Jessie's email, posted below, contains a link to Bill Quigley's list of 10 Things the U.S. Can and Should do for Haiti. Quigley is Legal Director at the Center for Constitutional Rights...he is also a Katrina survivor and has "been active in human rights in Haiti for years with the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti."

They are all important, and so I've posted the list...I feel like i'm doing this with some desperate delusion in mind, as if the more times they're copy-and-pasted on the internet, the more people will begin to understand...and the less bad will come from this already fully devastating disaster in Haiti.

BUT I WANT TO BRING SPECIAL ATTENTION TO LIST ITEM NUMBER TWO. This cannot be repeated too many times:

Do not allow US military in Haiti to point their guns at Haitians. Hungry Haitians are not the enemy. Decisions have already been made which will militarize the humanitarian relief – but do not allow the victims to be cast as criminals. Do not demonize the people.

This is NOT that complicated. I may be naive about certain aspects of world politics or the intricacies of international economic affairs...but THE HAITIANS ARE THE VICTIMS.

Bill's List:

One. Allow all Haitians in the US to work. The number one source of money for poor people in Haiti is the money sent from family and workers in the US back home. Haitians will continue to help themselves if given a chance. Haitians in the US will continue to help when the world community moves on to other problems.

Two. Do not allow US military in Haiti to point their guns at Haitians. Hungry Haitians are not the enemy. Decisions have already been made which will militarize the humanitarian relief – but do not allow the victims to be cast as criminals. Do not demonize the people.

Three. Give Haiti grants as help, not loans. Haiti does not need any more debt. Make sure that the relief given helps Haiti rebuild its public sector so the country can provide its own citizens with basic public services.

Four Prioritize humanitarian aid to help women, children and the elderly. They are always moved to the back of the line. If they are moved to the back of the line, start at the back.

Five. President Obama can enact Temporary Protected Status for Haitians with the stroke of a pen. Do it. The US has already done it for El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Sudan and Somalia. President Obama should do it on Martin Luther King Day.

Six. Respect Human Rights from Day One. The UN has enacted Guiding Principles for Internally Displaced People. Make them required reading for every official and non-governmental person and organization. Non-governmental organizations like charities and international aid groups are extremely powerful in Haiti – they too must respect the human dignity and human rights of all people.

Seven. Apologize to the Haitian people everywhere for Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh.

Eight. Release all Haitians in US jails who are not accused of any crimes. Thirty thousand people are facing deportations. No one will be deported to Haiti for years to come. Release them on Martin Luther King day.

Nine. Require that all the non-governmental organizations which raise money in the US be transparent about what they raise, where the money goes, and insist that they be legally accountable to the people of Haiti.

Ten. Treat all Haitians as we ourselves would want to be treated.

-Bill Quigley

arundhati roy fascinating analysis of democracy/neoliberalism/terrorism/occupation/progress/genocide/THE STATE OF HUMANITY AND THE WORLD

on my way to work a few days ago, I caught part of Democracy Now's hour-long interview with Arundhati Roy. I just went back and re-read it, and this may be one of the most all-encompassing and powerful pieces I have come across in a long time. I've copied most of it below, and highlighted some of the parts i found particularly astute/important, but really the whole thing is just incredible. (also-- she describes in india how the indigenous peoples have been labeled 'maoists' by the government/media as a reaction to their resistance, which is ALL TOO parallel to the situation with the mapuche in the south of chile, down to a T--check out previous posts for more about the relationship between democracy, economic growth, and military repression of the indigenous in chile). full text of DN broadcast available here.

ARUNDHATI ROY, sep 28 2009

"But as we know now, because of the way the global economy is linked, countries are not—you know, the political systems in countries are also linked, so democracies are linked to dictatorships and military occupations and so on. We know that. We now that some of the main military occupations in the world today are actually administered by democracies: Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir. 

But what I think is beginning to be very clear now is that we see now that democracy is sort of fused to the free market, or to the idea of the free market. And so, its imagination has been limited to the idea of profit. And democracy, a few years ago, maybe, you know, even twenty-five years ago, was something that, let’s say, a country like America feared, which was why democracies were being toppled all over the place, like in Chile and so on. But now wars are being waged to restore—to place democracy, because democracy serves the free market, and each of the institutions in democracy, like you look at India, you know, whether it’s the Supreme—whether it’s the courts or whether it’s the media or whether it’s all the other institutions of democracy, they’ve been sort of hollowed out, and just their shells have been replaced, and we play out this charade. And it’s much more complicated for people to understand what’s going on, because there’s so much shadow play. 

