Whack-a-mole drug war - Headless corpses spark worries on Mexico's southern border

A close-up look at the Mexico - Guatemala border -- or lack thereof.

Headless corpses spark worries on Mexico's southern border | McClatchy: "ALONG THE USUMACINTA RIVER, Mexico — If the border that separates the United States and Mexico is fairly easy to penetrate, then Mexico's other border — the southern one, abutting Guatemala — is virtually a sieve.

For a few pesos, boatmen along this jade-hued jungle river will take people or cargo across, no questions asked. On one recent day, rustlers could be seen driving long-horned cattle from trucks at river's edge onto waiting boats.

That's just garden-variety smuggling. Of greater concern are the tons of illicit narcotics that move north, and the drug cartel gunmen who move easily in either direction, committing crimes on one side only to escape to refuge on the other."

Whack-a-mole: Guatemala Warns of Drug Gang Invasion

Yes, the moles are over-running Guatemala, thanks to the U.S. supported mole whacking going on in Mexico.

Guatemala Warns of Drug Gang Invasion: "Guatemala's president has warned that the country is being 'invaded' by drug traffickers, following the arrest of another alleged member of a Mexico-based gang accused of massacring 27 people in the north of the country.

In a press conference, President Alvaro Colom told reporters that Elder Estuardo Morales Madrid was responsible for leading the group that murdered 27 laborers on May 15, reported El Universal. The massacre has been attributed to the Zetas, a Mexican drug gang which has steadily increased its operations in Guatemala in recent years."

Whack-a-mole drug war: Guatemala Looking Increasingly Like a 'Narco-State'

Guatemala Looking Increasingly Like a 'Narco-State' - IPS ipsnews.net: "The violence and the state of siege in the northern Guatemalan province of Petén, following the massacre and decapitation of 27 farm labourers, has been building up for years.

Maya archaeological sites in Petén are now surrounded by soldiers after the discovery of the bodies of those murdered Sunday May 15, presumably by Los Zetas, a Mexican drug trafficking group."

Whack-a-mole: Guatemala Targets Drug Gangs After Massacre

Yes, the moles are spreading like, well, moles and undermining yet another country.

Guatemala Targets Drug Gangs After Massacre - WSJ.com: "Guatemalan soldiers searched Tuesday for the culprits of a massacre in a remote province after the country's president declared a state of siege there, a sign that Guatemala is escalating its own war against drug traffickers as violence spills over from Mexico."

Diplomacy Buries the Cold War as OAS Lifts Cuba Exclusion

Draft Resolution on Cuba. Opening remarks by Patricia Rodas, President of General Assembly

Laura Carlsen

After some tough negotiations, the General Assembly of the Organization of America States (OAS) passed a resolution to rescind its 1962 decision to exclude Cuba. The decision was hammered out by a working group over several days of talks and accepted in the plenary session Jun 3, to a standing ovation.

On Jun 4, papers from across the Hemisphere celebrated the decision and reflected the sense of satisfaction that characterized the plenary (videos available here). Nation after nation expressed “joy” and spoke of righting an historical wrong.

“Today we put the nail in the coffin of the cold war”, the Antiguan representative stated. She echoed the words of Pres. Manuel Zelaya of host country Honduras who officially announced the “end of the Cold War in San Pedro Sula.”

Both the ALBA countries and the Obama administration accepted the resolution after a seeming impasse over conditioning.

The decision represents a new stage of diplomacy for the region. For the first time in years, the OAS actually took up an important issue, negotiated with a U.S. delegation willing to hear other views, and reached a consensus. The United States, which funds 60% of the organization’s budget and represents a huge part of the regional economy, declined to use its invisible veto, instead opting for compromise.

The result is an historic decision that removes what was a huge thorn in the side of the regional organization and its member nations.

It would be hard to overestimate the resentment that built up in Latin America over the U.S. Cuba policy. For decades, a majority of 33 to 1 was forced to accept the exclusion of Cuba against its will and against the supposed principles of the organization itself. At the same time, the populations had important relationships with Cuba, historic ties and, as mentioned several times in the speeches, received Cuban doctors and teachers. With even dialogue on the issue ruled out by the U.S. government, Cuba’s empty seat was to many a reminder that regional diplomacy still carried a big stick.

What Exactly Happened in San Pedro Sula?

It’s not easy to get at the back-story of the talks because press reports and official statements reflect the political motivations of the media and politicians speaking.

Although everyone has a particular spin, the facts are straightforward enough. On June 3, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States decided by consensus, or “acclamation”, to lift the 1962 resolution that “suspended” Cuba’s participation in the interhemispheric body. This is now a done deal; there are no pre-conditions, intermediate steps or further negotiations involved.

That Cuba is no longer barred form the assembly does not mean that Cuba will be taking a seat at the next regional meeting. For that to happen, several prior steps must be taken that are not at all assured.

Article 2 of the resolution states that Cuba’s reintegration would follow a “process of dialogue to be initiated at the request of the Cuban government and in compliance with the practices, goals and principles of the OAS.”

The Cuban government has stated that it does not want to rejoin the OAS, which Fidel Castro called an accomplice to the crimes committed against Cuba and a Trojan horse. After the impasse broke and the resolution was accepted, an official statement celebrated the decision, calling it “an historic day and the reaffirmation of the independence of Latin America in spite of pressures from the United States” while repeating their determination to seek other forms of regional representation.

