Victories!

An e-mail from Critical Resistance.. Good news in really hard and lonely times..

February 2009 Victories!




Dear Friends,

One thing we want to do better this year is to share good news when we have it. Just this month, CR helped lead the way to four significant victories against the prison industrial complex that we want to make sure you know about, and know how to support.

From prison construction to youth curfews, we know that we have to continue squeezing the PIC from every direction we can. If you have an hour, a dollar, an idea, or a question, please share it with us!

With hope,

Critical Resistance
real safety CR's work to stop new prison construction helps compel historic prisoner release order!

For nearly a decade, Critical Resistance has prioritized stopping new prison construction. We know that if you build them; you fill them.

In early February, a federal court ruled that overcrowding was the primary cause of unconstitutional medical and mental health care for people in California prisons, causing needless deaths every week. The Court ordered what we have been arguing for years is the only real solution: reducing the number of people in prison.

Our role in stopping new prison construction helped lead the court to reject the state's position that it would build its way out of overcrowding, declaring that "there is no relief other than a prisoner-release order that will remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions." Noting that no new beds had been built, instead of building, the Court's order could reduce the number of people in prison by up to 56,000.

That's not to say this fight is over. We need to work harder than ever in the coming weeks and months to make sure that the state sends our people home, doesn't drag its feet, waste time with endless appeals, or, worst of all, proceed with prison construction to try to avoid sending people home or sending fewer people home.

It is more important than ever that we stop AB 900, California's massive prison construction plan. This is a huge win and a huge opportunity, and we can't miss it.

oscar grant CR Oakland helps defeat proposed youth curfew following the police execution of Oscar Grant.
On February 10, CR Oakland helped mobilize over 100 people to defeat a frightening proposal for a youth curfew in Oakland. The proposal came on the heels of mass arrests during the protests of the videotaped execution of Oscar Grant by police.
The ordinance would also make it a misdemeanor for a parent to allow a young person to violate the ordinance, and even expose business owners to prosecution if they knowingly allow youth on their premises during curfew hours.

"After what happened to Oscar Grant and many other youth killed by the police, how could we consider giving police yet another opportunity for racial profiling. Who will Oakland police stop at 10 p.m.? What neighborhoods will see a lockdown from 10 p.m. to 5 a. m.?," said CR member Ritika Aggarwal, 24.

Drop the Charges
Since Oscar Grant's murder, CR has also worked hard to make sure that our ability to protest and organize out of this tragedy isn't shut down by the police and city officials. Since early January, we have worked to defend every single one of the more than 130 people arrested protesting Oscar Grant's murder; to make sure that youth of color aren't further criminalized protesting police violence, and to make sure that the focus stays where it should be: on the real effects of policing, whether they're caught on tape or not.

Working with the National Lawyers Guild and the Oakland 100 Committee, we have organized a call-in campaign and court solidarity for every arraignment. From more than 130, there are now only 4 people facing charges. Over the next few weeks, we'll be back to stay with those final defendants until every case is dismissed.

No Jail in the Bronx or in Brooklyn
Finally, this month saw the Brooklyn House of Detention Coalition (BHOD) block plans to expand the Brooklyn House of Detention. CR-NYC played a big support role in this victory, sharing the strategies we used to stop jail construction in the Bronx with our neighbors. This marks the second victory in two years for the City's plan to build a new jail in every borough, and shows just how far we have come in the fight against endless cage building.


THIS WORK IS ONLY THE BEGINNING OF WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN 2009. Please, take a moment to help us - and yourself - in two important ways:

1. Get Involved! There is nothing more important to CR than our volunteer power. No matter where you live or what you like to do, we need your help. Find us at 510 444 0484, or email crnational@criticalresistance.org today.

2. Donate! Not in spite of but because of how bad the economy is, we need to pull our resources together more than ever. Please click here to give a gift that doesn't hurt your bank account, but does help us all - including you!

aesop quote of the day

I drag a yellow taxi meter behind every measure
And charge cats for labeling me shepherd
"That'll be Six Fifty plus tip darlin,
I take cash, credit, check, money-order, gold and cigarette cartons"
Huh, got caught up in the universe tryin to zoom in on stardom
Forgot the passion plus the hatred, both were based in Carbon
Next time you wanna be a hero try saving somethin other than hip-hop
And maybe hip-hop'll save you from the pit-stop

timelessness of refusing capital/boycotts

in light of all of this recent talk about boycotts and divestment from Israel (here at Wesleyan, at U of Rochester, Hampshire, etc),

i had one of those moments, which seems to be happening a lot lately, of feeling like history is so small, just a pinch between two fingers, tiny enough to hold in my hand, like history was just yesterday, like human society and oppression and resistance to oppression has actually changed very little (which for me isn't always a pessimistic thought, but instead is humbling and beautiful because it is completely daunting unless i quell my disbelief and the magnitude of such a weighty realization, am compelled, by the need to maintain meaning in my life, to once again believe in the indescribably sacred HUMANNESS that is actually...eternal.)

in 1895, ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN YEARS AGO,
In The Red Record, a brilliantly constructed essay which clearly exposes the falsity and inconsistency of white justifications of racial violence (more specifically lynch mobs), Ida B. Wells suggests that to end lynch violence, her readers :

3d. Bring to the intelligent consideration of Southern
people the refusal of capital to invest where lawlessness and
mob violence hold sway.

you can tell me that a hundred and fourteen years is actually just a pinch of history, but given the so many things that have changed, i find simoultaneous sorrow (for the realities we feel the need to change) and warmth from the solidarity of a timeless humanness (see above) in the very sameness of this suggestion to today's struggles.

Hipster Racism

Interesting idea from our bestie Priya about hipster racism on her blog. Find it here.

Open Letter as read at Jubilee 2009

Potential concrete Possible and possibly already Existing Soon-to-be full letters. Toying with the idea of when something is ever really finished and over.

Open letter to whomever tore down the posters in Fisk commemorating the struggle to force Wesleyan to hire black professors and to create a black studies department:
Every time I was walk into CAAS the center for African American studies I try to remind myself not to take it for granted. Try and picture wanting and needing something in your life, in your school enough that I would risk being kicked out of school or arrested or physically assaulted and breathing deep and doing it. There’s not a lot of things. And yet. Had that not happened I wouldn’t be here and the most challenging and important moments I have experienced at this school wouldn’t be here. This department. What those people did. The conversations and things that they went through while trying to live and be on this campus. That’s what the posters you tore down were about.

Also we’re hiring two more tenure track profs in afam. And Marsha’s just keep putting the posters back up.


Open letter to the department of Public safety
It is unacceptable that your policy regarding who is and who is not allowed to step foot on this campus is decided on by individual public safety officers and that you think policing people at your own discretion is appropriate. It is unacceptable that those with enough power to encourage you to look at this policy have not done so.

Which brings me to

Open letter to students dissatisfied with Public Safety policies

we’re more powerful and less divided than they think we are.. don’t tell anyone but this is not their priority.. we got this.




Open letter to Urban outfitters/ Liana Stela

In high school when Urban Outfitters became popular
We made tee shirts that said
“Everyone Loves A Multi-Cultural Girl!”
And wore them on picture day
So we could show everyone what we weren’t.

Sometimes we loved performing ourselves, showing people our bodies
Dressing up and looking different
But it was exhausting and painful.

