit manure lagoons, explanations lit on anything but the hog farm.
Federal authorities also denied the link to the hog farm and a Carroll Farms representative called the fact that the first swine flu case was located within a few miles of the farm “an unfortunate coincidence”. On May 2, the company held a press conference to pronounce that its product posed no health risks but spokespersons refused to take a single question from the press.
Reportedly, Carroll Farms sent samples from its herd for testing at some point soon after the outbreak and both the company itself and the Mexican government absolved Smithfield pigs from any role in the epidemic.
Then came the announcement that an outbreak of the same virus had been discovered in a pig herd in Alberta, Canada.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency reported this week that about 220 pigs of a 2,200 herd have the 2009 H1N1 virus. This is the first time that the flu has been officially identified in a pig herd and raises suspicions to a higher level. Canadian authorities, industry spokespersons and media have circulated the version that the pigs were contaminated by a worker on the farm who had recently returned from Mexico.
The farm worker returned to Canada from Mexico on April 12 and had contact with the pigs two days later. The pigs began showing signs of the flu on April 24, said the country's top veterinary officer, Dr. Brian Evans of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in a radio report from Ottawa. The pigs are reportedly in quarantine, with no risk to the food chain.
However, a review of the reports cited no scientific evidence behind the theory that the worker was the source of the outbreak in the pigs and not vice versa. An article in The Star quotes this convoluted explanation from Dr. Peter Ben Embarek, a WHO food safety scientist, "We expected that at some point since this virus has swine virus elements that we would find possibly the virus in swine pigs in the region where the virus is circulating”.
Statements from Canadian health officials did little to clear up the confusion. Assuming the premise of the person-to-pig transmission without explaining the basis, Evans noted that the virus showed no signs of mutation when passing from human to pig. "At this point in time, the issue of this being a human virus, having been introduced to the pigs, and the characterization of this virus, shows it is still that virus," he said. What that seems to mean is that the virus is identical in both species, but it still does not explain why authorities assume that the pigs caught it from the humans.
Tom Philpott, one of the first people to sound the alarm on the factory farm connection, writes in Grist that both flies and asymptomatic pigs can spread the disease. How do scientists know which direction the virus traveled across the species barrier? Why is that information not provided to the public?
If there is solid scientific evidence that the pigs caught the virus from human beings, the public has a right to know what that evidence is. It, on the other hand, this theory is speculation, we have a right not to be fed speculation as if it were scientific fact.
As the human-to-pig theory is accepted as fact in the media in the Canadian case, many experts insist on the swine origin of the virus. Citing the U.S. Centers for Disease Control Scientific American points out a starting point that politicians seem to have lost sight of: “But what is clear thanks to the hard work of virologists is that this particular strain of flu got its genetic start on U.S. hog farms back in the 1990s.”
Ruben Donis, chief of the molecular virology and vaccines branch at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, stated in an interview with Science magazine,
“We know it’s quite similar to viruses that were circulating in the United States and are still circulating in the United States and that are self-limiting, and they usually only are found in Midwestern states where there is swine farming.
Q: Is it of swine origin?
R.D.: Definitely. It’s almost equidistant to swine viruses from the United States and Eurasia. And it’s a lonely branch there. It doesn’t have any close relatives.”
For years scientists have known that pigs incubate and mutate viruses and many have warned that “factory farms” where large numbers are kept in close quarters create a perfect breeding ground for the rapid evolution of disease. The massive use of antibiotics means that viruses seek mutations resistant to the medicines. In the past, few cases of swine flu passing to human transmission were reported but it has long been known that it is possible. This virus posed a particular risk because of its contagion from human to human.
There is a persistent lack of transparency and complete information on the question of ‘which came first—the pig or the person?’ FAO spokesperson Erwin Northoff dismissed the idea that the FAO should investigate the Alberta hog farm where the first case of A/H1N1 was detected in pigs, stating flatly, “I don’t think there is any need for the FAO to assist the Canadians.”
The concern is that, having sold the person-to-pig theory in the Canadian case, any indication of infection at the Veracruz farm will be similarly dismissed. That requires, of course, that citizens fail to notice the lack of scientific evidence to support it and that any scientist with contradicting evidence keep quiet.
In Mexico there has been an unaccountable lack of serious investigation into possible links to the industrial animal farm, and on all levels officials have attempted to discard the theory that Smithfield hogs contributed to the flu epidemic. This behavior only deepens suspicions that the powerful interests of transnational livestock producers are being protected.
With the Canadian case, the heat turned up on Smithfield’s Carroll Farms in Veracruz. The industry newsletter “Meatingplace” reported on May 5:
“In a letter to employees last week, CEO C. Larry Pope indicated Smithfield hired an independent laboratory to conduct additional testing on its Mexican hogs after initial inspections by the company and international health officials found no evidence of the illness. He said results would be returned in a "few" days.
”Mexican government authorities will conduct further testing, including genetic sequence analysis, to determine if any flu strains are present. These tests will take about 12 days, Keira Ullrich, Smithfield's investor relations manager, told Meatingplace.
“The results will enable us to conclude with certainty that the A(H1N1) strain is not present in our hogs," Ullrich said in an e-mail to Meatingplace.”
