On October 9, 1861, Napoleon III to his Ambassador in London, Count Flahaut, that if Mexico could be regenerated under the influence of France, they would have erected an insurmountable barrier against the encroachments of the United States. On July 5, 1862, he a letter to General Elie Frederic Forey, emphasizing that France had a historic mission to restore the strength and prestige of the Latin race that lived on the other side of the Atlantic.��

Napoleon’s Pan-Latin project

The aims, barriers and Latin strength mentioned earlier represented two sides of the same coin. They laid the groundwork for Napoleon’s project in the Americas. One aim was to counterbalance the rising Anglo-Protestant power by strengthening the influence of Latin Catholicism. A Latin power, of course, remained under the tutelage of France.��

The nature of the Latin connection between France and the Hispanic part of the Americas stemmed from their shared Roman heritage, a heritage also shared by Brazil. However, although Brazil is considered a fundamental part of “Latin America,” it represented a completely different proposition in terms of France’s imperial ambitions. With an Emperor from the Royal House of Braganza ruling that country and Great Britain leading its international trade, Brazil was beyond the reach of Napoleon’s .��

Such a common heritage dates back to ancient times. The original Latins inhabited central Italy in what is now the region of Lazio. Through conquests led by their dominant city-state, , the rest of Italy became “Latinized.” In other words, the term Latin lost its specific ethnic meaning and gained a political and cultural one. As Roman power expanded to what would later become France, Spain and Portugal (among others), these regions also became Latin spaces. Roman law, traditions, architecture and the Latin language were imposed upon them.

Circa 313 AD, Roman Emperor Constantine , promoting its rise, which would shortly thereafter become the official religion of the Roman Empire. Thus, this marks the origins of the Roman-Catholic Church.��

, in its context, was the language spoken by ordinary citizens of the Roman Empire, distinct from the cultivated form of Classical Latin. It encompassed the vernacular dialects that later evolved into the so-called Romance languages. These include languages like Italian, French, Spanish or Portuguese.

The Pan-Latin thesis that emerged during Napoleon III’s reign aimed to highlight the shared traits between the “Latin Race” of the Americas and Europe. Both groups, on either side of the Atlantic, shared religion, culture and Romance languages. As a result, the Latins of the Americas were encouraged to become natural allies of Latin Europe in their cultural struggle not only against the Anglo-Saxon world but also against Teutonic and Slavic Europe. 

Of course, Mexico was just the first step in Napoleon’s plan to establish other French satellite monarchies in the region. But how did Napoleon’s ambitions over Mexico materialize? To answer this, some background information is required.

How did Napoleon’s ambitions materialize?

Since its independence from Spain, Mexico’s Conservatives had always aspired to a monarchical system of government under a European prince of royal blood. Time and again, this idea tended to re-emerge among their most notorious representatives, particularly . This became more urgent for them after a weak Mexico faced the loss of half of its territory to a much stronger United States.

In the 1850s, however, the gained control of Mexico and began passing a series of reform laws aimed at reducing the power of the Church and the Army. This process culminated with the enactment of the , which triggered a military revolt by the increasingly marginalized Conservatives. It was known as the .

By December 1860, the Liberals had won this war, and in March 1861, , who led this faction as Provisional President, was officially elected President of Mexico. The defeated Conservatives saw the possibility of a monarchical regime, under a European prince of royal blood, as the only remaining solution to their problems.��

Thus, they proceeded to (some of their members had been doing so since the beginning of the civil war) Emperor Napoleon III. Their objective was that a European prince, under his stewardship and with military support, would become the monarch of Mexico.

This proposal was music to Napoleon’s ears, who, after his country’s military success in , aimed to expand his empire. Not surprisingly, he wanted to follow in the footsteps of his famous uncle of the same name, who, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, had controlled Europe for a decade and a half.��

Significantly, the gates of Mexico and Hispanic America had just opened to European infiltration. Indeed, in , seven southern states seceded from the United States, forming a new country called the Confederate States of America. The war between the two parties resulted in a sudden halt to the enforcement of the . This doctrine, issued in 1823 by President James Monroe, formally warned European monarchies that the United States would not tolerate further colonization or the creation of tributary monarchies in the Americas.

Furthermore, Napoleon III that the South would win such a war, implying that Mexico’s northern neighbor would not be a strong United States, but a weakened Confederate States of America. A new country in need of France’s recognition and support. In other words, ambition and opportunity aligned perfectly. As a result, in 1861, France Mexico.��

Maximilian of Habsburg, brother of the Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph, was the designated French puppet to become the Emperor of Mexico. In Napoleon’s words:

The Prince who may mount the Mexican throne will always be forced to act in the interests of France, not only from gratitude but even more because his country’s interest will be in accordance with ours, and he will not be able to maintain himself without our influence.

After consolidating the conquest of most of the country by French troops and relegating President Benito Juarez to its fringes, the crown was offered to the Austrian prince on July 10, 1863. According to the , signed between Maximilian and the French Empire, the future Mexican Empire was required to cover all military costs associated with the French invasion and presence in Mexico. Maximilian was finally enthroned in May 1864. However, it was to be a short-lived and tragic reign.��

Surviving defeat

A combination of factors brought this adventure to an end. First, Napoleon III underestimated the stubborn resistance of the Mexican forces under Juarez. Second, choosing Maximilian was unsuitable, as his liberal ideas more closely with those of Benito Juarez than with those of his Mexican Conservative allies. Third, the American Civil War with the Confederacy’s defeat on June 2, 1865, which not only re-established the Monroe Doctrine but also created conditions for war with the United States, which began sending surplus weapons and ammunition to Juarez’s troops. Fourth, France itself started to feel threatened by the rising power of under Bismarck’s capable leadership. The 40,000 French troops stationed in Mexico became increasingly needed in France.

On February 5, 1867, the last French troops Mexico City. Although Maximilian was advised to withdraw with them, he chose to stay in Mexico, supported by the Mexican Conservatives. However, this poorly matched alliance could not withstand the growing strength of Juarez’s forces, now aided by American arms. On May 15 of that year, Emperor Maximilian was captured, and after a court-martial, he was on June 19. Two reasons motivated his execution: the atrocities committed by the French troops and a message to deter future invaders.����

Maximilian’s patron, Napoleon III, would also suffer a crushing defeat three years later. Overwhelmed by the strength of the Prussian military in a war between the two countries, and captured at the battlefield of Sedan, Napoleon’s regime was by his own citizens on September 4, 1870.��

Curiously, the term survived the defeats of the American Confederation, the Maximilian monarchy and the Napoleonic Empire itself. Furthermore, it was accepted as a sign of identity by the very people it was supposed to be imposed upon as an imperialistic project.������

Given this final connotation, how can we explain the effortless adoption of the term by Hispanic and Portuguese (Iberian) Americans themselves?  

How to explain the success of the term

An initial assumption might be that the Pan-Latin thesis is opposed to the US, especially since a few decades earlier, the United States had forcefully taken of Mexico’s territory. However, that was not the case, as admiration for the US political system and entrepreneurial ingenuity remained high among Iberian American elites of that time.��

The answer lay in rejecting Spain and everything Spanish, which was common among Hispanic American and the so-called Positivists who gained power in most of the region after them. Although both Liberals and Positivists rejected the French invasion, they rejected even more the heritage left by Spain, which they saw as a heavy burden on their efforts to modernize their countries.��

The answer could also be found in the fascination that the Iberian American elites of the time felt towards French culture and civilization. Indeed, once the invading troops had been forced to withdraw in humiliation, there was no reason to reject the flattery of being considered the transatlantic cousins of the French. 