This is the reality. This is how we have come to be where we are here. This is what it means to live together divided.

We promised to name our kids after each other. I am glad you
Have such a beautiful name. But. What does it
mean for me to give my child a name
That I didn’t grow up pronouncing correctly.



[Now] open letter from my mama to me when I was 2 months old (as written in her journal)
20 sept. 1987

Your skin is fairly light (olive) especially for what our expectations were. Tante Jill says she’s thankful for that- that it'll be easier on you- looking or at least blending with me. Who knows? Life is not that easy anyway. It's impossible to predict. Whatever happens I just pray you are comfortable being you and proud to be you. I certainly am proud and almost out of control with it in being part of you.



My friend Alexis writes,

Since love is not scarce, our ancestors bathe us in it every moment that we dare to receive.

I have learned that there are sources of nurturing that are older than us and swifter than our bodies. I am noticing that those who are no longer here in physical form are teachers in the wind, showing us how we must relate to each other, if we want to survive longer than our bodies and longer than a system that denies us.

I have been writing urgent letters to my ancestors since before I knew they were watching and on the cusp of this new year they whispered a suggestion to me. “How about for this new year, as a gift to yourself, you receive some letters from us, the spirits of women that love you from eternity?”

As ever, my answer was yes. These daily letters from the most beloved of my known and chosen ancestors on behalf of all of the ancestors who have sent us love with their lives and dreams without us knowing came at exactly the right time. When I was afraid to trust myself, I was not afriad to trust their guidance for me. I re-learned a shifting methodology of loving myself firstly as their vessel and secondly as their recipient.


Dear Ruby-Beth

Don’t pretend like you’ll get the full effect of this letter inside.
Go outside.
You are much more yourself there.
There was a moment in the creation of what it means for all of us to have set foot on this earth when we had to sit quietly. It is safe to assume that sitting quietly is something that is difficult to make time for. Make time. Abeni Make time. Little one. Make time. importantly try to remember those times that you actually did it. That you felt that rush down your spine and the through your toes and into the earth. It was a bright clear day and you went out into the woods to ask a specific question, something you rarely do when asking for help and you dug as deep as you could and you pulled from somewhere in there to ask and you looked up at the bright sky an the only drop of rain left in the sky fell right into the palm of your hand. That was us. Chills are not chills unless your cold and then you’re probably getting sick. You are not random. If you walked into a room of people you feel funny around and it makes you feel random then you probably just walked into the wrong room. Make context for yourself and when you walk into CAAS don’t take us for granted.

[now] open letter from my mama to me, also in her journal
26 Sept. (you are 10 weeks) 1987
Just lay you, actually ‘sat you’ in your rocker cradle seat. Sitting outside in the sun- you like being out-of-doors- you are hardly ever fretful outside and sometime when you are upset in the house and I can’t figure out what it is- I take you outside and you “cool out.” You never seem to cry for ‘no reason’-

Slavery and the Jackson 5

In what many a deeming a very strange project one of the members of the Jackson 5 is throwing support behind developing a museum/historical site/resort dedicated to preserving the memory of those that died on the transatlantic slave trade and the memory and music of the Jackson 5. oh yeah, if it wasn't complicated enough also its in Nigeria. The bbc article paints a full picture of what this would mean and hints at the extreme disconnect between the capital gained from such a venture and the historical positionality of the commemorated people themselves as capital. This is strange but not nearly as shocking as the article suggests. The world has a long standing relationship with asking money for the knowledge of historical events (think museums, college) and all while expecting to be able to live luxuriously.




EDIT 11:18am I cant stop thinking about this. There is something that runs deeper than the comodification of the legacy of slavery for profit because that is something I have grappled with with so long. But its something about the cliche "where we've come" that for Marlon this is not only a profitable option but one that he likely truly believes will be aptly honoring people that need to be honored. How we should honor people is not as simply a question as it sometimes seems to me because so many of the ways that we currently use seem insufficient. I like the practice of saying names out loud but what if you don't know the names. What if you don't have access to the knowledge of where your history started and where your family originated? Do I then let go of the idea of honor all together or pick a group that I may or may not have "claim" to? These questions are difficult and worth delving into and I think, importantly, require different answers for everyone.

for ben

on finding voice

when you said you wanted to talk about activism and how you felt like it was hard for you to
speak up
sometimes

i completely changed the subject.

i talked about how hard activism is at college with the turn over and the coalition issues and the power play and i talked about how i dealt with that
and what it means to share
and what it means to compromise and

blah blah

and i completely never let you really say what you were feeling about how violent and hard it is to speak sometimes. and the truth is that i have felt that so hard and so often and my ability to say that i am comfortable speaking sometimes makes it harder for me to speak... because sometimes i even have the words and feel supported or at least like i could go home to support and i still can't speak.
why is it so hard to speak sometimes?
all the time? what do we think is going to happen?
i have so much respect for you and so much joy in knowing that you want to speak because you will.
and because
you you you
inspire other people to speak and
when you speak
people sometimes have to catch their breath.

Hampshire College may or may not have becomes first college in U.S. to divest from Israeli Occupation! (?)

I received this from a friend who I'm assuming received it from a friend but on further look the Hampshire College website say something different. I copied the Hamp statement under the press release.

Hampshire College in Amherst, MA, has become the first of any college or university in the U.S. to divest from companies on the grounds of their involvement in the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

This landmark move is a direct result of a two-year intensive campaign by the campus group, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). The group pressured Hampshire College's Board of Trustees to divest from six specific companies due to human rights concerns in occupied Palestine. Over 800 students, professors, and alumni have signed SJP's "institutional statement" calling for the divestment.

The proposal put forth by SJP was approved on Saturday, 7 Feb 2009 by the Board. By divesting from these companies, SJP believes that Hampshire has distanced itself from complicity in the illegal occupation and war crimes of Israel.

Meeting minutes from a committee of Hampshire's Board of Trustees confirm that "President Hexter acknowledged that it was the good work of SJP that brought this issue to the attention of the committee." This groundbreaking decision follows in Hampshire's history of being the first college in the country to divest from apartheid South Africa thirty-two years ago, a decision based on similar
human rights concerns. This divestment was also a direct result of student pressure.

The divestment has so far been endorsed by Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Rashid Khalidi, Vice President of the EU Parliament Luisa Morganitini, Cynthia McKinney, former member of the African National Congress Ronnie Kasrils, Mustafa Barghouti, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, John Berger, Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire, and Roger Waters of Pink Floyd, among others.

The six corporations, all of which provide the Israeli military with equipment and services in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza are: Caterpillar, United Technologies, General Electric, ITT Corporation, Motorola, and Terex (see attached info sheet for more information on these corporations.) Furthermore, our policy prevents the reinvestment in any company involved in the illegal occupation.

SJP is responding to a call from Palestinian civil society for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) as a way of bringing non-violent pressure to bear on the state of Israel to end its violations of international law. SJP is following in the footsteps of many noted groups and institutions such as the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education in the UK, the Israeli group Gush Shalom, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and the American Friends Service Committee.

As well as voicing our opposition to the illegal occupation and the consistent human rights violations of the Palestinian people, we as members of an institute of higher education see it as our moral responsibility to express our solidarity with Palestinian students whose access to education is severely inhibited by the Israeli occupation.