The stated purpose of the testing, then, is not to discover any possible health risks to the human population but to confirm a vindicating foregone conclusion. This phrasing and the effort to avoid an investigation not hired and paid for by the company leaves little doubt that Smithfield is on the defensive.
Also since the genetic sequencing of the virus is relatively simple, the twelve day timeline seems long. Could that period include time for developing a damage-control strategy?
If we learned anything from the financial crisis, it’s that business cannot be trusted to self-regulate. Although Mexico City residents were required to interrupt their schooling, work and social activities to stem the epidemic, swine farms--including the one at point zero of the epidemic--are not required by law to report disease and Carroll Farms in Perote has not been ordered to open up files and facilities to a thorough independent inspection.
Public Right to Know Blocked by Delays, Distortion and Omissions
Although the Internet and media are abuzz with reports and opinions on the swine flu epidemic, finding clear and confirmed information is maddeningly difficult. Official communications and omissions that indicate bending over backwards to protect industry interests have given rise to a plethora of rumors, ranging from wild conspiracy theories to justified suspicions that officials are working overtime to deflect public attention from the hog farms.
The names of all victims and affected persons are being withheld. Although Sec. of Health Cordova finally admitted that poverty and overcrowded living conditions was a factor in the deaths, he provided no socioeconomic data on the victims. Confusion among initial statistics has given rise to the contradictory suspicions among Mexicans that the death toll is being under-reported and that the epidemic doesn’t really exist.
Women make up 56% of the deaths from the swine flu. This indicates that a thorough investigation must also include a gender perspective. It also indicates that the compromised immune systems of many Mexicans who live without adequate health and nutrition--a condition that includes a disproportionate number of women—contributes to flu mortality rates.
The Mexican Secretary of Health now says that 77 early deaths showing the symptoms of swine flu will remain forever in the “suspicious” category because samples were not taken of the victims. Since no information has been released on where those cases were from or the characteristics of the victims, we may never know how many of those correspond to residents of communities exposed to the livestock operations.
Solid information pertaining to the possible origins of the virus is even more difficult to find. The swine flu connection and tentative link to Carroll Farms would seem to be a classic case for the mammoth Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Reports that the FAO was sending a team to Veracruz came out in the press the first week of May. But later no-one seemed to know whether the team had arrived, where it was, or what it was doing. I called the FAO to find out.
Spokesperson Alison Small replied that she “thought” the team had arrived but was in her car and would confirm in ten minutes. When I called back, I found that the number I had just called was listed as “non-existent.” I tried another six times and got the same response. When I reached spokesperson Northoff he said that the team is currently working in Mexico, but he did know its schedule or research agenda. He did confirm that the team will be working at Carroll Farms and will produce a report in a matter of “days”.
So far, the FAO has nothing about an investigation of the Smithfield operation in Veracruz on its website. Nearly all its press releases since the outbreak are focused on “protecting the pig sector”.
Its first press release dated April 27, echoes the industry objective to “protect the pig sector from the novel H1N1 virus by confirming there is no direct link to pigs” rather than adopting the scientific method of gathering evidence first and arriving at conclusions later.
The next press release steps up efforts to protect the global pork sector, announcing an official language change—obediently adopted by most of the world’s media--, designed to disassociate the epidemic from what the FAO considered wrongly maligned swine operations:
“…there is currently no evidence to suggest that the novel human-to-human transmitted H1N1 influenza virus is circulating in pigs in Mexico or anywhere else in the world, reasserted FAO Chief Veterinary Officer of FAO, Mr. Joseph Domenech. He added that ‘given current facts and scientific understanding, consumption of pig meat does not bring any increased risk to the consumer.’ It is for these reasons that FAO, the World Health Organization and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) agreed to no longer refer to “swine flu” but instead to "Influenza A/H1N1".
A May 2 joint statement from the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Trade Organization warns against imposition of anti-pork trade measures:
"To date there is no evidence that the virus is transmitted by food. There is currently therefore no justification in the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Code for the imposition of trade measures on the importation of pigs or their products.”
When the Canadian pig outbreak quickly belied the assurance that the disease was not circulating among swine, the organization issued a release on May 4 echoing the Canadian version of “human-to-animal transmission” and stating:
“Surveillance for porcine respiratory disease should be intensified and all cases of porcine respiratory syndrome are recommended to be immediately reported to veterinary authorities. It is also recommended to inform OIE and FAO about any occurrence of outbreaks of the new A/H1N1 Influenza virus in pigs.”
Virulent Virus Leaps Species Barrier, Bureaucracy Does Not
Note the language in the FAO press release: “all cases of porcine respiratory disease are recommended to be immediately reported” and “It is also recommended to inform OIE and FAO”.
As Mexicans reel under draconian measures that included suspension of schools, cultural events, “non-priority” government activities and the temporary closure of bars and restaurants, industrial farm animal producers in most countries are not even subject to obligatory reporting of virus outbreaks that are known to have the capability of spreading to the human population. Neither Mexico nor the United States have laws that require reporting swine flu. The United States currently uses a totally voluntary animal tracking system (NAIS).
Canada does require reporting of disease outbreaks in farm animals. This may account for why Canada is the first place that the A/H1N1 virus was detected in pigs.