As the well-known Mexican intellectual ���𳾲�������:��

Where could we have looked at in search of models and inspiration? Nineteenth-century Latin America found its immediate answer in France and in the city that Baudelaire called ‘the capital of the XIX Century’. Parisian influence was felt everywhere from The Hague to Algiers, from St. Petersburg to Cairo. Nonetheless, in Mexico, Bogotá or Buenos Aires, it filled up the deep void left by Spain. Repudiating Spain meant accepting France as a new temple of freedom, good taste, romanticism, and all the good things that life had to offer. 

Redeeming the Western credentials of the region while bypassing Spain was well-received by the elites of the day. Especially so, if the country they admired the most became their bridge to the Western world. It was thus that a notion born with imperialistic designs ended up being gladly accepted by those upon whom it was supposed to be imposed. Hence, the paradoxical nature of the notion of Latin America. 

[The ideas expressed in this piece can also be found in Alfredo Toro Hardy’s book “”]

[ edited this piece]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Latin America: A French Idea That Outlived Its Empire appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Mexico and the EU have maintained diplomatic relations since 1960, but only formalized regular political dialogue with the signing of the in 1997. In 2008, the two furthered their bilateral relationship by establishing a , which helped their collaboration across political, security, environmental and socio-economic issues.����

In 2023, the EU and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean (CELAC) States signed a declaration with . This EU-CELAC summit, the first in eight-years, signals a renewed commitment to collaboration. However, there has been limited follow up. Mexico, as a versatile Latin American between North and South America, is well-positioned to lead in fulfilling these goals and should seize this momentum. Mexico also significantly benefits from high (FDI), and with Western countries. While the United States and Canada contribute the largest share, the EU became Mexico’s source of FDI in 2023.

Despite these links with Europe, Mexico sometimes resents what it perceives as enduring Western economic and cultural . Most recently, Mexico demanded that Spain for its colonial exploitation in Mexico. When Spain refused, Mexico snubbed the king of Spain by him to Sheinbaum’s inauguration. This dispute reflects a deeper disagreement over the of European colonization in the Americas, which could strain the Mexico-EU relations in key areas such as economic ties and security cooperation.��

Bolstering the economy��

The EU is Mexico’s third-largest trading partner and second-largest export market, with bilateral trade reaching over in 2023. Mexico and the EU conduct trade according to the terms outlined in the 1997 Global Cooperation Agreement.��

Despite a mutual desire to modernize and reaffirm the Agreement, progress has since 2019. Alleged problems with transparency and civil rights protections have sparked to reforming and renewing the Agreement. European and Mexico’s ambivalence regarding the Agreement’s impact on the country’s have further delayed the ratification process.����

Alicia Bárcena, Mexico’s outgoing foreign minister, identified the modernization of the Agreement as one of the foreign policy issues facing the incoming Sheinbaum administration. However, prospects for mutually adopting the modernized agreement appear promising. Sheinbaum’s new foreign minister, Juan Ramón de la Fuente, has expressed his support for the agreement.��

De la Fuente also that Mexico would host a German delegation as the first official visit from a foreign government under Sheinbaum’s administration. This strategic decision highlights Germany’s role as Europe’s and the world’s , after the United States, China and Japan. It signals that despite the dispute with Spain, Sheinbaum’s administration will work to strengthen ties with EU countries.��

Beyond trade, the tourism relationship between Mexico and the EU is becoming more complicated. Mexican tourism declined in 2024, with contributing to this decline. At the same time, the EU’s share of international tourists to Mexico has remained since the COVID-19 pandemic.��

For the Mexican tourist industry to recover, the Sheinbaum administration must convince international travelers that they are going to tackle the underlying issues affecting tourism, starting with Mexico’s high crime and violence rates.

The security balancing act

The EU also faces significant challenges with its opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This, combined with Mexico’s ongoing battle with cartels, and the fact that both issues have extended beyond their geographic boundaries, is likely to strain the Mexico-EU security relationship.

Mexican cartels have supplied cocaine to European criminal groups since the , and recently, some cartels have refined cocaine Europe. A 2022 joint by Europol and the US Drug Enforcement Administration revealed that the EU has also become a key transit point for Mexican cartels moving methamphetamine to Asian markets.

In response, the EU has increased security cooperation with Mexico through like the Europe, Latin America and Caribbean Programme of Assistance against Transnational Organized Crime (), which was renewed for its in 2023. The EU is also a data-sharing agreement with Mexican law enforcement agencies to improve the detection and prosecution of cartel activities in Europe.��

However, European and Mexican interests diverge on the EU’s primary security concern: Russian revanchism. EU member states, particularly Poland, have been among Ukraine’s ardent supporters since the 2022 Russian invasion. In contrast, Mexico has maintained a and has taken actions that have frustrated Russia and the West. Mexico in the United Nations to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, co-authored a resolution on aid to Ukrainian civilians with France and abstained from a vote on suspending Russia from the Human Rights Committee.��

Despite this, Mexico has criticized the EU Parliament for Ukraine and has made controversial decisions, such as allowing Russian soldiers to in its annual Independence Day parade in Mexico City. The EU, for its part, is concerned about Russian in Latin America intended to shape the popular perception of the war in Ukraine given that Mexico shows signs of a significant Russian intelligence . If these disagreements intensify, they could hinder Mexico-EU security cooperation.

Greening the partnership����

A key strength in the European-Mexican relationship is their shared commitment to investing in science and technology. Since 2005, Mexico and the EU have a bilateral agreement that dialogue and identifies potential areas for cooperation through the EC-Mexico Joint Science and Technology cooperation committee. In 2020, both sides agreed to renew and strengthen their collaboration, particularly in renewable energy and sustainability. The EU offers various frameworks for Mexico to engage with, including the Investment Agenda mechanism.

Last October, the Global Gateway forum outlined concrete steps for , the European program aimed at delivering more sustainable and effective development aid, to work with Mexico. Several announced focused on sustainability and green energy production. Among them was a shared emphasis on their respective green taxonomies and ensuring investment flowing into and out of Mexico align with green standards. Additionally, the European Investment Bank a letter of intent to support , a sustainable energy project in Mexico.��

President Sheinbaum has significant interest in continuing to invest in Plan Sonora to position Mexico as a leader in lithium and solar energy on the global stage. She has also plans to establish a Ministry for Science, Humanities and Technology and Innovation, signaling that environmental concerns will be a strategic priority for her government.

The EU continues to seek partners who can supply critical raw materials to ensure a smooth transition to a green economy and reach its green agenda ambitions. Competition from China, Russia and the United States has led the EU to ramp up its partnership in Latin America as its influence in Africa .��

Given Mexico’s , the EU should continue to invest in the partnership and support the scaling up of resource extraction. With Sheinbaum’s climate science background and her prior role as Secretary of Environment in Mexico City, there is optimism regarding Mexico’s climate future. However, skepticism remains about her ability to distance herself from her predecessor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), and his strong ties to Mexico’s fossil fuel industry. Now is an opportune moment for the EU to leverage Mexico’s new leadership, encouraging the country to fulfill its climate commitments and advance shared climate goals.