SJP has proven that student groups can organize, rally and pressure their schools to divest from the illegal occupation. The group hopes that this decision will pave the way for other institutions of higher learning in the U.S. to take similar stands.

Please email **hampshiresjp@mail.com **to schedule a phone interview.



From Hampshire College Website:

Statement of Clarification Regarding Trustees’ Actions on College Investments

Statement of Clarification from Sigmund Roos (73F), chair of the board of trustees, Ralph Hexter, president, and Aaron Berman, vice president and dean of faculty, regarding trustees’ actions on college investments

We write to correct numerous reports circulating about actions taken by the Hampshire College board of trustees on February 7, 2009. The facts are as follows:

* On February 7, 2009, the Hampshire College board of trustees accepted the report of its investment committee, which earlier had voted, without reference to any country or political movement, to transfer assets held in a State Street fund to another fund.
* Based on a comprehensive review of the fund by the trustee investment committee, administrators and an outside consultant, the college found that this fund held stocks in well over 200 companies engaged in business practices that violate the college’s policy on socially responsible investments. These violations include: unfair labor practices, environmental abuse, military weapons manufacturing, and unsafe workplace settings.
* The review also led the board of trustees to vote to revise its 1994 socially responsible investment policy to bring it up-to-date with current standards and practices, and, pending revision, to suspend that policy.
* The review of the State Street fund was undertaken at the request of a sub-committee of the investment committee, to address a petition from a student group, Students for Justice in Palestine. The investment committee’s decision, however, was based on the consultant’s finding that the State Street fund included 200-plus companies engaged in multiple violations of the college’s investment policy; the decision expressly did not pertain to a political movement or single out businesses active in a specific region or country.
* No other report or interpretation of the actions of February 7, 2009 by the Hampshire College board of trustees is accurate.

U of Rochester SDS occupies building in solidarity with gaza, sign action plan with the administration

some of the questions floating around my head: what role does the academy (higher education) play in society? what role should it play? what responsibility do academics/intellectuals/scholars have in creating a more just world? this makes me think about trouillot's assertion that we must be transparent in stating our subjectivities and the reasons for our academic pursuits...

[Trouillot: "We [anthropologists] owe it to ourselves and to our interlocutors to say loudly that we have seen alternative visions of humankind--indeed more than any academic discipline--and that we know that this one may not be the most respectful of the planet we share, nor indeed the more accurate nor the most practical. We also owe it to ourselves to say that it is not the most beautiful nor the most optimistic." previous posts re: trouillot]

some context: the site for the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI)

"The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel was launched in Ramallah in April 2004 by a group of Palestinian academics and intellectuals to join the growing international boycott movement. The Campaign built on the Palestinian call for a comprehensive economic, cultural and academic boycott of Israel issued in August 2002 and a statement made by Palestinian academics and intellectuals in the occupied territories and in the Diaspora calling for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions in October 2003."

"The Palestinian Campaign is inspired by the historic role played by people of conscience in the international community of scholars and intellectuals who have shouldered the moral responsibility to fight injustice, as exemplified in their struggle to abolish apartheid in South Africa through diverse forms of boycott."

and from U of R SDS blog: (backwards-- their original declaration is below)

UR-SDS Declares Victory in less than 9 hours.

Submitted by ursds on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 04:29

We spoke for peace and solidarity with the Palestinians and we were heard. UR-SDS and friends declared a victory to our occupation just before midnight Friday (Feb. 6, 2009) when we signed a joint statement of understanding/plan of action with the Dean of Students where we found common ground on addressing our demands in a substantive manner. This final statement was approved overwhelmingly by a vote of the general assembly of all those present to the occupation.

The rough wording of the signed Joint Statement of Understanding/Action Plan is as follows:

1. University of Rochester will commit to provide any surplus goods or supplies that could assist the devastated University of Gaza.

2. University of Rochester will commit resources and information to assist fundraising for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

3. University of Rochester will commit to reach out to Palestinian students in order to provide them scholarships to the University of Rochester

4. University of Rochester will commit to organize an open forum to discuss why the University invests in weapons manufactures and discuss the process of the University moving toward a more socially responsible, transparent, and democratically controlled investment policy.

The spirit in the air at midnight was jubilation. Because we took a stand for peace and justice in Gaza, and we got the University of Rochester to act decisively to better the lives of the people of Gaza.

--

University of Rochester Students for a Democratic Society (UR-SDS)

U of R Students to Occupy Academic Building for Peace and in Solidarity with Gaza

Rochester, NY - 02/05/09-- Students from the University of Rochester and members of the local Rochester community will be occupying an academic building on campus tomorrow for peace and in solidarity with the people Gaza and in opposition to U.S. support for the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and the recent atrocities in Gaza. The action, organized by U of R Students for a Democratic Society (UR-SDS), will begin on the afternoon of Friday, February 6 and will last until the University of Rochester administration meets the demands put forward.

The demands are:

1. Divestment: We demand the University of Rochester to adopt the "UR-Peaceful Investing Initiative" which institutes a peaceful investment policy to the university's endowment which includes divestment from corporations that manufacturer weapons and profit from war. (For example, the U of R invests in General Dynamics which manufactures weapons to maintain a 41-year occupation of the Palestinian territories and wars which slaughter Palestinian civilians by the 100s)

2. Humanitarian aid: We demand that the University of Rochester commit to a day of fundraising for humanitarian aid in Gaza within the next two weeks, as part of an ongoing commitment to provide financial support for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

3. Academic aid: We demand that the University of Rochester twin with the devastated Gaza University and provide the necessary academic aid (e.g., recycled computers, books, etc. ).

4. Scholarships: We demand that the University of Rochester grant a minimum of five scholarships to Palestinian students every year.

The recent war on Gaza has devastated Gazan society, taken hundreds of innocent lives, and has escalated the ongoing humanitarian crisis. Given the United States' central role in supporting the war in Gaza and a harsh 41-year military occupation of the Palestinian territories, the students' actions are to express solidarity with the Palestinian people and their struggle for life and peace.

The student occupation will feature a number of informational and peaceful consciousness raising events such as public talks, teach-ins, and sit-ins. The action was inspired by a wave of student occupations that occurred in 16 universities in England following the Israeli assault on Gaza.

This event is organized by the University of Rochester Students for a Democratic Society (UR-SDS), a local chapter of the national Students for a Democratic Society. UR-SDS was founded in the Fall 2008 semester and seeks to effect progressive social change on campus through educational events and direct actions.

re: public safety

i think it's important to reiterate some points very clearly, and repeat them as much as possible:

mass incarceration does NOT increase public safety.

in the words of angela davis,

"Mass incarceration is not a solution to unemployment, nor is it a solution to the vast array of social problems that are hidden away in a rapidly growing network of prisons and jails. However, the great majority of people have been tricked into believing in the efficacy of imprisonment, even though the historical record clearly demonstrates that prisons do not work. Racism has undermined our ability to create a popular critical discourse to contest the ideological trickery that posits imprisonment as key to public safety" from ColorLines, Fall '98

Julia Sudbury notes on the CR10 blog,
'We believe that the violence of crime cannot be solved through the additional violence of policing, surveillance and separation from loved ones. Instead, we advocate focusing attention and resources on building empowered communities, with decent housing, secure jobs, food security, healthy environments and high-quality education, as the ultimate alternative to incarceration.
The challenge facing us is immense. In the US alone, over 2.3 million people are warehoused in prisons and jails. A recent report from the Pew Center found that, for the first time, in the US we now imprison one in every 100 adults; the figure is one in nine for black men aged between 20 and 34. The Pew report also found that this massive incarceration is impacting state budgets without delivering a clear return on public safety."