In an article titled “Swine Flu Shows need for Better Animal Testing”, Bryan Walsh writes in Time magazine notes, “The H1N1 virus contains human, avian and swine flu genes, and genetic analysis indicates that it reassorted years ago, meaning it could have been in pig populations for some time before the virus gained the ability to transmit easily from person to person. If we had had tight surveillance of flu infections among swine, we might have noticed that something bad was brewing.”
One of the reasons oversight is so lax on factory farms is that a stark distinction exists among agencies and regulations pertaining to human health, and animal health. When asked about the evidence regarding the source of contamination on the Canadian farm as a worker returning from Mexico, FAO spokesperson Northoff replied that the organization could not confirm the human-to-animal link and that the FAO “only works on animal health issues.”
Animal health is generally considered under agricultural regulations rather than health. Despite the known health risks to human populations, regulations remain voluntary and woefully behind the times. The Pew study concludes with the recommendation: “A mandatory premise and individual animal or lot registration should be in effect by 2009, with an animal tracing capability in place by 2010.”
A Pound of Cure
The adage teaches that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. But in this case, it’s the pound of cure that’s worth billions. As government and international health officials ignore causes of the epidemic rooted in globalized factory farms and poor health systems, it could very well be that global pharmaceutical companies convert the latest flu pandemic into one of the most lucrative disasters the world has ever known.
The money to be made in privately produced antivirals and vaccines is mind-boggling. Roche is ramping up to produce 400 million doses of its antiviral Tamiflu a year and the French ambassador to Mexico reports that it has a market value of 230 pesos, or around $18 dollars, per dose. Do the math.
The Science article quotes retired pharmaceutical executive and flu vaccine expert David Fedson’s fears that the antiviral is “too pricey for many poor nations.” In a worst-case analysis this could lead to a survival gap between developed and developing nations.
Although many cite the complexity of the formula, the global patent system and dismantling of public health research centers lies at the root of the access problem. Big Pharma has exclusive production and distribution rights to its products except for very limited cases where generic production has been licensed. A monopoly on life-giving medicines means the companies can charge what they want and if private customers can’t pay it, governments will.
As the CDC drags its heels on a decision about whether to produce the vaccine or not, the drug companies jockey for position. One lab that already requested a sample of the new flu to begin work on a vaccine is Baxter International, Inc., headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.
Baxter achieved notoriety last December when it mistakenly sent out a batch of highly virulent H5N1 bird flu to a lab, in a batch of human flu. Not only did the mistake risk release of the dangerous bird flu, but according to a Times of India report , if a lab worker became infected with the two viruses, that person would become an incubator for a hybrid not unlike the one we see now but potentially more lethal. Baxter is still under investigation by four European countries and the World Health Organization.
The winner of the swine flu derby-- the private company that obtains the discovery and patent on a new vaccine—can count on a major market. Some health officials talk about giving the vaccine, now barely in the development stage, to practically the entire population of the world. According to the Washington Post, the Obama administration is considering adding two rounds of the new swine flu to a multi-billion dollar fall vaccination campaign--up to 600 million doses in the U.S. alone.
The idea of distributing a hitherto unknown swine flu vaccination along with the usual flu shot opens up the possibility of a host of highly unpredictable side effects. Experts also worry that in the heat of an epidemic, the new vaccine will be permitted to leap over the customary requirements for releasing a new medicine on the market. The U.S. government proposal to distribute a new swine flu vaccination along with the usual flu shot opens up the possibility of a host of highly unpredictable side effects. Assuming that a vaccine was even ready in the fall, to reach the market as part of a massive vaccination campaign would almost certainly violate adequate testing requirements. With sufficient public pressure, one hopes that more prudent voices will stand off against the pharmaceutical companies that will argue for giving out millions of doses to citizens without safety assurances.
Here’s a case where history should not be allowed to repeat itself. A swine flu vaccine distributed to the U.S. public in 1976 resulted in hundreds of cases of Guillain-Barre, a previously rare neurological disorder. The U.S. government stopped the shots ten weeks—and 40 million Americans--into the campaign. Twenty-five people died and others were left crippled.
As the pounds multiply, there is barely an ounce of prevention planned. In some cases, government reactions will assure that the next outbreak is even more devastating.
In Mexico, nowhere among the proposed lessons and responses is a concrete commitment to improve the overall health of the Mexican population in order to reduce their risks of flu-related death. During the recent epidemic, the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS, by its Spanish initials) provided the shock troops to confront the disease. Its doctors and nurses spread out through cities and country side and its clinics and mobile units routinely cover 44 million Mexicans including private-sector workers and their families.
Although the response to the crisis would have been even more delayed and largely impossible without these professionals, the Mexican Secretary of the Treasury announced on May 6 seven measures to confront the effects of the swine flu epidemic on the national economy. These included a reduction of 20% in businesses’ contributions to IMSS for a period of at least two months.
Mexican health policy expert Gustavo Leal told the Americas Program, “This measure means major financing cutbacks to IMSS health services. It represents an astounding incoherence in policies and objectives, especially with the swine flu crisis.”
Leal notes that the measure comes on the heels of previous cuts in social security contributions devised as part of Calderon’s anti-crisis plan announced in January of this year. IMSS personnel and citizen organizations have long accused the conservative government of purposely under-financing and undermining the IMSS in an effort to justify privatization.