Future-proofing technology��

Building on Mexico’s climate potential, the EU can also play a key role in shaping Mexico’s approach to emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI). As Mexico advances its AI legislation, it could benefit from the EU’s regulatory experience, particularly with initiatives like the Act and Act. In 2024, the EU Commission established the to streamline and enforce the AI Act throughout the EU. As countries around the world navigate the AI regulatory landscape, the AI Office has prioritized becoming “a global .” As Mexico moves with AI legislation, it could look to the EU for guidance.��

Beyond AI, technology policy aligns well with the priorities of both parties. Mexico’s current administration places a high priority on digital policy, and the newly-established aims to modernize Mexico’s government by consolidating digitization efforts across various agencies. One key goal is to streamline operations, such as tax collection efficiency. Much of this expertise comes from Sheinbaum’s in transforming Mexico City into a digital capital during her tenure as mayor, where her reforms brought over 70% of public interactions online.��

The EU should seize the opportunity to work with Mexico’s digitally-savvy administration. Past efforts, such as the 2017 dialogue to strengthen their digital markets and share strategies for , should be expanded. Europe can support Mexico in its journey toward digital regulation and technological modernization, and both can collaborate on sharing best practices as they face similar challenges in the digital world.��

As the EU its new commissioners and Sheinbaum prepares for a , domestic realities will shape their respective foreign policies. However, both parties share common ambitions that could be pursued through a strengthened strategic partnership between Brussels and Mexico City.��

For Mexico, deepening its partnership with the EU could diversify its economic relationships and enhance its role as a bridge between Europe and Latin America. For the EU, deeper engagement with Mexico provides an opportunity to strengthen its geopolitical influence and secure vital resources for its green agenda. Mutual respect, clear priorities and a shared vision for sustainable development will be crucial in forging a relationship that advances interests of both sides and positively impacts regional relations.

Ultimately, the future of this partnership depends on Mexico and the EU’s willingness to tackle challenges together, innovating their approaches to diplomacy and cooperation. If they do so, they have the potential to transform their relationship into a model of 21st-century international partnership—one that acknowledges the complexities of the past while advancing a future shaped by shared goals and mutual prosperity.

[ edited this piece]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Bridging Continents: The Partnership Between Mexico and Europe appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Scientists have since peeled the proverbial onion and light and temperature sensors in a monarch’s antenna, which recognize the time of day and the sun’s position in the sky. Another section of the brain comprising molecules uses this information to act as a GPS-like magnetic compass. These all are connected to the monarch’s stereoscopic antennae sensors. These functions explain how the East and West Coast monarch species know when to initiate migration, and how they can find their cardinal directions, and specific roosting sites.

Now the question becomes: How do East Coast monarchs manage to migrate several thousand miles to the same small area — a few acres of high-altitude oyamel fir (Abies religiosa) in Mexico — when most are making their journey for the first time? The fact that an insect brain tiny enough to be smeared on a human thumb nail can conquer this exquisite conundrum is a natural wonder.

As Alice from Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland novels might have pondered, this gets “curiouser and curiouser.”

Are the butterflies sniffing their way home?

My working hypothesis is that the monarch’s provide extraordinary sensors to deal with long-distance migration and the last mile. Hypothetically, the sensors would especially help with overwintering migration and the return journey to breed on alkaloid milkweed plants.

An excellent study published in February 2024 gave my hypothesis a tantalizing clue. This from The New York Times highlighted the damaging effect pollution can have on a tobacco hawk moth’s attraction to pale evening primroses. Dr. Joel Thornton, an atmospheric chemist, led the study.

“A flower’s scent is a complex olfactory bouquet that contains many chemical compounds. To identify the ingredients in the signature primrose scent, the scientists fastened plastic bags over the blooms, capturing samples of the fragrant air. When the team analyzed these samples in the lab, it identified 22 distinct chemical components,” Thornton wrote. Naturally, his “olfactory bouquet” comment applies to a fir’s scent also.

Without getting too technical, the moths’ antennae seem specifically adapted to detect (C₁₀H₁₆), dimers of isoprene. These can be divided into acyclic, monocyclic, bicyclic and tricyclic compounds. Monoterpene derivatives that typically contain oxygen or nitrogen atoms are known as monoterpenoids. These monoterpenes give firs their distinctive . According to my hypothesis, oyamel firs provide the distinctive airborne chemical signature that East Coast monarchs use to locate their overwintering destination in Mexico.

Here is a hypothesis about the last mile of the East Coast monarch’s wintering migration. It follows the Occam’s razor — the assumption that a simple solution is more likely to be correct than a complicated one.

The monarch’s antennae contain monoterpenoid receptors. Evolution has fine-tuned these receptors to detect specific complex chemicals at the molecular level. In this case, they detect chemicals from oyamel firs for East Coast monarch butterflies to allow them to overwinter in a sufficiently favorable climate.

As East coast monarchs approach the North Mexico border area in a southwesterly direction, they use their hypersensitive antennae to detect airborne chemical monoterpenes at a few parts per billion. This is analogous to the read-only (ROM) once used in our computing technology. As the concentration of airborne monoterpenes specific to oyamel firs increases, the chemical “ROM” on the antennae guides the monarch to its specific wintering habitat. Hundreds of thousands of monarchs gather here, all guided by the same function.

Concluding thoughts on other monarchs

Monarch butterflies have other overwintering migration routes, including the West Coast of North America, continental Europe, Asia and Africa. I observed the latter during my youth, in fact. As a young butterfly collector, I spent summer months witnessing monarchs at Zamalek Park in Cairo, Egypt. The African monarch (Danaus chrysippus) is widespread in Africa and Asia.

The US Forest Service the migration habitation of American West Coast monarchs: “Monarchs living west of the Rocky Mountain range in North America overwinter in California along the Pacific coast near Santa Cruz and San Diego. Here microclimatic conditions are very similar to that in central Mexico. Monarchs roost in eucalyptus, Monterey pines, and Monterey cypresses in California.”

Perhaps not just D. plexippus but all geographic groups of monarchs use adapted monoterpenes for last mile navigation and migration when climatic factors overwintering at a specific low temperature range.

Like Thornton’s tobacco hawk moth study, my hypothesis requires confirmation.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post What We Know About Monarch Migration: The Amazing “Last Mile” appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Let’s back up. In 2012, the state of Arizona, which shares a border with Mexico, lost a case at the Supreme Court (). The Court ruled that federal immigration law is supreme over state laws; the states, therefore, cannot enforce immigration law or prevent people from crossing the southern border. Federal supremacy is an established principle of American constitutional law, but the negation of state authority to hinder and deal with illegal immigration was unprecedented. The Supreme Court decided that this was the federal government’s exclusive responsibility. To borrow Douglas Adams’s phrase, this has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move by those on the right. Either way, it is now the law of the land.

Since then, the federal government has largely abdicated its responsibility to enforce the southern border or immigration law.�� More illegal immigrants than the total population of 33 states have been into the country within the last four years alone.

Conservatives are outraged. One of the oldest responsibilities of any state is to make sure that that state’s borders are secure. If a state’s borders are not protected, its distinctiveness from other states is non-existent. Quite simply, a country without borders is not a country. For the last 14 years, elements of state governments have tried, and largely failed, to claw back any scrap of authority they can from the federal government in the area of immigration. At times, state law enforcement has interdicted illegal immigration on grounds, other times on grounds and still other times on grounds as simple as . But no matter what, the federal leviathan has asserted itself in the arena, and the states have quailed — until now.

Texas has taken matters into its own hands

The state government of Texas has decided to stop playing around. On September 23, 2023, Governor Greg Abbott elements of the Texas State Guard and evicted units of the United States Border Patrol (USBP) from Shelby Park, a vital sector of the southern border abutting the Rio Grande River, where the tide of illegal immigration is often highest. Abbot has also had of concrete, shipping containers and razor wire constructed. The federal government a lawsuit against Texas. The case has made its way to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit with a speed that only such a critical case could have. The circuit court issued an injunction against the federal government, forestalling the federal authorities from removing Texas’s fortifications.