California May Have to Reduce Prison Population

California Federal Judges have ordered California state prisons to reduce the number of inmates in the prison system because the overcrowding is leading to poor medical treatment in the facilities. This poor medical treatment is resulting in the death of about one inmate a year. This is a big deal. The awareness of the need for appropriate medical care in prisons is something people have been fighting for but the real big deal is the shift in thinking that incarcerated people deserve such care. This has historically been an issue. This "reform" however will not necessarily move towards an overhauling of the prison system as we know it since the language being used to talk about this issue is still in terms of "public safety" and reassuring people that the structure of the prison will not change. However, as the Nytimes notes, "Lawyers for the prisoners said that despite California’s exceptionally poor conditions, the ruling could have a national impact on prison reform if other inmate lawsuits seek population caps on other overcrowded facilities."

Read the full Nytimes article here. It's short.

"Indigenous Politics: From Native New England and Beyond" radio program on

This week:


THE CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM IN BOLIVIA AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES THERE

"Indigenous Politics: From Native New England and Beyond" radio program on

WESU, Middletown, CT, 88.1fm.

~~~

LISTEN ONLINE while the program airs from 4-4:55pm (EST):

www.wesufm.org

~~~

On Tuesday, February 10, 2009, join your host, J. Kehaulani Kauanui for an episode

That will focus on recent developments in Bolivia, where a national referendum held on

January 25, 2009 passed after a long and contentious road in order advance a new

constitution under the leadership of Bolivian President Evo Morales, the first Indian
president of a South American country. On the show, we will hear from Dr. Victoria

Bomberry (Muscogee) and Dr. José Antonio Lucero about the politics of the new

constitution and its implications for the indigenous peoples of Bolivia, and the ongoing

democratization project. Dr. Victoria Bomberry is an assistant professor of Ethnic Studies

at the University of California, Riverside where she teaches Native American Studies. She

is the International Coordinator of Movimiento de Mujeres Originarios y Indigenas de

Qollosuyu, Bolivia, and the Project Director of Abya Yala Women's Circle. Dr. José Antonio

Lucero is an assistant professor at the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies,

University of Washington, Seattle. He is the author of a new book, Struggles of Voice:

The Politics of Indigenous Representation in the Andes (University of Pittsburgh Press).

~~~

Past programs of "Indigenous Politics" are now archived online:

www.indigenouspolitics.com.

mistrial declared in the RNC case against protester/ well-known activist was government informant

also from Democracy Now:

Mistrial Declared in RNC Case

And in Minneapolis, the trial of a young activist accused of making Molotov cocktails during the Republican National Convention has ended in a mistrial. The accused protester, David Guy McKay, has said he fell victim to entrapment from an activist turned government informant named Brandon Darby. McKay says Darby came up with the idea for the firebombs and encouraged the activists to make them. McKay has been set free until a new trial begins next month.

below i have posted an article which includes both a statement from a group of Austin activists responding to the news of Darby as an informant, and Darby's statement.

just in case you don't get all the way through it, do read this one paragraph, from the Austin folk, which i find incredibly powerful:

Through the history of our struggles for a better world, infiltrators and
informants have acted as tools for the forces of misery in disrupting and
derailing our movements. However, even more dangerous to our communities
than setting people up, turning them in, or gathering information,
informants sow seeds of fear, paranoia, and distrust that fester and grow
in paralyzing and destructive ways. We must be forever vigilante against
deceptive, malicious and manipulative actors, while we defend the trust
and openness that give our communities cohesion and power.

from Santa Cruz Indymedia

Common Ground co-founder Brandon Darby admits to role as FBI informant (at RNC '08 and more)

by Austin Informant Working Group ( texas.solidarity [at] gmail.com )
Friday Jan 2nd, 2009 2:11 PM

See bottom for letter from Brandon Darby, co-founder of Common Ground in New Orleans, admitting to role as informant.

Below is a statement by a group of Austin-based community organizers that
documents that a local activist, Brandon Michael Darby of Austin, is a
government informant/provocateur.

Brandon now publicly acknowledges that he is working with the FBI and has
been for some time.

Sometimes You Wake Up and It's Different: Statement on Brandon Darby, the
'Unnamed' Informant/Provocateur in the "Texas 2" Case from Austin, Texas

As part of the wave of government repression against activists protesting
at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota in September,
2008, the FBI arrested two men from Texas, Bradley Crowder (22) and David
McKay (23), and indicted them for allegedly possessing molotov cocktails.
Crowder and McKay have been in jail since the RNC. They have not been
granted bail and their trial has been postponed indefinitely. They are
facing 7 to 10 years in federal prison.

As outlined in the affidavit against Crowder and McKay (found here:
http://media.houston.indymedia.org/uploads/2008/09/090808_mckay_affidavit.pdf),
the case was built almost entirely on the statements of two informants
covertly working with the FBI, identified in the affidavit as
"Confidential Human Sources" or just "CHS".

One of these informants was working in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area ("CHS
2" in the affidavit) and has been previously identified as Andy/Panda by
people familiar with the situation and the informant. This statement ends
speculation and anticipation concern about the identity of the other
informant who was operating in Texas and Minnesota.

Using FBI documents previously unknown to us, but recently provided by one
of the defendant's defense teams, we have positively confirmed the
identity of the unnamed informant ("CHS 1" in the affidavit) as Brandon
Michael Darby of Austin, Texas, based on the following evidence:

1) The FBI documents detail private conversations between Darby and
several individuals named in the documents, including scott crow and Lisa
Fithian, who have closely reviewed the documents and confirmed that they
had the conversations in question with only Darby. In addition they can
confirm his participation in events reported in the documents.

2) In verbatim reports from the informant to the FBI, the language,
personality, skills, and interests of Darby are readily apparent to those
who know him.

3) Cross-referencing the time line provided by the FBI in the documents
with people familiar with the situation and course of events shows that
Darby was in a position to have the incriminating conversations with McKay
referenced in the affidavit.

4) In all of the documents Brandon Darby's name is conspicuously absent
from any and all meetings and events which he attended and was involved
in. In fact Darby's name only appears at the end of all the documents in a
confession made by David McKay upon his arrest in Minnesota.

Numerous people familiar with both Brandon Darby and the legal situation
of Crowder and McKay have verified this information.

Over the years Brandon Darby has established strong ties with individuals
in many different radical communities across the United States. While it
is not yet clear how long or to what extent Darby has been acting as an
informant, the emerging truth about Darby's malicious involvement in our
communities is heart-breaking and utterly ground-shattering to those of us
who were closest to him.

Darby operated in and around the Austin community for about 6 years, and
this is the same Brandon Darby who participated in the Common Ground
Collective in New Orleans during 2005-2006. Based on the evidence we have,
Brandon has been giving the state information since at least November
2007, but there is also information that suggests his informant activities
may go back further, at least to 2006 or earlier. In the documents, Darby
makes numerous remarks that are inflammatory and often untrue or grossly
taken out of context. There is also compelling evidence to suggest that
Darby, more than just reporting on Crowder and McKay's activities, was
actively encouraging, enabling, and provoking the two men to take illegal
action.

We recognize that suspicions and accusations of Darby have been
circulating for some time now, including one corporate media article by
David Hanners in the St. Paul Pioneer Press on October 29, 2008. Our aim
in releasing this information is to clear the confusion that has
circulated in the last few months.

We want to point out that while the conclusions of these suspicions and
accusations turned out to be correct, these conclusions were not based on
any verifiable facts, and thus, their public airing was inappropriate and
irresponsible. When these accusations surfaced, we did what we could to
quash them, trusting what we believed to be true about people in the
absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary. Having been presented
with new evidence, we are acting on it promptly and deliberately.

Through the history of our struggles for a better world, infiltrators and
informants have acted as tools for the forces of misery in disrupting and
derailing our movements. However, even more dangerous to our communities
than setting people up, turning them in, or gathering information,
informants sow seeds of fear, paranoia, and distrust that fester and grow
in paralyzing and destructive ways. We must be forever vigilante against
deceptive, malicious and manipulative actors, while we defend the trust
and openness that give our communities cohesion and power.

Now we must get on with the work of supporting the "Texas 2". In light of
these revelations and what we know about Brandon Darby, we believe they
were set up and that the charges should be dropped. We urge you to join us
in a campaign to "Free the Texas 2"

In solidarity,
The Austin Informant Working Group

For questions , comments or concerns please contact us:
texas.solidarity [at] gmail.com

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Brandon Darby admits to working with FBI

Fwded message:

To All Concerned,

The struggles for peace and justice have accomplished significant change
throughout history. I've had the honor to work with many varying groups
and individuals on behalf of marginalized communities and in various
struggles. There are currently allegations in the media that I have
worked undercover for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This
allegation no doubt confuses many activists who know me and probably
leaves many wondering why I would seemingly choose to engage in such an
endeavor. The simple truth is that I have chosen to work with the
Federal Bureau of investigation.

As compelling as the natural human desire to reason and express oneself
can be, regardless, I must hold my comments at this time on certain
aspects of the situation. That said, there are a few statements and
generalizations I will make relating to my recent choices.

Though I've made and will no doubt continue to make many mistakes in
efforts to better our world, I am satisfied with the efforts in which I
have participated. Like many of you, I do my best to act in good
conscience and to do what I believe to be most helpful to the world.
Though my views on how to give of myself have changed substantially over
the years, ultimately the motivations behind my choices remain the same.
I strongly stand behind my choices in this matter.

I strongly believe that people innocent of an act should stand up for
themselves and that those who choose to engage in an act should accept
responsibility and explain the reasoning for their choices.

It is very dangerous when a few individuals engage in or act on a belief
system in which they feel they know the real truth and that all others
are ignorant and therefore have no right to meet and express their
political views.

Additionally, when people act out of anger and hatred, and then claim
that their actions were part of a movement or somehow tied into the
struggle for social justice only after being caught, it's damaging to
the efforts of those who do give of themselves to better this world.
Many people become activists as a result of discovering that others have
distorted history and made heroes and assigned intentions to people who
really didn't act to better the world. The practice of placing noble
intentions after the fact on actions which did not have noble
motivations has no place in a movement for social justice.

The majority of the activists who went to St. Paul did so with pure
intentions and simply wanted to express their disagreements with the
Republican Party. It's unfortunate that some used the group as cover for
intentions that the rest of the group did not agree with or knew nothing
about and are now, consequently, having parts of their lives and their
peace of mind uprooted over.

There is no doubt in my mind that many of you reading this letter will
say and feel all possible bad things about my choices and for me. I made
the choice to have my identity revealed and was well aware of the
consequences for doing so. I know that the temptation to silence or
ignore the voice of someone who you strongly disagree with can be