A Critical Crossroads
To prevent another deadly flu outbreak would require measures quite different from what we are seeing today, in Mexico and among international agencies.
* We know that the epidemic kills in patients with compromised immune systems, yet rather than strengthening the Mexican health care system, it is being further eroded. Doctors here emphasize the importance of improving health and health care among the population to avoid further deaths. Evidence gathered at hospitals where patients are treated for the flu also indicates that existing flu vaccines are effective in protecting against the new flu yet the Sec. of Health denies the claim and awaits a new silver-bullet solution from pharmaceutical companies. The particular risk to women has not been addressed.
* We know that finding the origin of the virus could lead to reducing the appearance of new and even more lethal viruses, yet the signs that point to factory farms are being dismissed by officials.
* We know that widespread production of antivirals, affordability and rapid production of a vaccine is vital to surviving a pandemic and yet the patent system goes untouched while qualified public research institutes take a backseat to profit-seeking private firms.
Governments and international agencies emphasize the need to be vigilant as the peak period of the epidemic winds seems to be winding down. Reocurrences are part of flu cycles and the virus could return with a vengeance in the regular winter flu season.
But even more dangerous than the virus itself, is the political and economic aftermath. Different political responses and readings of the crisis could take us in very different directions.
We could end up in a world where the pandemic is under control but mega-profits for pharmaceutical companies enable them to tighten their stranglehold on public health; impunity for factory farms leads to official stonewalling of demands for supervision and regulation; public fear numbs dissent; and the spectre of disease obscures the reality of inequality, poverty and discrimination that placed the population at risk.
But we also have the chance to expose a system that didn’t work.
Without elaborating on each, here is a list for further collective analysis:
1) NAFTA failed to promote strategically important technology transfer to Mexico in the health field and others, and has proved a disincentive to national research and development.
2) NAFTA provisions that enable polluting industries to locate where laws and enforcement are lax encourage practices that threaten health and the environment, like open-pit manure lagoons, non-reporting of animal illness, cover-ups and other factors that may have contributed to the swine flu epidemic.
3) The centrality of foreign investment in the Mexican economy creates a climate where transnational corporations with large investments can exercise coercive power over government agencies on all levels.
4) Mexico’s decentralized health system, modelled on World Bank prescriptions, and the lack of resources dedicated to preventive and general health programs revealed the cracks in the system that so many Mexicans fall through every year.
5) The global patent system allows pharmaceutical companies to determine the price, quantity, quality and distribution of life-saving medicines and they apply criteria of earnings rather than public health when making those decisions.
This epidemic in the end turned out to be less lethal than many feared at the outset. The WHO and national systems tried out new pandemic response mechanisms that, while they worked to detain the spread of the virus, also demonstrated that avoiding global spread in a globalized world is impossible.
Mexico has suffered by far the worst consequences of the outbreak. Not only did more Mexicans die than anywhere else—and health officials are not entirely clear about the reason for that—but the measures applied to avoid a pandemic struck hard at the Mexican economy at a time when it is weakest. According to the Secretary of the Treasury, the nation lost 0.3% of GNP solely due to the virus, while other economic analysts say a more realistic figure is 1%. The cost is estimated by authorities at 30 billion pesos ($2.3 billion USD) while private analysts cite 60 billion pesos ($4.59 billion dollars).
This translates into a four to six percent contraction in growth for the year. The loss of remittances from migrants in the United States, lower oil prices and the global economic crisis mean that a country where nearly half the population already lives in poverty will now hit a major recession with massive job loss.
The Mexican government plans to confront the deficit by taking out more loans from international agencies such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and Inter-American Development Bank. This response takes Mexico out of the pot and into the fire, as increases foreign debt and merely mitigates the crisis temporarily despite a bleak outlook beyond 2009. It also forces the nation to further submit to the same neoliberal policies that stripped its health services and installed widespread poverty through conditionality attached to the loans.
Although several countries have sent donations of antivirals and medical aid, aid to the general economy has not been forthcoming. The U.S. government has responded to the humanitarian crisis growing south of its border by proposing to ramp up security aid to fight drug trafficking while ignoring Mexico's pressing needs in health and employment.
Not only is this the wrong focus, this military and police aid is proving counter-productive. In a letter dated May 6, 72 Mexican human rights organizations noted the surge in human rights violations committed by the Mexican military since President Felipe Calderon launched the militarized “war on drugs”. The letter urges the United States “to support a holistic approach to security problems based not on the logic of combat but on tackling the root causes of violence and assuring full respect for human rights.” The organizations also call for a thorough reconsideration of the Merida Initiative security aid now before the U.S. Congress for its third year of funding.
A good neighbor policy toward Mexico would use scarce U.S. resources to support job generation, health care and poverty alleviation at a moment of severe crisis. Dedicating nearly 100% of aid to Mexico to security forces and objectives could have exactly the opposite effect than intended—it could ignite serious conflict and instability. Expected citizen protests for basic needs are all too likely to be met with repression rather than solutions.
In this area, peaceful prevention measures are far preferable to armed cures. Drug-related violence has fallen to the back pages of the newspapers in recent days and although it will continue to be a major challenge, Mexico now clearly shows a more complex clinical case than before.