But really we are facing a crisis. And that’s what I ask. You know, is there life after democracy? And what kind of life will it be? Because democracy has been hollowed out and made meaningless. And when I say “democracy,” I’m not talking about the ideal. You know, I’m not saying that countries that live in dictatorships and under military occupation should not fight for democracy, because the early years of democracy are important and heady. And then we see a strange metastasis taking over. 

---

You know, when September 11th happened, I think some of us had already said that a time would come when poverty would be sort of collapsed and converge into terrorism. And this is exactly what’s happened. The poorest people in this country today are being called terrorists. 

And what you have is a huge swath of forest in eastern and central India, spreading from West Bengal through the states of Jharkhand, Orissa and Chhattisgarh. And in these forests live indigenous people. And also in these forests are the biggest deposits of bauxite and iron ore and so on, which huge multinational companies now want to get their hands on. So there’s an MoU [Memorandum of Understanding] on every mountain, on every forest and river in this area. 

And about in 2005, let’s say, in central India, the day after the MoU was signed with the biggest sort of corporation in India, Tatas, the government also announced the formation of the Salwa Judum, which is a sort of people’s militia, which is armed and is meant to fight the Maoists in the forest. But the thing is, all this, the Salwa Judum as well as the Maoists, they’re all indigenous people. And in, let’s say, Chhattisgarh, something like the Salwa Judum has been a very cruel militia, you know, burning villages, raping women, burning food crops. I was there recently. Something like 640 villages have been burned. Out of the 350,000, first about 50,000 people moved into roadside police camps, from where this militia was raised by the government. And the rest are simply missing. You know, some are living in cities, you know, eking out a living. Others are just hiding in the forest, coming out, trying to sow their crops, and yet getting, you know, those crops burnt down, their villages burnt down. So there is a sort of civil war raging. 

And now, I remember traveling in Orissa a few years ago, when there were not any Maoists, but there were huge sort of mining companies coming in to mine the bauxite. And yet, they kept—all the newspapers kept saying the Maoists are here, the Maoists are here, because it was a way of allowing the government to do a kind of military-style repression. Of course, now they’re openly saying that they want to call out the paramilitary. 

And if you look at—for example, if you look at the trajectory of somebody like Chidambaram, who’s India’s home minister, he—you know, he’s a lawyer from Harvard. He was the lawyer for Enron, which pulled off the biggest scam in the history of—corporate scam in the history of India. We’re still suffering from that deal. After that, he was on the board of governors of what is today the biggest mining corporation in the world, called Vedanta, which is mining in Orissa. The day he became finance minister, he resigned from Vedanta. When he was the finance minister, in an interview he said that he would like 85 percent of India to live in cities, which means moving something like 500 million people. That’s the kind of vision that he has. 

And now he’s the home minister, calling out the paramilitary, calling out the police, and really forcibly trying to move people out of their lands and homes. And anyone who resisted, whether they’re a Maoist or not a Maoist, are being labeled Maoist. People are being picked up, tortured. There are some laws that have been passed which should not exist in any democracy, laws which make somebody like me saying what I’m saying now to you a criminal offense, for which I could just be jailed. Even sort of thinking an anti-government thought has become illegal. And we’re talking about, you know, as you said, 75,000 to 100,000 security personnel going to war against people who, since independence, which was more than sixty years ago, have no schools, no hospitals, no running water, nothing. And now, now they’re being—now they’re being killed or imprisoned or just criminalized. You know, it’s like if you’re not in the Salwa Judum camp, then you’re a Maoist, and we can kill you. And they are openly celebrating the Sri Lanka solution to terrorism, to terrorism. 

---

ANJALI KAMAT: Arundhati Roy, can you explain a little bit more about how India has so successfully hidden this side of it, this underbelly of democracy that you bring out in your book—murder, disappearances, torture, rapes, thousands—millions of people displaced, whether it’s for development projects or in the process of fighting wars, tens of thousands disappeared in Kashmir, the insurgency that’s being fought, the military that’s fighting the insurgency in the northeast? How is India, on a global stage, continues to be seen as this successful democracy, a place where investors are flooding to? 