The government appealed that injunction straight to the Supreme Court. The Court vacated the injunction without issuing an opinion. The vacating of the injunction gives the federal authorities the right to remove Texas’s fortifications while the case proceeds. Generally, the Court’s ruling on an injunction serves as a bellwether for its decision on the case itself. Therefore, this ruling would typically indicate that Texas’s efforts will fail on the merits. In simpler, less contentious, times, that is where the drama would have ended. Texas would have decried the decision, vowed to fight the case on its merits and allowed the USBP to remove the fortifications.The conclusion of the case would have been the end of the debate.  

Not this time. Abbott has defied the Court’s order vacating the injunction. The Texas Guard has actively the USBP access to the park to remove the fortifications. Moreover, they have added more fortifications to the border after the injunction was vacated, further obstructing the removal process. The Texas Guard and the USBP are still currently in a standoff.

Abbott invokes the compact theory of federalism

On January 24, Abbott a statement accusing the federal government of breaking the “compact” between the states. This language borrows directly from the Confederate state of Virginia’s 1861 secession . Abbott has thus invoked the “compact theory” of American federalism. According to this theory, the US constitution is a treaty between the states. If the states or the federal government violate this treaty, every party is free from its obligations. This theory was the rationale for the Confederate states’ secession from the Union. As early as 1793 (), and again after the Civil War in 1869 (), the Supreme Court rejected this theory, insisting that the United States was not a treaty organization but a sovereign republic. By invoking the compact theory, then, Abbott is calling into question the federal government’s claims to sovereignty.

Abbott is not calling for secession yet. Instead, he says that, since the federal government has failed to fulfill the compact, it falls on the states to uphold it. If America is a marriage, this is an accusation of adultery. It does not say “divorce” yet, but it could lay the groundwork for it.

Abbott’s statement lays out the derelictions of duty of which he accuses the Biden administration. President Joe Biden has failed to enforce federal immigration law by refusing to prosecute immigrants for illegal entry. He argues that the federal government has breached Article IV, of the constitution: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.”

Texas must thus invoke its right to self-defense laid out in Article 1, Section 10, : “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress … engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” Abbott invokes Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Arizona v. United States. In that opinion, Scalia wrote, “The State has the sovereign power to protect its borders more rigorously if it wishes, absent any valid federal prohibition.”

Texas has said it is ready to rumble — whether in defense of the whole or in defense from the whole remains to be seen.

In happier, less contentious times, Abbott’s would have been little more than a fever-dream manifesto. The statement reads like something out of an alternate history novel. But, at the time of writing, up to 25 state governors, all Republicans, have vowed to support Texas in a looming, real showdown with the federal government. Will the federal authorities blink? I don’t know. No one knows. This is a dispute with little precedent. Cooler heads probably will prevail and reach a compromise deal. 

But they might not. The federal government doesn’t like being challenged or having its authority eroded. And make no mistake, no matter what happens, the federal government’s authority will be eroded by this somehow, whether the federal authorities back down, and their authority is eroded, or Texas backs down, and we see the USBP open the border to allow millions more illegal immigrants into the country. That doesn’t even begin to countenance the worst thing that could happen from a major standoff between armed enforcers of state and federal governments. 

Will that happen? I do not know. But I know that, on the morning of April 12, 1861, precious few people woke up thinking they’d be at war by the time they went to bed.

[ and edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Republican Governors’ Revolt Tests Biden’s Willpower Over Illegal Immigration appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Donald Trump makes America’s allies anxious, and in Canada’s case, it is for especially good reason.

When Donald Trump decided to detonate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and replace it with the present United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, he did so by with — perhaps more accurately, intimidating or bulldozing — Canada and Mexico, without regard for (and at the expense of) pre-existing amicable bilateral relations.

President Trump’s mistreatment and antagonism of our northern ally during these negotiations exploded rather publicly in the summer of 2018. He into one of his usual tirades of personal attacks against Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, regarding that year’s G7 summit and the two leaders’ interaction at that conference. Many of the United States’ international allies viewed this puerile behavior on the part of the president as an unacceptable slight and as yet another sign of the US’ unreliability as an ally.

These allies rallied behind Trudeau, decrying President Trump’s shameful behavior. One unnamed European official that “The G7 was a forum for friends — democracies with the same value system — to discuss issues of common interest. Now there is a question mark over that. But it did not start with this G7, but with the election of Donald Trump.” German Foreign Minister Heiko Mass , stating, “In a matter of seconds, you can destroy trust with 280 Twitter characters.”

America could go off the rails

This, paired with Donald Trump’s continued on NATO, has left Canada with significant fear for the future. NATO is the world’s most important geopolitical alliance, a cornerstone of Canada’s defense strategy and a guarantor of stability within the present Western-oriented, liberal, human rights-centric world order.

Canada worries that their hegemonic southern neighbor may go off the rails and lurch towards the undemocratic extreme right. In 2020, when it became clear that Trump was considering refusing to accept the results of the election, Trudeau that Canada was preparing for the possibility of “some disruption” and all eventualities, should Trump attempt to remain in power extralegally. A special concern for Canada was the fact that an of zealous Americans were readily willing to endorse acts of political violence, should the opposing political party win the election.

While it should be extraordinarily concerning, it isn’t especially surprising that Canada’s government is — and has been for a while — taking steps to prepare for the potential consequences of US democratic backsliding, were it to temporarily find itself without the protective umbrella of its hegemonic partner.

This sentiment is in a piece published by The Hamilton Spectator on January 6, 2022, exactly one year after the horrific attack on our nation’s Capitol. The author writes,

While the attempted insurrection [of January 6, 2021] was quashed — though not before people died and humiliated American lawmakers were forced to flee to safety — the world was left wondering just how close the US had come to political anarchy and civil strife. Or whether another coup would be attempted on another day. Those are among the existential questions Americans of all political stripes need to be asking this January. As for their northern neighbors, we in Canada must prepare for living beside a very different kind of America than we’ve ever known.

The author also chooses to written in The Washington Post by several retired US Army generals that warns of the possibility of a breakdown within the US Armed Forces along partisan lines, should Donald Trump attempt another coup in 2024. If this were to occur, the United States could be thrust into a civil war. In this scenario, there is no saying who would come out on top, and if the wrong leader were to ascend to power, it would almost certainly end in bloodshed.

Even more concerningly, if we game this out, should the US Armed Forces break down, would the legitimate US government be able to secure essential military infrastructure? Individual armories may fall to the Trumpian element of the military based upon the ideologies of whichever random staff sergeant is present at the time, without causing a major problem. However, what about helicopters and F-16s — and God-forbid, has anyone checked up on the folks in the nuclear missile silos recently?

These are the questions that the United States’ closest allies have been forced to grapple with since January 2021. These are the concerns which seem especially magnified within Canada, due to its geographic placement, and these are the issues with which Generals Eaton, Anderson and Taguba are urging us to contend when we cast our ballot.

One , published in The Guardian on January 3, 2022, cites an earnest warning by Thomas Homer-Dixon, a Royal Roads University professor. He has been a “scholar of violent conflict” for nearly half-a-century. Homer-Dixon states, “By 2025, American democracy could collapse, causing extreme domestic political instability, including widespread civil violence. By 2030, if not sooner, the country could be governed by a right-wing dictatorship.” Amongst the professor’s many concerns, he warned that Republican state leadership might refuse to accept a Democrat win in 2024, ostensibly, bolstered by the precedent of domestic terrorism and attempted coup which occurred on January 6, 2021.