As in medicine, policies that ignore a broad diagnosis to aggressively attack a single symptom lead not to wellness, but to deeper crisis. Mexico’s swine flu epidemic provides lessons that go beyond the pandemic and strike at the heart of a system that favors corporate interests above public health. It’s time to turn that system around.
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.
May 8, 2009
Impunity in San Salvador Atenco
Monica WootersThe intense heat of San Salvador Atenco did not stop a large crowd from gathering in the main plaza to show their solidarity with the Peoples Front in Defense of the Land (FPDT, Frente de Pueblos en Defensa de la Tierra). The event commemorated the third anniversary of the brutal repression of the movement by state and federal police that left two dead and scores of numerous human right violations
The events of May 2006 came after the FPDT—founded in 2001—placed itself on a collision course with the system after opposing a federal project to construct an international airport on community lands. The organization succeeded and the federal government was forced to suspend the project in 2002.
However, four years later, on May 3 2006, officials attempted to evict local roadside flower vendors on the authority of the municipal government, backed by the Mexico state government. The FPDT supported the flower vendors in their attempt to resist the eviction, resulting in a violent confrontation between the security forces and the social movement.
The confrontation lasted two days and resulted in many major human right violations including the death of two young people, Javier Cortés Santiago and Alexis Benhumea, sexual abuse, unwarranted raids on homes, assaults, violations of due process rights and the illegal expulsion of foreigners. Dozens of people were injured and some 211 individuals were arrested by the end of the two-day standoff. Many of those detained reported having been physically mistreated in custody, including sexual aggression and in five cases, rape.
As of the third anniversary twelve members of the movement and supporters remain in prison; three are serving sentences in the maximum security facility “Altiplano,” located in Almoloya de Juárez, State of Mexico, while the remaining nine are serving in the Molino d
e las Flores prison in Texcoco, State of Mexico. The National and International Campaign: Liberty and Justice for Atenco has highlighted the three former cases due to their severity. Hector Galindo, former legal advisor to the FPDT and Felipe Alvarez, member of the FPDT, have each been sentenced to 67 years, while Ignacio Del Valle, president of the FPDT has been sentenced to a total of 112 years. In contrast, of the 21 police agents detained, only six were processed and none of them are currently serving sentences.After three years, the Mexican and international courts have made little to no progress on the cases against the police for assault and abuse. The Mexican Supreme Court issued a resolution on Dec. 12, 2008 recognizing the existence of major human rights abuses but failing to implicate state or federal officials that have been publicly identified as responsible by many individuals close to the case. The two main officials accused of political responsibility for the violence perpetrated by security forces are the State of Mexico’s governor, Enrique Peña Nieto and the Federal Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora.
Peña Nieto, a member of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), the party in power in Mexico for some 70 years prior to 2000) has been regularly mentioned as the leading candidate for the Mexican presidency in the 2012 elections, implying the return of the PRI to national power. The court ruled that investigation into Peña Nieto’s role in the repression was unnecessary and limited the scope of the investigation. It has yet to produce its final resolution on the Atenco case.
In July 2008, Cristina Valls, a Catalan woman who was the victim of abuse and rape by security officials, submitted her case to the Audiencia Nacional of Spain. Her petition calls for the invocation of the Convention Against Torture of 1987, signed by both Spain and Mexico as well as the “application of decision 237/2005 of the Spanish Constitutional Tribunal, which establishes that the only requisite to begin proceedings and investigate a serious crime is that the accused has not been acquitted, pardoned or sentenced in another jurisdiction for the same facts and with regards to the same persons,” as argued by her legal defense spearheaded by Women’s Link.
Although Valls claim that she and others were raped and beaten in police custody has been corroborated by a report from the Psychosocial Health Section of Doctors Without Borders in Spain, the case was dismissed twice by judge Fernando Grande-Marlaska. The judge stated that Valls’ case was already being investigated by Mexican authorities. Valls and Women’s Link have appealed the decision twice and it remains unresolved. Valls also linked the lack of interest on the part of the Spanish court to the political climate between Mexico and the European Union. “There are trade agreements between Europe and Mexico with democratic clauses that would be invoked if human rights violations are recognized.”
Eleven women who were also victims of abuse in the Atenco case have petitioned the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR)to make a declaration stating that the Mexican government has violated their human rights. They are still in the beginning stages of the process after presenting the petition in April of 2008 along with the Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Human Rights Center (Centro Prodh) and the Center for International Justice and Law (CEJIL).
While the national and international legal systems act slowly if at all, the people of Atenco remain strong in their commitment to keep up the fight until justice is done. At the third anniversary, Mexican academics, actors, human rights activists and others spoke out against the injustice and pledged their solidarity with the FPDT. The organization also has garnered international solidarity through Zapatista networks and among human rights organizations.
As the guests prepared to speak to the crowd, it was the grassroots members of the FPDT frying up the sopes, setting up the stage and tying up banners that read “Tierra, Justicia y Libertad” (Land, Justice and Liberty) who made the event radiate with hope. The event ended when the whole crowd cried out together: HASTA LA VICTORIA, VENCEREMOS!
