Saturday, December 5, 2009

The Fall of Mexico - Atlantic Monthly

"Statements by U.S. and Mexican government officials, repeated by a news media that prefers simple story lines, have fostered the impression in the United States that the conflict in Mexico is between Calderón’s white hats and the crime syndicates’ black hats. The reality is far more complicated, as suggested by this statistic: out of those 14,000 dead, fewer than 100 have been soldiers. Presumably, army casualties would be far higher if the war were as straightforward as it’s often made out to be.

The toll includes more than 1,000 police officers, some of whom, according to Mexican press reports, were executed by soldiers for suspected links to drug traffickers. Conversely, a number of the fallen soldiers may have been killed by policemen moonlighting as cartel hit men, though that cannot be proved. Meanwhile, human-rights groups have accused the military of unleashing a reign of terror—carrying out forced disappearances, illegal detentions, acts of torture, and assassinations—not only to fight organized crime but also to suppress dissidents and other political troublemakers. What began as a war on drug trafficking has evolved into a low-intensity civil war with more than two sides and no white hats, only shades of black.

“It’s an open secret in Mexico,” he said, “that the army is fighting the [Juárez] cartel to weaken them and pave the way for Guzmán.”

Then he asserted that the army intends not to stamp out drug trafficking but to “control” it.

Every year, under the Foreign Assistance Act, the State Department is required to certify that its southern neighbor is fully cooperating in efforts to stem the export of illegal narcotics into the United States. Without certification, Mexico would be ineligible to receive the vast majority of American aid. But the U.S. government often soft-pedals criticisms of Mexico on matters such as corruption and human-rights offenses, for two reasons. One is U.S. sensitivity to the Mexican elite, which can be thin-skinned about what it regards as infringements from the north on its national sovereignty. The second is money. In the highly unlikely event that Mexico were decertified, the cutoff in U.S. aid would strain bilateral relations, trade agreements would be imperiled, and American businessmen would find it harder to operate south of the border. Also, of all the countries that export oil to the United States, Mexico, at 985,000 barrels a day, ranks third, behind Canada and Saudi Arabia.

That makes speaking the truth about Mexico politically and economically dangerous in official U.S. circles.

The U.S. government estimates that the cultivation and trafficking of illegal drugs directly employs 450,000 people in Mexico. Unknown numbers of people, possibly in the millions, are indirectly linked to the drug industry, which has revenues estimated to be as high as $25 billion a year, exceeded only by Mexico’s annual income from manufacturing and oil exports."

Saturday, October 24, 2009

The politics of inaction

http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/politics/rudd-stays-on-top-by-keeping-off-the-playing-field-20091023-hda8.html

"Rudd wants to keep the centre-left element of his constituency happy with the "humane" part, but he also wants to deflect attack from the right. On both climate change and asylum seekers, Rudd has shown that he prefers to shut down the Opposition rather than to lead public opinion.

Rudd is emerging as a prime minister who defines himself by the fights he avoids. He is uncomfortable advocating an opinion that might be electorally risky. He would prefer to shut down an Opposition attack with narrow political tactics than to overwhelm the Opposition by mobilising broad public opinion.

Quite apart from the fact that the Government's security agencies already screen all asylum seekers, it's true that the men convicted of terrorism related charges here so far all arrived by plane."

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Obama and change - the great illusion.

http://counterpunch.com/worthington09162009.html

Is Bagram Obama's New Secret Prison?

"The government was hoping that offering tribunals to evaluate the prisoners’ status would perform a useful PR function, making the administration appear to be granting important rights to the 600 or so prisoners held in Bagram, and distracting attention from the real reason for its purported generosity: a 76-page brief to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (PDF), submitted yesterday, in which the government attempted to claim that “Habeas rights under the United States Constitution do not extend to enemy aliens detained in the active war zone at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.”

Despite being addressed in the DoD’s new proposals, these concerns are not mitigated by the fact that, according to these plans, new prisoners will be subjected, on capture, to cursory reviews by “the capturing unit commander” and by the commander of Bagram to ascertain that they “meet the criteria for detention,” and the problem is underlined by the DoD’s insistence that it is not merely holding prisoners “consistent with the laws and customs of war,” but also holding those who fulfill the criteria laid down in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (the founding document of the “War on Terror,” approved by Congress within days of the 9/11 attacks), which authorized the President to detain those who “planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,” or those who supported them.

As I explained, this “seems to confirm, in one short sentence, that, although the CIA’s secret prisons have been closed down, as ordered by President Obama, a shadowy ‘rendition’ project is still taking place, with an unknown number of prisoners being transferred to Bagram instead.”

So closing Guantánamo increases the need for a new Guantánamo, and barring the use of secret prisons just means that you need to find a new place to stash secret prisoners? Have we had it with Guantánamo because it’s unfashionable -- like a played-out spring-break destination, now overrun with journalists and human-rights lawyers hopping on planes in Florida -- or because we actually don’t like extrajudicial, indefinite detention?

Is this what is happening now at Bagram? Shortly after Panetta made his comments, I noted that “the only logical conclusion” I could draw was that, “essentially, the Obama administration’s only real problem with ‘extraordinary rendition’ is one of scale. The Bush administration’s industrial-scale rendition policies have been banished, but the prospect of limited rendition -- to third countries rather than to the U.S. court system, as would surely be more acceptable -- is being kept as a possible option.”

No disagreement on asylum seekers

http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/politics/fakewrestling-rivals-box-one-anothers-ears-20091022-hbef.html

"Yesterday, witnesses in the House of Representatives chamber were treated to a stagey, bizarre mock argument between two men who agree with each other.
Kevin Rudd has humanised the immigration process for asylum seekers by easing detention requirements and abolishing the issuance of temporary protection visas.
Neither of these changes was opposed by the Coalition.
Largely, they've reached consensus on this stuff.
And yet they bellow and strut and accuse each other of deep moral turpitude … why?
It's an entirely confected argument, staged for entirely political reasons."

It's all about how you get here apparently

http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/politics/australians-all-let-us-react-says-the-right-20091022-hbck.html

"It's worth remembering that under Ruddock as immigration minister, the number of those living illegally in Australia steadily rose. When he first became the minister in 1996 there were 45,000 people unlawfully living here. About the time he was leaving the portfolio, the numbers had climbed to 60,000, according to the department's 2004 annual report.
Overwhelmingly, these people had arrived by aircraft. It's those who arrive in boats who inexplicably bring out the worst in us."