The professor also cautioned that, if re-elected in 2024, Donald Trump would “have only two objectives: vindication and vengeance,” which he would exact in the same way as any other right-wing totalitarian. Trump, Homer-Dixon warns, if allowed to return to the White House will be “the wrecking ball that demolishes democracy.”

published in The Conversation, on February 13, 2022, states that “The United States is on the precipice of becoming a failed democratic state.” The author of this article, University of Waterloo professor Robert Danisch, highlights a Zogby poll, one “that showed 46% of Americans believe that the United States is headed towards another civil war. “ Yikes! Danisch warned “violent rhetoric tends to fuel violent actions,” and he stated that “the more violent, extremist rhetoric becomes the norm, the more danger and violence we’re likely to see.”

Danisch expressed his fears that, “The combination of media outlets like Fox News that have far-reaching impact and anti-democratic, authoritarian rhetoric is exactly a recipe for the contagious spread of the kinds of behaviors that can threaten our own [Canada’s] democracy.” He urged the global community, and Canada more specifically, to pursue “systematic and dispassionate analyses of what will happen if or when the American experiment with democracy ends.” Danisch asks Canada, and the world, what it will do to counter actions by the United States if it becomes “a government pretending to be democratic while enacting fascism.”

What means might Canada have at its disposal?

Whether he comes to power by legal means or not, another term with Trump at the helm would require a Canadian action plan. A November 2021 published in The Globe and Mail proposes some measures that Canada can take to prepare for a Trump redux, “that awful menace the world barely survived the first time.”

First, the authors proposed that Canada establish close relations with individual US governors, legislators and officials, in order to “buttress [Canada’s] trade access to the United States.” An excellent example of the execution of this policy occurred during Trump’s re-negotiation of NAFTA, when the Canadian government engaged in a diplomatic campaign to for the agreement within individual US state governments. Another such example is the recent plan for economic cooperation between the state government of Michigan and the provincial government of Ontario.

The authors also suggested that Canada “prioritize diplomacy with key allies” other than the US in all regions of the world, to develop a coalition willing and able to stand up to an undemocratic government in the United States “when our shared commitments come under threat.” Some of those commitments, which the authors believe may need protecting from the United States, include “our multilateral commitments to environmental protection and sustainability, disarmament and nonproliferation, and the integrity of international financial institutions.” 

Canada’s efforts in this regard are witnessed by Trudeau’s attempts to develop trade deals that are separate from and less dependent upon the United States — such as his recently announced “” of several key Asian states: Indonesia, Singapore and India.

A by the European Council of Foreign Relations includes a list of necessary steps to be taken by Europe, in preparation for the United States’ potential “Authoritarian Experiment,” most of which are in the same tack as those listed in the Globe and Mail article.

The danger is real

Donald Trump’s re-election would lead to an unparalleled damaging of the global order and US international leadership. However, many folks have to be wondering whether or not all of these warnings amount to little more than doom-saying, whether or not Canada — and the rest of the key US allies — are overreacting and partaking in more than a little bit of melodrama.

Yet, Donald Trump’s acolytes are hardly hiding their sinister intentions. A recent news item their desire to remake the United States in a Trumpian image, thereby transforming the United States’ remarkable democratic experiment, into an authoritarian failure. This news item is, of course, ’s recent publication, “.” The document includes a number of policies that would all but reverse recent progress towards of climate destruction, including by drastically increasing our dependency on fossil fuels, and by decimating the EPA’s regulatory power.

Additionally, the Project 2025 “Mandate” declares the GOP’s intent to work towards replacing policies that work to attain LGBTQ+ equality “with those encouraging marriage, work, motherhood, fatherhood, and nuclear families.” The mandate is essentially a roadmap for destroying existing anti-discrimination protections, effectively institutionalizing prejudice against members of the LGBTQ+ community. It also declares that children should not be allowed to be raised in homes with parents of the same sex, based upon ludicrous and outdated theories of “family science,” and essentially advocating for the potential destruction of existing homosexual families. As a proud gay man myself, I find this a particularly terrifying prospect.

Finally, Project 2025 declares its intent to lay siege to the very institutions which make the United States a democracy. Its mandate seems not to recognize the foundational democratic principle of checks and balances — as evidenced, of course, by the statement of former Trump official Russell Vought, who stated that any new Republican presidential administration needed to “Identify the pockets of independence [within the US government] and seize them.” This news segment by Rachel Maddow, the concerning nature of this report, for those who haven’t the time to read the near 1000-page original document.

While the possibility of an alt-right authoritarian United States may seem to be something straight out of Vonnegut, it’s not fiction, as Project 2025 has proven. Of course, Canada should be afraid.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Will American Democracy Perish Like Rome’s?

It’s Preposterous to Claim that Trump Supports the LGBTQ Community

The Daily Devil’s Dictionary: The G7 “Spat”

The post Canada Is Preparing for a “Free World” Without a Leader appeared first on 51�Թ�.

To explain how Latin America can avoid this outcome, we must first explain how lithium goes from initial extraction to a consumer product. Then, we will discuss strategies for Latin American governments that find themselves at different parts of this chain.

The EV battery supply chain consists of :

— Upstream: raw materials, like cobalt, nickel and lithium, are extracted in the form of ores or brines.

— Midstream: raw materials are refined and processed into battery cells.

— Downstream: battery cells are assembled into modules that automakers can use.

— End of Life: spent batteries are recycled or reused. 

Currently, China, South Korea and Japan the midstream stage. Latin America’s largest —Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Mexico—mainly operate in the upstream stage.

The danger is that Latin American mineral producers will find themselves merely selling raw unrefined lithium on the global market for quick cash and thus miss out on all of the added value that occurs at later stages of production. While they have the lithium resources, they will need to develop industrial capacities farther down the stream to capitalize any further.

Not every Latin American lithium producer has made the same amount of progress on this front. Chile, the world’s lithium miner, also has the most mature production capabilities in the region. Argentina, whose lithium supply is mostly managed by , is speedily increasing its production. Mexico is slowly attempting to catch up, while , hampered by political instability, is still taking its first steps into lithium exploration.

The US can be an investor and friend

In addition to large supplies of raw materials, Latin American countries have another advantage that they can lean on to develop their lithium industry: geographical and political proximity to the United States.

Current American trade policy prioritizes what US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen termed  “,” which means reconfiguring global supply chains so that key manufacturing is located in politically friendly and reliable countries.

Another favorable policy is the , major legislation seeking to cut America’s greenhouse gas emissions . The US is the global emitter of CO₂ and will need to make significant investments in EVs to meet this goal. The transportation sector is the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the US economy, which will need to replace fossil fuel-burning vehicles with EVs in the coming years.

The US needs EVs, and it doesn’t want to make all of them in China. How can the Western Hemisphere work together to make this happen?

Lithium producers, from the relatively developed Chile to the fledgling Bolivia, should encourage that allows them to advance their domestic capacity beyond raw material extraction.

For Chile and Argentina, which have production operations than Bolivia and Mexico, this means motivating American companies to not only continue investing in upstream capabilities but also to invest in development of their midstream capacities. Current US policy provides both countries an opportunity to attract private-sector American investments that will allow them to develop refining and battery cell assembly facilities.

��󾱱���’s with the United States makes it an even better candidate for US investment, given that the Inflation Reduction Act requires a certain percentage of EV battery minerals be extracted and processed in a country with which the United States has such an agreement. Argentina’s relationship with the US is not as friendly, although some point to future cooperation between the two nations on green development in the future.

For Bolivia and Mexico, whose production operations are less advanced than Chile and Argentina, the goal should be to continue attracting investments to their upstream capabilities, which are still in the development stage. To exploit lithium deposits, Mexico , a state-owned lithium company, less than a year ago. The of Bolivia’s 21 million tons of lithium has not even been determined yet.