For More Information:
Libertad y Justicia para Atenco: Campaña Nacional e Internacional
http://www.atencolibertadyjusticia.com/new/
May 7, 2009
Mexican Civil Society and NGOs Speak Out Against US Militarization
Monica Wooters On May 6, 67 Mexican human rights organizations (all non-governmental organizations) along with several other Mexican organizations and individuals, made a call to end US support to the Mexican military in the war on drugs. The letter was addressed to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-NY), Sen. Judd Greg (R-NH) and Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX) as well as Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI), Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS), Rep. David R. Obey (D-WI) and Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and interim ambassador to Mexico, Leslie Basset.
The letter come following the approval of 2009 appropriations for the controversial three year Merida Initiative which provides US funds to aid Mexican president Felipe Calderón’s war on drugs and just as new talks begin in Congress to nearly double those funds through the FY09 Appropriations Supplemental Request. The signatories cite major human rights violations perpetrated by the Mexican military as it has taken on the drug cartels, a role that is normally performed by the police forces. The letter states:
“The deployment of the Mexican Army to carry out public security tasks that legally correspond to the civilian police has brought with it a significant increase in human rights violations in the last two years, including extrajudicial executions, torture, arbitrary detentions and rape. In fact, the number of complaints for human rights violations committed by members of the armed forces registered by the National Human Rights Commission has increased six-fold during the last two years, reaching 1,230 in 2008.”The letter also refers to the responsibility of the US government:
“We respectfully request that the U.S. Congress and Department of State, in both the Merida Initiative as in other programs to support public security in Mexico, does not allocate funds or direct programs to the armed forces. We believe that a change of paradigm is needed.”Specifically mentioned root causes of the problem include inequality as well as lack of access to education and job opportunities.
Appropriations for the Merida Initiative in 2010 will be discussed in Congress shortly. Human rights groups in the United States Mexico
For further analysis of the Merida Initiative:
A Primer on Plan Mexico
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5204
Plan Mexico: Uphill battle will continue against failed model
Resources on Plan Mexico (Merida Initiative)
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:
- How the NAFTA Flu Exploded (Al Giordano, 29/04/09)
- Swine flu, border security and public priorities (Kent Paterson, 28/04/09)
- Swine-flu outbreak could be linked to Smithfield factory farms (Tom Philpot, 25/04/09)
Apr 16, 2009
Mr. President: Calderón Is Not Mexico
Obama and Calderon met in Mexico City on April 16
President Obama’s visit to Mexico has produced vague and contradictory statements, centered on worn-out strategies. Many people who had hoped for a new approach that would seek to redress the inequities of the binational relationship will find little in these declarations to pin their hopes on.
Obama began by enthusiastically endorsing President Felipe President Calderón. He expressed his “admiration” for Calderon’s “courage” in the increasingly bloody drug war and went so far as to promote Calderon’s bid to host the next UN Climate Change meeting.
These overtures no doubt served to decrease tensions between the two governments that built up following U.S. statements of the Mexico as a near “failed state” that was losing a grip on its own territory to drug cartels, and a potential national security threat. But by focusing the trip on the person of Calderón and seeking to bolster his leadership rating, Obama forgets that Calderón is a polemical president in a deeply divided nation as a result of both his rightwing policies and the doubts of legitimacy that hang over his presidency.
Obviously, Calderón is Obama’s formal counterpart but the unnecessary accolades rankle among the 50% of the population who felt defrauded by his court-determined ascendency to office. Note that Calderón did not spend time praising the person of Obama who, in fact, was not his preferred candidate in the 2008 elections.
The proposals held forth by the two presidents for the most part were either too vague to evaluate or did not respond to the needs of their respective publics. Calderón offered proposals to deepen NAFTA by building infrastructure on the border to increase economic flows, reforms in customs rules and elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers. In doing so, he fell back on the debunked argument that by competing as a bloc in an unregulated global economy, both countries will someday enjoy prosperity. This at a time when that model has collapsed, leaving millions of people out of work on both sides of the border.
Meanwhile, Mexican peasant farmers who have been forced off their land by U.S imports were preparing a demonstration to call for renegotiation of the agricultural chapter of the agreement.
As predicted, both presidents confirmed their commitment to a militarized and unsuccessful “war on drugs” in Mexico. Obama did state that the binational relationship should not be defined only by security issues, but in terms of real programs--of putting one’s money where one’s mouth is--that remains the case. The Merida Initiative increased aid to Mexico tenfold in one area—security. This model, which employs the army to cut off the supply of illegal drugs, has no record of success in any part of the world. On the other hand, we know it causes extensive environmental damage, violence, displacement, violation of human rights and curtailment of civil liberties.
The energy and “green jobs” proposals were unclear. Mexicans are wary of proposals to commit energy resources in the way that the Canadians have had to under NAFTA and there is also considerable criticism of carbon markets as a market-based alternative to needed regulation on polluting emissions.
The bright spot on the horizon of this troubled US-Mexico relations is the issue of immigration. Obama reiterated his commitment to legalization of Mexican undocumented workers established north of the border, while paying some penalties. Recent news stories indicate that he is moving on this commitment. Calderón offered no concrete proposals to generate or preserve jobs in areas of high expulsion nor did Obama offer proposals in this crucial area.
Up to now, both have avoided controversial issues—the renegotiation of NAFTA, corruption, inequality or, directly, the economic crisis. They did not speak of specific measures to generate employment in Mexico or alleviate the crushing poverty that affects millions of Mexican families.