overwhelming in matters such as this one; and no doubt many people will
try to do just that to me. I have confidence that there will be a few
people interested in discussion and in better understanding views
different from their own, especially from one of their own. My sincere
hope is that the entire matter results in better understanding for everyone.

Many of you went against my wishes and spoke publicly in defense of me.
Those involved were correct when they wrote that I wasn't making my
choices for financial reasons or to avoid some sort of prosecution. They
were incorrect that my ideology didn't support such choices. One
individual who publically defended me stated that they didn't believe I
was working undercover because the government would have used my access
to take down a more prominent activist if the allegations were true. If
indeed the government or I was interested in doing so, it could have
happened in such a manner. However, the incorrect notion that the
government was out to silence dissent was the cause for the mistake made
by that person. In defense of the individuals who openly did their best
to do what they thought was defending me, they did not know the truth
and they had no way of knowing the truth due to their ideological and
personal attachments to me. It's unfortunate that the
truth couldn't have come out sooner and that the needed preparations
for such a disclosure take time. I really did mean it when I said that I
didn't want to discuss it and that I didn't want folks addressing the
allegations.

Again, I strongly stand behind my choices in this matter. I'm looking
forward to open dialogue and debate regarding the motivations and
experiences I've had and the ethical questions they pose.

In Solidarity,

Brandon Michael Darby

All are welcome to contact me via email. Please understand if it takes
me awhile to respond.

brandonmichaeldarby [at] gmail.com

are we really surprised that DirecTV won't air an ad calling to cut US military aid to israel?

from Democracy Now

Group: DirecTV Rejects Ad Critical of Israeli Occupation

The satellite network DirecTV is being accused of censorship after reportedly refusing to air a commercial critical of US backing for Israel’s attack on the Gaza Strip. The spot was produced by the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. It lists the number of Palestinian dead from Israeli attacks and criticizes Israel for blocking aid and supplies. It then calls for cutting US military aid to Israel, concluding, “President Barack Obama, we need a change of policy toward Israel/ Palestine.” The group says DirecTV abruptly refused to air the ad after having reached an agreement.

here [sorry couldn't embed] abc local in chicago reports on the group, No Games Chicago, which is urging Chicago to say NO to the olympic bid for 2016.

more info on the harmful effects of hosting the olympics to come--perhaps excerpts from Dave Zirin's, Welcome to the Terrordome.

optimism in the american flag? ok, fine.

i thought this was was kind of cute... from a Nytimes photo essay about inag-o-rama
(very over done in my opinion but inspiring if you really want it to be)

Common Death

I am reading Gardens in the Dunes by Leslie Marmon Silko which is a novel that takes place at a moment with Native people in what is now North America are interacting with the white colonizers that are seeking to "civilize" and generally change the ways of life that people have been practicing and living for so long. One of the most profound things that has effected me about this book is the relationships that the characters have with death. In one section of the book Grandma Fleet teaches her two young grandchildren that when planting a garden it is much more reliable to assume that the plants will reproduce themselves then it is to assume that a human with all of the realities of the day will be there to replant the seed that next year. This struck me as I am aware that my life and my assumption of life for those around me is so unique to my time and space in this world. For so many the assumption of life is non existent. The diseases I had or was vaccinated from as a kid are what are killing people in so many places. In this novel Silko never belittles death. Having it be more common places does not mean its any less painful. I want to remember this when I think about myself in relationship with people in my life that I love and with the world.

US-Mexico: drug traffic (violence), immigration (violence), bilateral agreements (another kind of violence?)

i have posted here three different articles about US-Mexico relations, two recent and one from last May.

from the guardian:
Mexico on the brink
Incompetent, corrupt political leadership and increasing levels of violence are turning Mexico into a failed narco-state
* John Ackerman
* guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 January 2009 18.00 GMT

Violent deaths were as common in Mexico as in Iraq in 2008. Almost 6,000 people were shot, decapitated or otherwise "disappeared" and over 700 kidnapped in the escalating battle between drug traffickers. The carnage is particularly severe in border cities like Juárez, where the death toll has reached 1,607. On Mexico's independence day, men apparently linked to drug cartels threw a pair of grenades into a festive crowd, killing eight and maiming dozens.

In its last days in office, the Bush administration came to the drastic conclusion that Mexico may soon become a failed state. The Joint Forces Command has compared Mexico to Pakistan, arguing that both may be on the verge of a "rapid and sudden collapse" [pdf]. General Barry McCaffrey, a former Army chief under Bush, organised a high level, semi-secret strategy meeting in December where he presented a report that claims that "Mexico is on the edge of the abyss — it could become a narco-state in the coming decade".

Paradoxically, these grim prognostications are frequently accompanied by a blind faith in Mexico´s president Felipe Calderón. Columnists and news reports view the increase in violence as an indication of the effectiveness of the government's strategy, which has provoked gangs to fight amongst themselves and to take revenge on the government. The US Congress has supported Calderón with its Merida Initiative of June 2008. This committed $1.4bn of military assistance to Mexico and Central America, on the theory that high-tech helicopters and listening devices can solve the problem.

Both the exaggerated claims about the possible collapse of the Mexican state and the naïve confidence in the Calderón administration are mistaken. The Mexican drug cartels have no interest in taking over the government. Mexico is fundamentally different from Colombia or Afghanistan, where politics and ideology are at the centre of the agenda. Mexican drug traffickers are not terrorists or radical leftists, but savvy (and heavily armed) businessmen who corrupt government officials in order to maintain a positive "investment climate".

The rising tide of violence is a response to the failures of the Calderón administration. It has relied on empty public displays of force, without developing sophisticated intelligence and strategic planning against the drug cartels. Calderón has ordered the military onto the streets. He has paraded suspected criminals before television screens. He has created an abstract national pact, which fails to include specific benchmarks or indicators of success.

This grandstanding has been entirely ineffective. According to a recent independent study, only 17% of suspects arrested for drug offences were actually brought to court in 2008. Only a third of these were actually convicted. Calderón's strategy has also led to serious human rights violations. Both Human Rights Watch and Mexico's Human Rights Ombudsman have strongly criticised the Mexican government for the systematic violation of basic civil rights.

Perhaps the most important problem is the endemic corruption of Mexico's public security apparatus. A series of high level officials have been accused of receiving substantial bribes from drug traffickers. This includes the recent head of the special office for combating organised crime, and the last two chiefs of the Interpol office in Mexico. Nevertheless, no one has been convicted and most of the alleged criminals probably will walk free since the cases are based exclusively on the declarations of "protected witnesses" without corroboration by independent investigations.

The US is also directly responsible for violence in Mexico. Drug users in the US provide the money to corrupt government officials in Mexico, while the drug cartels purchase almost all of their weapons north of the Rio Grande. The treatment of addicts and stricter gun control in the US would be an important part of the solution.

If the Obama administration is serious about turning the page on its relations with Latin America, it should reassess President Bush's unthinking support of the Calderón administration. Obama should recognise that there are many more effective allies in Mexican civil society - such as watchdog groups, journalists and scholars - and reach out to them in an effort to consolidate democracy in North America. It also wouldn't hurt to take radical measures to stem the southward flow of weapons and reduce drug consumption in the US.

-----

In Mexico, Opposition to Plan Merida Emerges
from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #534, 5/2/08, StoptheDrugWar.org

This week, high-level US and Mexican officials spoke out in favor of Plan Mérida, the three-year, $1.4 billion anti-drug package designed to assist the Mexican government in its ongoing battle with violent drug trafficking organizations. But at the same time officials like Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were visiting Latin America to seek support for the plan, at a forum on drug policy in Culiacán, Sinaloa, home of one of the most feared of the drug trafficking groups, the Sinaloa Cartel, there was little but criticism of the proposed aid package.

Sinaloa keeps bleeding. Why more (soldiers)?
Since he took office at the beginning of last year, Mexican President Felipe Calderón has deployed some 30,000 Mexican army troops in the fight against the so-called cartels, which provide much of the cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and marijuana coming into the United States. US officials have praised Mexican President Felipe Calderón for his aggressive efforts against the cartels and seek to reward his government -- and especially the Mexican military -- by providing high-tech equipment, training, and other goods to the Mexican armed forces.

But despite the massive military deployments in border cities from Tijuana in the west to Reynosa and Matamoros in the east, as well as in the states of Guerrero, Michoacán, and Sinaloa -- all traditional drug-producing areas -- and the high praise from Washington, Calderon's drug war has not gone well. Roughly 2,000 people were killed in Mexico's drug war last year, and with this year's toll already approaching 1,000, 2008 looks to be even bloodier. Yet the flow of drugs north and guns and cash south continues unimpeded.