Both nations have taken a to production, with Mexico also making use of public-private partnerships where possible. Mexico’s openness towards public-private partnerships, along with its automotive-centric and neighborly ties with the United States, makes it a prime candidate for American investments in upstream operations. The Mexican government is just starting lithium exploration, but these factors offer it a in attracting investment that could rapidly advance its upstream production.

Although Bolivia’s lithium industry is still in its embryonic stage, it too will need to attract outside investment to develop its upstream and, eventually, midstream capacities.

Despite their differences in approach—from state domination of production (Bolivia) to full reliance on private-sector collaboration (Argentina)—all four lithium producers will need to attract investment in order to develop multiple stages of the EV battery supply chain. This will allow the localization of production and, in turn, spur local economic development through spinoff entrepreneurship and supporting industries. The political will behind reshoring ; Latin America must capitalize on the present opportunity before American companies turn back to relying on Asian inputs out of inertia.

If Latin American nations are not able to develop multiple stages of the supply chain, they will be doomed to simply be providers of raw materials without seeing significant benefits. If they are able to take advantage of the opportunity, however, they will balance Asia’s dominance of the industry, help meet the growing global demand for EV batteries and ensure that production nodes stay within the Western Hemisphere.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How Latin America Should Handle the Lithium Boom appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Tenochtitlán. Thursday, January 23, 1519.

Mayan fishermen have been reporting unidentified floating objects (UFOs) for quite some time now. These mysterious objects, often with pointed protrusions and white, flexible material have been spotted with increasing frequency by coastal dwellers on the eastern seaboard ever since the early part of 1493.

“We don’t know what they are, but they appear, often on the horizon for some time,” Ixpiyacoc, a fisherman from a small coastal town on the Yucatán peninsula told our reporter. “Then they disappear, like magic.”

“But it’s the stories of white men coming ashore with metal hats that really strike fear of the unknown into our hearts,” he continued, looking visibly shaken. 

Back in the empire, the Aztec government takes a very different view on the matter and denies the reports. “Unidentified floating objects are just a figment of people’s imagination,” said a spokesman for the Ministry of Defense in the capital, Tenochtitlán.

“These UFOs are total nonsense,” a leading scientist employed by the Ministry of Technology was quoted as saying. “We are alone on this planet, and it’s flat,” he continued.

But others are more troubled by the possibility that there could be life elsewhere on the earth and that it may be hostile. They have cautioned about the possibility of contact with other forms of intelligent life.

“Twenty years ago, we cast out a message in a clay pot from the shores of our land,” said Camaxtli, head of the Aztec Search for Terrestrial Intelligence. “Who knows whether it will ever be found by intelligent life? We just don’t know how vast the ocean is, and what’s at the other end of it,” he continued. “Whether it’s endless and stretches to infinity, we’ll just never know.” 

But just what did that pot contain? “We spent a lot of time thinking what to write on the parchment and whether other forms of intelligent life would understand our phonetic glyphs,” Camxtli explained. “So we settled with pictograms of who we are and where we come from and the stars that we can see in the sky.” 

However, there are those that are deeply concerned about the consequences of the pot-throwing act. 

“Imagine, if someone finds it: they come; they might want our gold, our women, our men, our natural resources, our livestock. We could be enslaved,” said a wise old man who spoke to us anonymously. “I think it was a pretty stupid thing to do, and who knows who might pick up the message?” 

But the mystery doesn’t stop there. Mayan conspiracy theorists from the Yucatán peninsula talk openly about a recent meeting between their leaders and “them.” Some Aztecs have reported similar happenings.

“There are some who say that Aztec ruler, Moctezuma has already met with the strangers from elsewhere,” said an official in the Aztec government on condition of anonymity, fueling rumors that the Aztec government met with life forms from elsewhere on the beaches near the town of Cempoala.

“There are eyewitness accounts that Moctezuma met with six tall white men with beards. They rowed ashore from this strange wooden contraption called a ship, the likes of which we had never seen before,” the official continued. “Our delegation was in a state of total confusion and awe as the leader of their delegation gave them gifts and then demonstrated the power of an object that spat fire and metal balls.”

“It was extraordinary,” he continued, “The delegation took off their metal headpieces and spoke in a strange language that we could not understand and offered us a thing called ‘Christianity’ in return for our gold and silver.”

After the meeting, the Aztecs were promised one of these Unidentified Floating Objects (otherwise known as ‘ships’) and Aztec scientists are trying to reverse engineer the technology.

“Those who’ve allegedly seen these ‘ships’ just can’t believe the complexity of the engineering,” said the official. “How they manage to cross the ocean is just unbelievable.”

Many others regard these claims as completely preposterous. “If these white people exist, then why don’t they come down in front of the great pyramid at Tenochtitlán and show themselves to the world?” a skeptical Aztec elder said.

Others have a more sophisticated argument.

“Traveling beyond the speed of a paddle canoe is just not physically possible,” a leading witch doctor at the Center for Human Sacrifice went on the record as stating. “These ships just don’t exist, they can’t exist and it would defy the laws of nature if they did,” he dismissively asserted.

But some Aztec government insiders think otherwise. Internal documents seen by our reporters suggest that there could be up to 4 different species of ‘white man’ who organize themselves in what are known as ‘empires.’ While they look similar to us, they are much taller, speak in strange tongues and are obsessed with the extraction of natural resources.

Those few who allege a first-hand encounter with them tell stories that they ride on animals with four legs, which are up to five feet high. 

“It was terrifying,” said an Aztec woman from the town of Texcoco to our reporter in confidence. “I was abducted by four of them who appeared from nowhere on these white four-legged beasts,” she revealed under hypnosis.

While many dismiss the phenomenon, leaked reports suggest that the Aztec government is taking the sightings very, very seriously. 

“There are reports that have been leaked from the Ministry of Defense that a tall white man was found dead, washed up on the shores of the Yucatán peninsula,” village elder Quetzalxochitl told our reporters. “Nobody knows how he got there, but the rumor is that they found a strange wooden object with a metallic barrel and a trigger mechanism.” 

“They also allegedly found parchment with interesting shapes inscribed across it that potentially relate to our phonetic glyphs,” he continued “but nobody so far has been able to decipher what it means.”

Allegedly, the body of the man, the strange wooden object with the metal barrel and the parchment were rushed off to a secret Aztec research facility near Tenochtitlán and examined by a high-level committee comprising, amongst others, the Minister of Defense and the Chief Priest.

“We’ve seen a leaked transcript of the record of that meeting,” Tupac, an investigative reporter at the Tlacōpan Times, told our correspondents. “Apparently, opinion was divided. Some thought that the artifacts and the alien body were dangerous; others thought that they could be a source of great enlightenment and expressed amazement over the script on the parchment.”

“What’s really interesting about the transcript though,” Tupac continued, “was that the Minister of Defense thought that the wooden object with the metal barrel might somehow be useful against the Tlaxcaltecs.” 

“It’s also clear from the transcript that the High Priest expressed reservations about the findings,” Tupac said. “The High Priest remarked, ‘What happens if this parchment leads to the erosion of our belief system and the structures that support it?’” 

Others that we spoke to, however, stress that the transcript is a fake and that the event never happened. They deny that the Aztec government is in possession of the body of a white man and there is any wooden artifact with a metal barrel or any parchment with strange writing on it.

“It’s all nonsense,” laughed General Tezcacoatl with a coy smile. “The leaked transcript is a clear forgery: you can tell by the error in the way that it is dated. It’s the wrong format. We use day, month, year, and not month, day, year,” he continued.

But notwithstanding the best efforts of the Aztec government to gloss over this strange phenomenon, the chattering classes seem to be hooked on the idea of these strange white men and how they might arrange themselves in society.