The involvement of the U.S. government in Mexico’s national security apparatus, advanced through the Merida Initiative--the military and police aid package designed by the Bush administration and passed by Congress, raises sensitive issues of sovereignty. Tagging on measures within the U.S. does not erase those fears or the ill-conceived emphasis on Mexico’s part of the transnational problem.
Likewise, good intentions and empty declarations do not resolve the problem of the profound asymmetries and inequalities locked in by NAFTA that feed migration from Mexico to the U.S.
These issues will be a part of the agenda at the Summit of the Americas. There, the alternatives to corporate-led globalization that are being developed throughout the hemisphere will have a central place, putting into relief the failure of the old models.
Presidents Obama and Calderon have an obligation to revise their proposals and seek a “new era” that really responds to the multiple crises—economic, financial, environmental, social and security—that characterize this moment in the binational relationship.
Mar 31, 2009
Medellin: Model City for IDB; Paramilitary Repression for the Poor
The "model city" of Medellín whitewashes the violence and poverty of everyday life in the comunas. [Source: www.skyscraperlife.com]
I arrived in Medellin to participate in a series of events called “IDB: 50 years of Financing Inequality” held parallel to the annual meeting of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). It was late and the airport was filled with escorts who shepherded the suit-and-tied official delegates to waiting cabs. The usual response at these meetings when you say you’re with the alternative civil society groups is a shrug that means “you’re on your own,” so I was surprised when the IDB guys insisted I go in one of their free cabs.
I later realized the insistence was part of the campaign to make sure that Bank visitors experienced only the official version of Medellin. The city has been billed as the hemisphere’s success story in the drug war. In October of 2002 the government came in with Black Hawks and troops, rooting out leftist guerrillas and drug cartels and killing scores of residents. The second phase was demobilizing paramilitaries. Homicides dropped from a world record rate in the mid-nineties and a series of heavily financed infrastructure projects helped polish the city’s new image.
But I couldn’t help noticing the way camouflage-garbed soldiers with machine guns that suddenly appeared along the side of the road like a shoot-‘em-up video game. Or how when the hotel’s street was barricaded by armed police and shields, the cab driver wouldn’t let me walk the half block by myself.
The stories and rumors of a very different reality in Medellin began surfacing immediately. One friend was assigned a security escort to accompany him to the university, with the instructions, “If there’s a bomb or shooting, just do what he does.” Another was full body-searched as he stood talking to a group of young men. Bogota papers reported that an anonymous note was sent out throughout the city warning mothers that if they wanted to keep their sons alive they should keep them in the house after 10 o’clock at night. Four thousand police were sent into the slums to make sure the poor behaved for the bankers’ reunion. Gay men, prostitutes and bums had been rounded up and removed from public view.
What I was seeing and hearing contradicted the official propaganda so I set out to make sure I wasn’t exaggerating and confirm the rumors. But things just got worse. A local organizer explained that the 10 p.m. curfew had been announced not only in Medellin but throughout the department of Antioquia. Nobody knew for sure who made the threat—the paramilitaries or the army itself. Newspapers and residents confirmed the other rumors.
As we set out to visit a poor comuna—slum area—the driver described the “vacunas” or vaccinations, a form of extortion where the paramilitaries charge small businesses for protection. Payments are in cash or a promise to buy from paramilitary-run businesses. The paramilitary forces are far from demobilized here. They are armed and active.
In fact, the homicide rate has been rising sharply in Medellin. In some areas, inter-mafia turf wars have erupted again. Violence touches so many lives here. In some neighborhoods in the Santo Domingo comuna where we met with a resident organization, 70% of residents are “desplazados” who moved there after being uprooted from their homes and losing loved ones. The residents explain that government repression against citizen movements is so heavy that major public protests are out of the question. When the neighborhood forum broke up and the participants marched a few blocks together, nearly fifty police emerged from where they had been monitoring the event and moved on to another area.
I know the differences between Mexico and Colombia. But I can’t help thinking we could end up like this if Mexico continues with present policies. The militarization of society is already a reality and in some places citizens have lost freedom of movement. A corrupt government emboldened by the war on drugs extends its own power while criminalizing dissidence and youth.
Let’s hope Medellin is not a mirror of Mexico’s future.
For More Information:
IDB annual meeting to showcase Medellin renaissance (People'sDaily, 27/03/09)
Medellin cleans up its act (Los Angeles Times, 26/03/09)
Feb 12, 2009
Report Calls for End to Drug War, As Obama Moves Toward Reform
The Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy issued a report that marks a turning point in drug policy in the hemisphere. Following a year’s work, the report concludes that the “war on drugs” is a failed war and recommends a “paradigm shift” centered on public health, reducing consumption and focusing resources on organized crime.
The report was drawn up by a prestigious 17-member commission, chaired by former presidents Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, Cesar Gaviria of Colombia and Fernando Enrique Cardoso of Brazil.
It's well worth it to read the full statement of the commission, "Drugs and Democracy: Toward a Paradigm Shift." Here's a brief run-down.
The report begins with a flat-out denouncement of the war on drugs emphasis on criminal enforcement measures.