The second step regards the vaguely worded “process of dialogue.” Shannon noted that in fact a two-part process would determine the extent of reform on the bilateral level and in the OAS. Venezuela noted that ending the embargo remains a strong demand within the organization. The U.S. pointed to new talks on immigration and communication with the Cuban government while calling for reforms. All this will play out on many levels and with international, regional and domestic politics each playing ensemble roles. Of course, the whole “process of dialogue” will be a moot point in the likely case that Cuba maintains its position not to seek re-entry.

In the working group, U.S. Sec. of State Hillary Clinton initially sought to apply stricter conditions to Cuba’s re-entry, probably involving preconditions to lifting the resolution. The foreign ministers of Venezuela, Nicaragua and Honduras led the charge against tighter conditioning, maintaining that the 1962 resolution was an obsolete relic of the Cold War and had to be eliminated for that reason and to allow Cuba to take its place within the region.

After Clinton flew off to join President Obama in Cairo for another historic moment in dismantling Bush foreign policy, Sub-Secretary Tom Shannon (soon to be replaced by Arturo Valenzuela- pending Senate confirmation) took over. Following what were no doubt very specific marching orders, Shannon carried negotiations through to the compromise.

Judging from the result, the key objective of the U.S. team was to leave San Pedro Sula with a position of unity and a new beginning for U.S. -Latin American relations. The position in favor of constructive engagement to compel change in the Cuban political system was to be reflected and it was important for the U.S. to be a partner in the final decision. These goals were achieved.

Who compromised the most is a matter of opinion. Some, including the New York Times, say the three ALBA countries backed down to allow Article 2 that stipulates the process of dialogue. Others claim that the U.S. government softened its position to lift the ban on Cuba without preconditions.

But to pursue this line of speculation is to fall into the emphasis on who won that has replaced statesmanship with one-upmanship and eroded diplomacy. By definition, cooperation requires compromise and an eye to common good, shared goals and long-term results.

From the looks of the faces, the vast majority of the national representatives present felt triumphant when the resolution was read.

What Does It Mean?

The minister from St Vincent underlined the significance of the resolution: “(This decision) was a litmus test as to whether we have a future as a hemisphere for continued cooperation and we have passed that test. This is a new beginning, characterized by mutual respect.”

Some countries, especially Cuba itself, have questioned whether the OAS is the right forum for regional diplomacy, charging that it has always been controlled by the United States and forms part of a web of institutions including the multilateral banks that have exercized coercion and control in the region. Many have high expectations that the Rio Group meeting in Mexico in 2010 will lead to a new group that could be a counter-balance to U.S. power.

Whether or not the region creates a separate institution, the need to engage in dialogue, cooperation, confrontation and peaceful co-existence with the giant to the north means that openings in diplomatic relations mean more than the symbolism of burying the Cold War of the past. Note the change in Shannon’s words and tone from when he worked for the Bush administration:

“Today we addressed and bridged an historic divide in the Americas, while reaffirming our profound commitment to democracy and the fundamental human rights of our peoples. Together, these actions on the part of the United States signal the biggest change to our approach to Cuba in the last forty years. We are not interested in fighting old battles or living in the past. We are committed to building a better future for all of the Americas, by listening, learning, and forging partnerships based on mutual respect.”

What Happens Next?

The next steps will be interesting to watch and important to influence, but they will most likely not take place in the OAS.

In the United States the dwindling anti-Castro organizations and their representatives in Congress have reacted with rage. They have demanded defunding the OAS if Cuba is allowed to return and have presented a bill before Congress to demand that Cuba face certification for a long list of far-reaching clauses that could effectively exclude most of the countries in the hemisphere—including the United States—due to their vague and subjective terms. Even so, many members of Congress opposed to the outcome have taken a wait-and-see attitude for now.

The events of the OAS meeting leave no doubt that the cold war is buried and that the U.S. and Latin America are on a path toward more constructive engagement and more open dialogue. Does that mean that everyone lives happily ever after in the hemisphere?

Not by a long shot. And it’s that long shot—the hemispheric reach of the U.S.’s military power—that will be the next showdown in the hemisphere following Cuba policy. Here the attitude of the Obama administration is unclear. The proposed military base in Colombia, rapid militarization of the relationship with Mexico and bloated defense budget leave reason to doubt whether the balance between defense and diplomacy that the incoming government promised is even moving in the right direction.

At least, there is now room for dialogue between nations and growing space to discuss these issues at home. So much of really changing U.S. foreign policy involves cleaning up the mess that the Obama administration inherited. U.S. -Cuba policy, from the diplomatic sanctions to the economic embargo, is perhaps the most obvious and internationally repudiated mess of a policy there is. Yesterday’s resolution was another step—a deed to match the words at the Fifth Summit of the Americas—toward clearing the way for change.

For More information:

OAS videos of the session and speeches (03/06/09)

Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s statement (03/06/09)

Intervention During the Plenary Session Regarding Cuba and the OAS, Thomas A. Shannon, Jr., Assistant Secretary (02/06/09)

OAS Democratic Charter

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:

G7 Plus G20 Equals the Rocky Road to Recovery?

http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5732

The WTO and Other Trade Tales

http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5714

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 EFEPM

Hungry for Justice: The Food Crisis

Oct. 10, 9-11am, S10-201

Remapping Latin America's Future

Oct. 10, 11-1, S10-201

Recent related materials from the Americas Program:

Resources on Plan Mexico

Re-mapping Latin America's Future

Hungry for Justice: How the World Food System Fails the Poor