ARUNDHATI ROY: Well, precisely because it is a democracy for some of its citizens, you know? And so, in a way, it has—this whole system has somehow created an elite that is now suddenly enriched in the last, you know, twenty years since the advent of the corporate free market. We have a huge middle class that is hugely invested in this sort of a police—or, you know, a police state that isn’t acknowledged as one. So you have—it’s not just a small sort of coterie of generals, like in Burma, or a kind of military dictatorship that’s supported by the US in America. You have a huge constituency in this country that completely supports this whole enterprise, and you have a free media where 90 percent of the turnover of those media houses comes from corporate advertisements and so on. So they’re also free, but free to also embrace this particular model, in which, you know, a small section of people—well, not a small section; there are millions and millions of people, but they are not the majority of the people of this country. The light shines upon this rising middle class, which is, as I said, such a huge number that it’s a very, very attractive market for the whole world. 

So, when India opens its markets, you know, because it has opened its markets, and because it’s—you know, international finance is flooding in, and all of that is so attractive, it is allowed to commit genocide in Gujarat; it’s allowed to commit civil war in the center; it’s allowed to have a military occupation in Kashmir, where you have 700,000 soldiers, you know, patrolling that little valley; it’s allowed to have laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act in the northeast, which allows the army to just kill on suspicion. And yet, it’s celebrated. It’s allowed to displace millions of people, but yet it’s celebrated as this real success story, because it has all these institutions in place, even though they’ve been hollowed out. 

So you have, for example, a Supreme Court in which there are very erudite judges, and there are some very erudite judgments, but if you look at how it’s actually functioning, it has hollowed out. To criticize the court is a criminal offense. And yet, you have judgments where a judge openly says something like—you know, that—I’ve forgotten the exact words, but how corporate—you know, a corporate company cannot basically commit anything illegal, cannot commit an illegal act, you know? Or you have a judge in court openly talking about, let’s say, Vedanta, which is mining in Orissa for bauxite. And the Norwegian government had pulled out of that project because of the human rights violations and so on; and, you know, for a whole lot of ethical reasons, they pulled out. And in India, you know, the company was taken to court, and a judge openly, in an open court, says that, “OK, we won’t give this contract to Vedanta. We’ll give it to Sterlite, because Sterlite is a very good company. I have shares in it,” omitting to mention that Sterlite is a subsidiary of Vedanta. 

You know, but there’s so much fancy footwork. If it was a military dictator, they have would have just said, “Shut up” and “Vedanta will get the project.” But here, there are affidavits and counter-affidavits and a little bit of delay and everything; everyone thinks it’s democracy. You know, you have the Supreme Court hearing on, let’s say, the Parliament attack, where openly the Supreme Court of the world’s greatest democracy says, you know, on the one hand, “We don’t have evidence to prove that the person who was charged is—belongs to a terrorist group,” and a few paras later says, “but the collective conscience of society will only be satisfied if we sentence him to death.” And it’s just said so, blatantly, out there, you know? And you can’t criticize it, because it’s a criminal offense. 

---

Well, I think, you know, when people would ask me what I thought of Obama, I said I hope that he would land the American empire gently, like the pilot who landed the—who crash-landed the plane in the Hudson.

Yes, he’s expanding the war in Afghanistan. I think, basically, people, including Obama, just don’t know what to do in Afghanistan, and expanding the war is certainly not going to end that war or create any kind of just peace in that region. It’s, in fact, going to exacerbate the situation, draw Pakistan into it, and when Pakistan is drawn into it, so will India, and so on. So it goes.

I think, you know, the real change that has taken place in the last, you know, ten years is also the rise of India and China as kind of imperial powers, you know, playing out their games in Africa and also in parts of Latin America. So it’s a very—and, of course, the rise of Russia.

So, I think the situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir is very volatile. And, of course, let’s not forget that these are nuclear powers, even though a scientist recently has announced that India’s nuclear tests were a damp squib and that they were not successful, but I don’t know what that’s about and why he’s coming out with it now.

But I think we are headed for a lot of chaos. And in India, you know, as I said, while the situation in Kashmir—even now, as I speak in the studio, there’s news coming in of what they call “encounter killings,” you know, almost a few every day. So, obviously, given that nonviolent protest has been put down violently, things are going to go back to a previous era of some kind of militant violence there. And, you know, the heart of India being sort of hollowed out by this civil war and this assault on its poor.