“Prohibitionist policies based on the eradication of production and on the disruption of drug flows as well as on the criminalization of consumption have not yielded the expected results. We are farther than ever from the announced goal of eradicating drugs.”
At the teleconference held on Feb. 11, members of the commission criticized the "prohibitionist policies" of the past and urged formation of a Latin American policy based on harm reduction focus and collaboration with the United States and European consumer countries to reduce demand. The report lists three specific actions under the new paradigm: treat addicts as patients in the public health system, evaluate decriminalization of cannabis possession for personal use, and reduce consumption through public education campaigns primarily directed at youth.
The section on the expensive, bloody and largely ineffective U.S.-sponsored drug wars in the Americas is particularly damning:
Colombia, recipient of over $6 billion in U.S. drug war funds, illustrates drug policy failure:
"Colombia is a clear example of the shortcomings of the repressive policies promoted at the global level by the United States. For decades, Colombia implemented all conceivable measures to fight the drug trade in a massive effort whose benefits were not proportional to the vast amount of resources invested and the human costs involved. Despite the country’s significant achievements in fighting the drug cartels and lowering the levels of violence and crime, the areas of illegal cultivation are again expanding as well as the flow of drugs coming out of Colombia and the region."
Mexico, which has just begun to receive drug war training and equipment from the U.S. government under the Merida Initiative, is seen as a chance to change course before it's too late:
"Mexico has quickly become the other epicenter of the violent activities carried out by the criminal groups associated with the narcotics trade. This raises challenges for the Mexican government in its struggle against the drug cartels that have supplanted the Colombian traffickers as the main suppliers of illicit drugs to the United States market. Mexico is thus well positioned to ask the government and institutions of American society to engage in a dialogue about the policies currently pursued by the US as well as to call upon the countries of the European Union to undertake a greater effort aimed at reducing domestic drug consumption. The traumatic Colombian experience is a useful reference for countries not to make the mistake of adopting the US prohibitionist policies and to move forward in the search for innovative alternatives."
Although it stops short of mentioning the Merida Initiative and Plan Colombia by name, the report makes it clear that given the poor results, military/police programs like these that stress enforcement and interdiction should be seriously reevaluated and reoriented. The commission criticizes the high costs in violence, and corruption among police forces and politicians within countries employing the war and drugs strategy.
Referring to another aspect of the drug wars that has sparked controversy in Latin America, the report says this about efforts to eradicate cultivation of illicit drugs:
"It is important to speak not only of alternative cultivation but to envision a wide range of options, including the social development of alternative forms of work, democratic education and the search for solutions in a participatory context. Such initiatives must also take into account the legal uses of plants, such as the coca leaf, in countries with a long-standing tradition of ancestral use previous to the phenomenon of their exploitation as an input for drug production. Accordingly measures must be taken to strictly adjust production to this kind of ancestral use."
The mere recognition of the legitimacy of ancestral use is a step forward. This time, the implicit reference is to the Bolivian government where President Evo Morales’ “Coca sí, Cocaina no” policies collided with US DEA politicized eradication efforts, to the point where the DEA was barred from operating in the country. Here too the report opens up long-overdue debate on policies whose collateral damage to society and the environment cannot be justified by their poor results.
The goal of the commission report is to build a united Latin American platform on drug policy. When asked if they thought they could accomplish that by the time the Vienna conference is slated to reach an agreement on a new 10-year UN policy, Commission members noted that only the Colombian government has explicitly balked at the proposed paradigm shift.
But it also targets its message to the U.S. government, which in the past has tried to impose the drug war model on its Latin American allies:
"[The U.S.] policy of massive incarceration of drug users, questionable both in terms of respect for human rights and its efficiency, is hardly applicable to Latin America, given the penal system’s overpopulation and material conditions. This repressive policy also facilitates consumer extortion and police corruption. The United States allocates a much larger proportion of resources to eradication and interdiction as well as to maintaining its legal and penal system than to investments in health, prevention, treatment and the rehabilitation of drug users."
The Commission’s message coming at this time reflects the hope that the Obama administration will have a more open attitude toward re-evaluating the failed policies.
That hope is not unfounded. The Obama administration had a few false starts on the issue, reflecting more the built-in inertia of Washington than its own policies. Earlier this month, the U.S. delegation reportedly blocked harm reduction measures at talks toward a new UN strategy in Vienna. Then, a series of DEA raids on medical marijuana providers in California raised questions about Obama’s commitment to respect state laws on the matter.
Those fears have been somewhat allayed over the past two days. On the international front, Obama broke publicly from the “zero-tolerance” line of the Bush administration and announced support for needle exchange, although she still called “harm reduction” an “ambiguous term”.
At home, Obama received criticism for the contradiction between campaign promises and a reality that looked a lot like no change regarding federal government repression of medical marijuana. White House spokesperson Nick Shapiro stated that the medical marijuana raids would not continue:
“The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws, and as he continues to appoint senior leadership to fill out the ranks of the federal government, he expects them to review their policies with that in mind."
Now the Seattle press is speculating that Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske, will be appointed national drug czar. This would be another important sign a changing tide. Kerlikowske worked in law enforcement in Washington state, a state that permits medical marijuana use and in Seattle, a city that approved a measure to give marijuana "lowest enforcement priority". Drug policy reform groups have celebrated his probable nomination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)