Bush administration and Mexican officials met over a period of months last year and early this year to craft a joint response that would see $500 million a year in assistance to Mexico, primarily in the form of helicopters and surveillance aircraft. Known as Plan Mérida, after the Mexican city in which it took final form, the assistance package is now before the US Congress.

Congressional failure to fund the package would be "a real slap at Mexico," Secretary of Defense Gates said in Mexico City Tuesday as he met with General Guillermo Galván, the Mexican defense minister, Government Secretary Juan Mouriño, and Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa. "It clearly would make it more difficult for us to help Mexican armed forces and their civilian agencies deal with this difficult problem," he told reporters.

The same day, Attorney General Mukasey was in San José, Costa Rica, where in a speech to justice ministers from across the hemisphere, he, too, urged Congress to approve the aid package. Drugs, gangs, and violent crime on the border are "a joint problem -- and we must face it jointly," he said. "By working together, we can strengthen the rule of law and the administration of justice, and we can combat transnational criminal threats," Mukasey said.

That is what the Mexican government wants to hear. It negotiated the aid package, and although President Calderón's ruling National Action Party (PAN) does not hold a majority in the Mexican congress, it can count on the support of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) on the aid deal. Of the three major parties in the Mexican congress, only the left-leaning Revolutionary Democratic Party (PRD) is raising concerns about the package, but the PRD is not strong enough in the congress to block it.

But while official Mexico may want passage of the package, a number of Mexican intellectuals, academics, political figures, and former military officers attacked the plan to beef up the Mexican military for US drug war aims at a forum this week at the International Forum on Illicit Drugs hosted by the Culiacán weekly newsmagazine Ríodoce.

"The US wants to fight drugs, crime, and terrorism. Bush and Calderón have been talking about a new Plan Colombia, but the anti-drug policies pursued so far have been a failure," said Ríodoce managing editor Ismael Bojórquez, as he opened the conference. "The phenomenon of drug trafficking is very complex and reaches deeply into the fabric of our society. The system benefits from the drug trade; the profits from it enter into our economy and have benefited many businesses. Few sectors have been able to resist the easy money. In a country that has not been able to improve conditions for poor Mexicans, the drug trade is an attractive alternative," he explained.

"Our government has authorized the use of federal police and even soldiers to attack the drug trade, but this strategy is mistaken and the government has wasted million of dollars that could have gone to productive ends," Bojórquez added.

"Our foreign policy has been subordinated to that of the Americans, the policemen of the world," said Mexican political figure Jorge Ángel Pescador Osuna, the former Mexican consul general in Los Angeles. "Fortunately, this Plan Mérida initiative has yet to be approved by the US Congress, and hopefully, the voice of Mexico will be heard in this debate. We think there are real solutions that are within the grasp of the government and civil society," he said.

"They want to spend $500 million the first year, half of which will go to buy military equipment and advanced technologies," said Pescador Osuna. "My first response is how nice. But then I have to ask why we should use the military in areas that are outside its competence. What we need here is to strengthen our democracy, and we will not accomplish that by using the military for civilian law enforcement."

"These kinds of anti-drug policies that focus on policing are overwhelmingly simplistic," concurred Colombian economist Francisco Thoumi, director of the Center for Drug and Crime Studies at the University of Rosario in Bogota. "They do not attack the problem at the base," he argued. "The drug trade is a capitalist industry, and it accepts the losses of interdiction and eradication as a cost of doing business. This kind of enforcement looks good on TV and makes politicians and police happy, but the industry goes on, and this doesn't solve the problem."

"The idea with this is to give power to the armed forces," said Luis Astorga, a researcher at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City and head of a UNESCO program devoted to understanding the ramifications of the international drug trade. "Calderon is doing nothing more or less than reconfiguring the anti-drug struggle in Mexico by putting it in the hands of the military. One question is how long this will last," he noted.

General Francisco Gallardo, a leading advocate of human rights within the Mexican armed forces, was also critical. "The context for Plan Mérida is this new world order where the US struggle for hegemony with China and the European Union," he argued. "The US has militarized its foreign policy, and it wants us to militarize our drug enforcement. But the function of the army is to defend the sovereignty of the state, not to fight crime. That is the job of the police," he said.

"Involving the military under the auspices of Plan Mérida does not respond to Mexican interests," Gallardo said. "It has a bad effect on the institutional and judicial order of the nation. The soldiers who kill innocents are absolved; they have impunity," he said, citing the cases of several mass killings by soldiers in Sinaloa, including an incident in Santiago de Caballero in the mountains above Culiacán in late March, in which four unarmed young men in a Hummer were killed by soldiers on an anti-drug mission. "The drug trade is a matter for police and the justice system, not the military," Gallardo concluded.

While the Bush and Calderón administrations are seeking to steamroll opposition to the proposed aid package, it is clear that Plan Mérida is drawing heated criticism in Mexico. What is less clear is whether that opposition can successfully block the initiative on the Mexican side. Right now, the best prospects for that appear to lie in the US Congress.

---
from the Center for International Policy (CIP) Americas Program
(scroll to "plan mexico and the bilateral relationship" re: two articles above)

The New Bilateral Relationship and Immigration Reform Laura Carlsen | January 30, 2009 Translated from: La nueva relación binacional y la reforma migratoria Translated by: Laura Carlsen

Americas Program, Center for International Policy (CIP americas.irc-online.org

The election of Barack Obama has changed the playing field for U.S.-Mexico relations, and especially when it comes to immigration. Immigration didn't turn out to be the hot topic in the presidential campaigns some people predicted it would be. The right had hoped to use it as a wedge issue to promote its agenda and take out liberals, but with the candidacy of John McCain who had supported immigration reform, and the advent of the economic crisis, the issue didn't receive much attention in the end. Immigration came up most often in the democratic primaries and both Obama and Hillary Clinton supported a form of legalization, as Obama said, to bring the country's 12 million undocumented immigrants "out of the shadows." Obama stance on immigration: "the highest priority of his first year as president." Photo: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/. Polls indicated that the economy was the main concern for more than 60% of voters. A survey of Latino voters from the Velasquez Institute showed that only 1.6% chose migratory policy as the most important issue when deciding how to vote—that is, below nearly all other issues. This does not mean that people don't care about immigration. What it means is that Latinos who voted in historic numbers in the 2008 U.S. presidential elections did not vote according to special interests or identity politics. The 9 million Latinos who voted—67% for Obama—voted according to a set of interests led by the economy, and supported Obama for his promise of job security and employment generation. This fact is important now when Latino organizations are pressuring Obama's transition team, pointing out that Latinos guaranteed his victorious election and should be rewarded with immigration reform in the early months of his presidency. Undoubtedly, the Latino vote was decisive in some states like Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico. However, there is heavy debate over the timing of presenting a new immigration reform proposal in Congress and what the new Cabinet's first priorities should be. Although Democrats have majority control in both houses of Congress, they cannot overcome a Republican blockade in the Senate, and do not want to further polarize the political climate. On the other hand, Obama is committed to forge ahead with fair reform and some believe it would be best to follow through within the first few months so that new Latino citizens can incorporate themselves fully into American politics and before the right can do anything to stop it. Meanwhile, anti-immigrant organizations have completely changed their strategy. Instead of lamenting Obama's victory, an "amnesty" supporter, they are creating advertising campaigns that focus on the new government's commitment to generating jobs and protecting workers' rights and insist that no talks should take place about legalizing the 7 million undocumented workers because it would mean 7 million fewer jobs for Americans. To face this argument—which could be very strong for workers who feel the insecurity caused by the crisis—recognize Latino voter's concerns, and address immigration in its bilateral aspects, it's important to develop a proposal for reform based not so much on the political demands of a group in particular, but on building a just economy and society and defending labor rights for all. What to Expect of Obama's Government on Immigration? Obama's position on immigration reform has been consistent, although not very detailed. He talks about the issue in his Latin America platform. That, in itself, represents a breakthrough because almost no politician to date has considered immigration a matter of international relations. In the United States it has always been treated as a domestic affair under the heading of national security or control of the borders. This has been very frustrating to the Mexican government. The Obama platform refers to comprehensive immigration reform as "the highest priority of his first year as president." His proposal includes a path to citizenship, a commitment to fix the dysfunctional bureaucracy, as well as obligatory references to a secure border. He does not show great enthusiasm for the guest-worker programs, saying that workers should have "greater security as workers and that none should be deprived of becoming Americans in the future." He seems to understand the link between economic policies toward Mexico and