“It’s a discussion we often see in the marketplace when they go and buy their corn and beans,” local merchant Ichtaca told our reporter “But I think that these guys have just been drinking too much of that potent intoxicant, xocotātl,” he suggested dismissively.

“The implications are potentially enormous,” a professor at an independent educational institution said, on condition of anonymity. “Apart from the obvious stuff in relation to technology and security, we just don’t have a theory of knowledge that is flexible enough to explain change,” he mused. “For that, my hunch is that we are going to have to wait another 200,000 daily cycles of the sun, if (and it’s a big if) the prophecy of Thomas Kuhn writing a script called ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ is accurate,” he added.

“Just think what it would do to all our belief systems. It could turn people against the Aztec gods. If they started to think for themselves and question their own existence amongst other, more superior beings, it could be chaos,” he pondered further.

Meanwhile, the Aztec government continues to refuse to disclose their records on the matter, saying that Unidentified Floating Objects don’t exist and are not a threat to Aztecs.

“Look, if these so-called ‘ships’ and ‘white men’ exist, and they can sail the vast oceans, they would have taken over us by now,” a leading Aztec prophet said to our reporters.

“Take a look around you, where are they?” he said, with total confidence.

Reporting by Tochtli and Ixtl on the ground 

Edited by Icnoyotl in our Tenochtitlán bureau.

© Aztec Broadcasting Corporation (1519)

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post An Allegory About Unidentified Floating Objects appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Riding inside the tube is a remarkable existential experience, a moment when life comes into perfect focus, when the immediacy and urgency of the moment is tempered by a feeling of stillness, by an awareness that one is connected to the entire fabric of the universe, riding inside an absolutely silent and solitary tunnel of water, a sense that the past is slipping behind your shoulder, the present is beneath your feet and the future is just ahead, out of reach, represented by a spinning, hypnotic, tumbling tunnel of water just ahead.

Thompson was echoing what surfers from as far back as three thousand years had felt while riding the mighty waves thrown up by the ocean. For some millennia, what has become a glamorized sport, associated with symbols of American excess—expensive merchandise, huge corporate endorsements, bare-chested white men sporting long blonde hair and endless cases of beer—was a sacred and ritualistic act for the ancient peoples of Polynesia, of Peru and of West Africa, one which brought them closer to the heartbeat of nature and in direct communion with their deities.

Surfing as a Religion and Way of Life

Polynesia, which includes islands such as Hawaii, Tahiti, Samoa and Fiji, is widely regarded as the birthplace of surfing. The Polynesians had a profound connection to the ocean, as it played a central role in their lives. Surfing was not just a means of transportation or leisure for them; it was a spiritual practice and a way to connect with their gods and the natural elements.

In Polynesian culture, the ocean was considered a sacred entity, inhabited by powerful deities and spirits. Surfing became a way to honor and commune with these divine forces. It was believed that the act of riding a wave allowed individuals to tap into the energy and power of the ocean, forging a connection between the physical and spiritual realms. The power expressed by ocean waves is what compels surfers even today to go out into the ocean and ride the waves. 

The native cherished a canon of traditional stories and songs that spoke of the noble figures who ruled the land and rode the waves. Hawaiian tradition allows us to date surfing in the islands back to the fourth century.

When the Makahiki New Year season arrived, a time of rest and play that accompanied the arrival of prime winter waves, the art of wave riding, known as , took center stage. It was a shared experience among kings, queens, commoners and even children; everyone embraced the joy of surfing. The significance of surfing for early Hawaiians was so immense that they had a strict prohibition against working or engaging in warfare during Makahiki. Instead, everyone would enjoy a complete three-month break during the winter to foster social connections through play and friendly competitions.

There was, however, a distinction in surfing privileges. Only the royalty had access to the best spots, like the renowned Queens Beach, the exclusive surf break at Waikiki. King Kamehameha himself fondly described the places he surfed with his beloved wife, Kaʻahumanu. These tales wove together Hawaiian myths and legends, where gods and goddesses rode the waves, controlling the winds, tides and swells.

In the spiritual ceremony of surfing, the kahuna, or priest, played a crucial role. The kahuna guided surfers in the sacred task of selecting and constructing wooden surfboards made from trees like koa, ulu or wiliwili. The kahuna made offerings and skilled craftsmen carried out the important task of carving. 

Surfers would seek the blessings of the gods Lono and Laʻamaomao, asking for favorable surf conditions and safe passage. Lono was associated with fertility, rainfall, agriculture and music. He is one of four great gods in Hawaiian mythology along with Kuka’ilimoku (also called Kū) and the twin brothers Kanaloa and Kāne.

Even the powerful goddesses Pele and Hiʻiaka were said to have joined in the art of surfing. Pele, or Pelehonuamea, is the Hawaiian goddess of fire and volcanoes. This fiery goddess molds the hallowed earth, persistently consuming the Big Island with flowing lava and simultaneously giving birth to fresh terrain.

The Celestial Navigators

In addition to its spiritual significance, surfing had practical aspects in Polynesian society. It was a means of transportation, allowing islanders to navigate between islands and explore new territories. Surfing also served as a way to gather resources from the ocean, such as fish and other marine life.

The Hawaiian islands stand as the most remote landmasses on Earth, and when you are there this profound isolation becomes palpable as you float in the ocean. Amidst the cobalt expanse of the Pacific, the mighty deep-sea currents and powerful swells collide with Hawaii’s shallow reefs, exhibiting untamed nature in the form of explosive, barrelling waves that leave you breathless.

These islands are the visible peaks of the submerged Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain. Over the course of the past 5 million years, molten lava accumulated from beneath the ocean’s surface, gradually cooling and rising to form these volcanic islands, which now rise gracefully above the water’s edge.

Imagine embarking on a daring adventure, sailing away from the shores of a Polynesian island in a magnificent canoe. Your destination? Another tiny island thousands of miles away, nestled in the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean. This immense body of water stretches across more than 60 million square miles, presenting an immense challenge. But here’s the astonishing part: for countless centuries, the skilled Polynesian navigators such voyages without the aid of modern navigation tools. How on earth did they achieve such incredible feats?

Picture 40-person canoes skimming the waves, outrigger canoes gliding through the water and the ingeniously designed multi-hulled canoes powering along boosted by their intricate sail configurations. These took the Polynesian navigators across vast distances. Specialized surf canoes deftly traversed treacherous reefs and enabled their users to take on the thrilling challenge of riding the waves.

Studying the stars, observing the moon and deciphering other natural phenomena, these ancient mariners were able to determine their position and course. This mastery over the elements, allowed them to conquer the vast oceans. 

This extraordinary skill of wayfinding was meticulously passed down through generations of Polynesian sailors. The art of navigation without the aid of modern instruments became an intrinsic part of their heritage. They possessed an intimate knowledge of ocean currents, the intricate dance of wind patterns, the behavior of birds and the subtle signs of nature. It was a testament to their profound connection with the natural world, culminating in their awe-inspiring achievement of reaching the isolated Hawaiian Islands. 

The history of surfing as we know it does indeed originate in Polynesia. However, the story would not be complete without two more chapters: South America and Africa.

Surfing in Ancient Peru

The people of Peru were an ancient civilization that thrived along the northern part of the country’s coast from approximately 100 to 800 CE. Known for their advanced agricultural practices, skilled craftsmanship and unique cultural expressions, the Mochica left a lasting impact on the region.

Among their many achievements, the Mochica people developed a surfing tradition that has captivated historians and enthusiasts alike. At the heart of this tradition were what are now called the , or “little reed horses,” which were paddleboards made of sedge and specifically designed for riding the waves.