I really don’t know what to say or what to expect, except to say that this kind of pressure can never result in an orderly submission, even if people wanted to submit. What’s going to happen and what is happening is that unpredictable kinds of battles and chaos is erupting all over the place, and, you know, the government is constantly firefighting and trying to douse those flames.

But out of this chaos, something new has to come, and will come, because it cannot go on like this. And I don’t know whether that thing will be worse or will be better, but it can’t go on like this. You know, the kind of polythene bag over our heads has to burst open at some point. You know, we have to be allowed to breathe. And this kind of surveillance and drone attacks and all this that’s being planned is not going to be able to hold down millions of people who are just getting impoverished and hungry and homeless.

---

In fact, I was actually—you know, when I was in this place, Chhattisgarh, Dantewada, where the war is unfolding, a senior policeman told me, “You know, Arundhati, as a policeman, I can tell you that the police are not going to be able to solve the problem of these indigenous, you know, these Adivasi people”—“Adivasi” is the word for tribal people—“and I have told the government that the problem with these people is that they don’t have any greed. So, the way to solve the problem is to put a TV in every house. Then we’ll be able to win this war.”

So, you know, you have a situation where more and more people are just outside the barcode. You know, they are what you would call “illegible.” And we have a very, very serious situation here, where now they are planning, you know, once again, to make a—what do you call it—a electronic ID card. Of course, once again, to people who don’t have water, who don’t have electricity, who don’t have schools, but they will have ID cards, and people who don’t have ID cards are not going to exist.

---

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Arundhati Roy. She’s speaking to us from New Delhi, India. She has just published a new book called Field Notes on Democracy: Listening to Grasshoppers. Arundhati, why “listening to grasshoppers”?

ARUNDHATI ROY: Oh, it was the name of a lecture that I did in Turkey last year on the anniversary after the death of Hrant Dink, the Armenian journalist who was shot outside his office for daring to talk about the Armenian genocide of 1915, which you’re not supposed to talk about in Turkey. And my lecture was really about the historical links between progress and genocide.

And “listening to grasshoppers” was—referred to the testimony an old lady called Araxie Barsamian, who’s the friend—mother of my friend David Barsamian, who is Armenian and who talked about how, you know, the wheat had ripened in her village in 1915, and suddenly there was this huge swarm of grasshoppers that arrived. And the village elders were very worried about this and said it was a bad omen. And they were right, because a few months later, when the wheat had ripened, the Turks came, and that was the beginning of the Armenian genocide for her.

And so, I talk about—the whole lecture was really about how societies are prepared for genocide and how genocide is, you know, it’s like part of free trade, and how, you know, genocides that are acknowledged, and denied, and prosecuted, all have to—all depend on world trade, and always have done, and about how I worry that a country like India, that is poised on the threshold of progress, could also be poised on the threshold of genocide.

And that essay was written in January of last year. And now, as you see, the troops are closing in on the forest areas where the poorest people live. And they will be sacrificed at the altar of progress, unless we manage to show the world that we have to find a different way of seeing and a different way of going about things.

But here in India, there’s the smell of fascism in the air. Earlier, it was a kind of an anti-Muslim, religious fascism. Now we have a secular government, and it’s a kind of right-wing ruthlessness, where people openly say, you know, every country that has progressed and is developed, whether you look at Europe or America or China or Russia, they have a quote-unquote “past,” you know, they have a cruel past, and it’s time that India stepped up to the plate and realized that there are some people that are holding back this kind of progress and that we need to be ruthless and move in, as Israel did recently in Gaza, as Sri Lanka has recently done with its hundreds of thousands of Tamils in concentration camps. So why not India? You know? Why not just do away with the poor so that we can be a proper superpower, instead of a super-poor superpower?

AMY GOODMAN: Arundhati Roy, we just have less than a minute. What gives you hope?

ARUNDHATI ROY: What gives me hope is the fact that this way of thinking is being resisted in a myriad ways in India, you know, from the poorest person in a loincloth in the forest saying, “We’re going to fight,” right up to me, who’s at the other end, you know. And all of us are joined together by the determination that, even if we lose, we’re going to fight, you know? And we’re not going to just let this happen without doing everything we can to stop it. And that gives me a tremendous amount of hope.

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.