immigration, noting that it is necessary to "encourage job creation and economic development so that the migration momentum is reduced." Obama came out in favor of renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Mexico and Canada: "The purpose is to analyze the aspects that require adjustments where they are causing economic, labor, or other types of problems in the societies" of each of the three countries, he stated. According to his adviser, Dan Restrepo, in an interview with Proceso , "Obama wants to change the [immigration] debate's atmosphere, which had been rarefied and handled by extremists; he wants to change the tone so that a true debate exists on serious immigration reform." Calderon and the National Situation On the other hand, within multiple forums, Felipe Calderon has insisted lately that his priority with Obama's new government is to avoid a renegotiation of NAFTA. Obama said during his campaign that he would contact Calderon and Harper for this purpose. Recently, at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Lima, Peru, President Calderon said: "Renegotiating NAFTA is a very bad idea," and considered it "neo-protectionism." He ended by saying, "Their purpose is not to renegotiate so that there is more business and commerce, but less business and less commerce ... Mexico would lose opportunities, and issues that greatly concern Americans, such as [the case of] immigration, would be even worse if opportunities for access of Mexican products to the United States market were closed ... and the immigrants are going to get across the river, or the fence, or any barrier—that is a fact." It is irresponsible to use Mexican immigration to the United States as a threat in the current political context. U.S. racist and restriction forces are coordinating a new campaign to blame the immigrants—including the legal ones—for exacerbating unemployment in the current economic crisis. Calderon's veiled threat gives them fodder for the fire of the anti-immigrant movement. In addition, the cause and effect relationship is false. First of all, the proposals for the renegotiation that arise from civil society in the three countries have nothing to do with protectionism. In Canada, they request control over natural resources (an end to the proportionality clause) and to diminish the supranational privileges of the investors established by the treaty. Obama's proposals are public: he asks to incorporate labor and environmental principles in the agreement's text (right to unionization and environmental protection), and to change the agreement so that the laws to protect the three countries' citizens cannot be altered by foreign investors. The only measure that has to do with commerce is the Mexican appeal of hundreds of thousands of farmers to remove corn and beans from the agreement. This plea arises precisely because under the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) what has happened in Mexico is exactly the opposite of what Calderon sustains—rather than being a net source of jobs, the treaty has displaced some two million farmers, as well as small merchants that used to produce for the national market before massive imports were brought on by the FTA. These people end up migrating in large numbers. The relationship between the FTA model and unemployment and displacement is well documented. What exactly does Calderon support then? In the meeting with Calderon on Jan. 12, Obama reiterated his commitment to renegotiate NAFTA and Calderon was forced to back down on his opposition to any possibility of renegotiation. However, he continues to support the orthodox neoliberal economic model that has become indefensible within the context of the crisis. He now calls for minor modifications without "re-opening the treaty." He knows that by defending the economic model in the midst of a deepening economic crisis in Mexico and massive job loss, he is rowing against the current. It is not only the economic crisis that has left staunch neoliberals standing alone these days. Obama's victory has isolated Calderon in the continent. Conservative Republican candidate John McCain visited only two heads of state in Latin America—Alvaro Uribe and Felipe Calderon. Uribe openly campaigned for McCain, while Calderon supported him (a violation of protocol) openly but more discreetly. Obama almost certainly has not forgotten that. President Obama has declared that his priority is to repair relations with center-left countries. Calderon will not be able to count on the ideological support he had with Bush or the shared belief that what is good for large corporations is good for the two nations. What he has left is the support of the military. Plan Mexico and the Bilateral Relationship In the previous year, what has dominated the bilateral agenda has been the war on drugs and Plan Mexico. Plan Mexico, officially called the Merida Initiative, is a military and police aid package of which $400 million dollars has been approved for Mexico in 2008 and similar quantities are foreseen until at least 2010. Plan Mexico arose from the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) and meets the objectives of the Bush-Cheney administration to extend the security perimeter of the United States to Mexico's southern border; that is, to have Mexico adopt the national security agenda of the United States and implement the Bush counter-terrorism and unilateralist paradigms. What many do not know is that the Plan implies much more than a temporary assistance program to fight the drug cartels. It structurally transforms the bilateral relationship by permanently emphasizing military aspects over much-needed development aid and modification of investment and commerce policies. The Plan imposes on Mexico the same failed border security, drug war, counter-terrorism, and economic integration policies that led to the massive repudiation of George W. Bush's administration and earned him the scorn of the rest of the planet and the majority of the U.S. population. The initiative, focused on anti-terrorism, anti-narcotics, and border security efforts, intensifies the border conflict by viewing immigration through the same militarized lens with which terrorism and organized crime are viewed. When speaking of fighting the "flow of illegal goods and aliens," the initiative equates immigrant workers with illegal contraband and terrorist threats. This ignores the root causes of Mexican immigration and criminalizes it. The millions of dollars allocated to the National Migration Institute are poured into increasing restrictions on Mexico's southern border through means such as monitoring, collecting biometric data, and a program for border control and guest workers, especially Guatemalans. Historically, Mexico has offered refuge to Central Americans, accepting them into its society. That attitude has been changing as the U.S. government pressures Mexico to intercept Central American migrants before they can reach the U.S.-Mexico border. Plan Mexico accelerates this process and increases Mexican participation in detaining its own migrants on its northern border. To put immigration and the threat of international terrorism (almost non-existent in Mexico) in the same category has already served to promote the U.S. government's strategy of militarizing the border with Mexico. Calderon's weak government has attempted to gain strength by leaning on the armed forces and the war model of confronting illegal drug trafficking. The strategy for compensating its lack of legitimacy at the polls with a tough-guy image on drugs is conveniently reinforced by Plan Mexico. Historically the drug war model suppresses dissent, militarizes society, and concentrates presidential powers. Obama has said that he supports Plan Mexico. Nevertheless, three indicators for change do exist: 1) he has said that due to the crisis, promised levels of international aid will need to decrease, and need to be revised; 2) he recognizes the responsibility of the United States in illicit drug use, arms trafficking, and money laundering, and the need to implement new domestic policies in this area; and 3) he is considering new models to combat illegal drug trafficking and use that go beyond the exclusive focus on supply reduction and interdiction. If Plan Mexico is not suspended immediately, the two most integrated nations in the world will enter into a phase in which the bilateral relationship is directed by the Pentagon, Mexican society becomes increasingly militarized, and the unbridled power of already abusive Mexican security forces not only does not solve the alarming violence of organized crime, but aggravates it. Job creation programs, local infrastructure development, and measures aimed at regulating migratory flows and preventing conflicts would go a lot farther in obtaining and enhancing security in the short and the long run. A New Bilateral Agenda The current situation offers the opportunity to work toward a much more integrated and healthy bilateral agenda. Obama's emphasis on domestic policy to reactivate the economy inevitably must include a rethinking of the relationship with Mexico due to the high degree of integration. This explains his insistence on NAFTA renegotiation. U.S. media has frequently pointed out the similarities with the Franklin Roosevelt era. When FDR developed the New Deal to cope with the Great Depression, he did not abandon external relations. Instead he constructed the Good Neighbor policy based on many of the same principles of solidarity that the New Deal relied on. In the Depression era, the lack of resources due to the economic crisis supported the new policy of non-intervention in foreign affairs. A bilateral agenda should be developed based on the shared priorities of work with dignity and peaceful societies. Work with Dignity Should be Understood as the Following: Legalization for qualified undocumented workers in the United States, to eliminate the labor black market, and guarantee full rights to all. Immigration reform focused on reuniting workers with their families, because no human being should be reduced to his or her labor power. Trade policies that recognize the right to work with dignity in the place of origin. The Peaceful Societies Agenda Should Establish That: A healthy society should be based not on the effectiveness of its police/military control, but on its capacity to offer the opportunity to create well-being to all of its members. The bilateral relationship should be horizontal, coherent, and based on mutual respect. The border is a point of convergence, not a wall of contention. The debate on the new bilateral relationship is not a matter of sitting down and waiting to see what Obama will do, or how the crisis will evolve. It is time for citizens to work hard to forge new citizen-based national and regional policies. Translated for the Americas Program by Laura Carlsen. Laura Carlsen (lcarlsen(a)ciponline.org) is the Director of the Americas Program (www.americaspolicy.org) for the Center for International Policy in Mexico City. This article is based on a presentation given at the Mexican Congress's event on immigration on Nov. 25, 2008.