The caballitos de totora played a significant role in the lives of the Mochica fishermen. These lightweight, maneuverable paddleboards allowed them to navigate the challenging surf zone with ease, enabling access to abundant coastal waters for fishing, the exploitation of which required exceptional skill and mastery.

Archaeological evidence such as pottery fragments has provided valuable insights into the surfing tradition of the Mochica. The presence of depictions and representations of surfers on pottery pieces from 1400 to 1100 BCE suggests that the Mochica were the earliest known practitioners of wave riding in the world.

The surfing tradition of the Mochica people not only served as a means of sustenance but also held cultural and ceremonial significance. It symbolized their deep connection to the ocean and their mastery over the natural elements. Today, the legacy of the Mochica surfing tradition lives on in , a coastal town in Peru where the caballitos de totora continue to be used by local fishermen. 

Nevertheless, Peru was not the only region where surfing emerged independently from the Polynesian tradition that we know today.

The Wave Riders of West Africa

In his essay “Surfing in Africa and the Diaspora,” Kevin Dawson, an associate professor of history at the University of California, Merced, sheds light on the fascinating history of surfing. According to Dawson, the earliest documented account of surfing dates in what is now known as Ghana.

Across the expansive coastline of Western Africa, spanning thousands of miles from Senegal to Angola, merchants and fishermen independently developed surfing practices. These seagoing populations crafted large surf canoes capable of riding waves as high as ten feet, employing various postures, including standing. Additionally, they used three to five-foot wooden surfboards and one-person surf canoes.

Beyond wave-riding vessels, Africans in these regions also utilized longboards for long-distance paddling. These impressive boards could reach lengths of up to 12 feet. Similar to contemporary surfboard shapers who tailor their boards to different wave types, West Africans developed numerous shapes and designs for surf canoes. Each design was carefully crafted to suit specific waves found in different local regions. Considerations such as wave size, shape, steepness and power informed the creation of these diverse surf canoes.

Just as in Polynesian cultures, the surf canoes of West Africa held a sacred significance. They were meticulously carved from specific trees in a ceremonial manner. These chosen trees were believed to serve as a meeting point of the spiritual and physical worlds, with the spirits residing within them maintaining a continued connection to the water spirits throughout the lifespan of the canoe.

The ocean itself held profound spiritual meaning for these West Africans. It was regarded as a realm inhabited by deities and otherworldly gods, including Mami Wata, a revered ancient West African deity often depicted as a divine, feminine mermaid. These spiritual beliefs further deepened the cultural connection between the people and the water, infusing their wave riding with a sense of reverence for the natural world.

Christian Missionaries Ban the “Heathen” Sport

These ancient cultures, alas, were not to last in their undisturbed form. With the arrival of European explorers in the Pacific, a tragic consequence unfolded: the devastating toll of infectious diseases had claimed the lives of at least 84% of the Native Hawaiian population by the year 1840. Furthermore, the influence of missionaries led to the . They labeled the practice labeling a “heathen” activity. Missionaries sought to convert local populations to Christianity and promote Western values, often deeming indigenous customs inferior or sinful. 

This suppression of surfing was not limited to Hawaii alone, as missionaries also imposed similar bans in West Africa and South America. As a result, the age of colonization witnessed a sharp decline in the practice of surfing, causing it to nearly vanish from the Hawaiian islands and numerous coastal communities worldwide.

The Resurgence of Surfing

The modern resurgence of surfing can be credited to a few visionary individuals who reintroduced the sport to the world. In the early 20th century, Hawaiian watermen like and showcased their surfing prowess to curious audiences in California and Australia, reigniting interest in this ancient art form.

Duke Kahanamoku, a legendary surfer and Olympic swimmer, played a significant role in introducing surfing to a global audience. Duke’s international recognition as an Olympic athlete helped elevate the status of surfing, bringing it into the mainstream consciousness.

Similarly, George Freeth, known as the “Father of Modern Surfing,” played a vital role in popularizing the sport on the American mainland. Originally from Hawaii, Freeth relocated to California and shared his surfing expertise with coastal communities along the Pacific coast. His exhibitions and spectacular wave-riding demonstrations attracted widespread attention and fascination. Freeth’s impact was especially notable in Southern California, where his performances inspired a generation of surf enthusiasts and laid the groundwork for the region’s surf culture.

From this revival, surfing experienced a rapid evolution. Board designs evolved from heavy wooden planks to lighter, more maneuverable materials like fiberglass and foam. The 1950s and 60s witnessed the emergence of surf culture, with surf movies like , bands like the , and a distinctive style becoming intertwined with the sport.

Surfing’s popularity spread across the globe in subsequent decades, reaching iconic surf spots such as Malibu in California, Bondi Beach in Australia and the legendary Pipeline back in Hawaii. Competitive surfing gained traction, leading to the establishment of professional circuits like the . Celebrated surfers such as and became household names, inspiring a new generation of wave enthusiasts. 

Despite the commodification of this ancient art form, legions of devotees flock to remote coastal hamlets around the world to pay homage to the ancient deities, asking for their blessings and hoping to experience the state of absolute freedom that only they can bestow.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How Ancient Polynesians Conquered the Pacific on Their Surfboards appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994 brought about a significant shift in the dynamics of US-Mexico relations. While NAFTA aimed to promote economic growth and development, it also had unintended consequences for Mexican farmers and small-scale industries. The influx of subsidized American agricultural products led to the displacement of local farmers and increased unemployment. This economic upheaval, coupled with the lure of higher wages and employment opportunities to the north, further fueled from Mexico to the United States.

A Teetering System

After years of stabilizing or even numbers of undocumented, unauthorized, or illegal migrants (pick your term) crossing the southern border, the influx has recently and remains at levels. The Migration Policy Institute estimated that around 79% of the undocumented immigrant in the United States in 2018 originated from Mexico and Central America, including countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

The numbers tell us that the US has an immigration crisis. Past reforms have attempted to address the complexities of the border but have failed. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 sought to grant amnesty to undocumented immigrants while simultaneously increasing border enforcement measures. However, the implementation of IRCA faced challenges, and subsequent reforms failed to provide a comprehensive solution. The absence of a clear path to legal status for those unauthorized immigrants who arrived after the IRCA, coupled with inadequate border security measures, to an ongoing cycle of unauthorized migration.��

Since early 2021, there has been a notable increase in the number of individuals attempting to cross the US-Mexico border. The reasons behind this surge are multifaceted and can be attributed to a combination of push and pull factors. Economic challenges, violence, political instability, natural disasters, and the desire to reunite with family members already in the United States are among the factors that drive individuals to leave their home countries and entry into the United States.On top of that, the Biden Administration has a history of sending to migrants.��

The influx of migrants has overwhelmed border facilities and strained the resources of immigration agencies, such as Customs and Border Protection and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The capacity to process and house migrants has been stretched thin, resulting in overcrowded detention centers and temporary facilities. The situation has raised concerns about the conditions in which migrants are held, including issues of overcrowding, limited access to healthcare, and inadequate facilities to accommodate families and unaccompanied minors.

The increase in migrant arrivals has also strained the capacity to handle asylum claims and legal processing. The backlogs in immigration courts have further prolonged the time it takes to resolve cases, leaving individuals in limbo and creating challenges for the flow of migrants.

Trump Policies Dismantled

While the issue predates the Biden administration, it is crucial to analyze how President Joe Biden’s policies have shaped the current immigration crisis at the border.

From day one, Biden has prioritized dismantling the immigration policies implemented by his predecessor. His eagerness to erase any trace of Donald Trump’s immigration legacy has left our border vulnerable and created a magnet for illegal immigration. During his presidency, Donald Trump implemented various immigration policies aimed at reducing the influx of undocumented immigrants into the United States. While these policies were controversial and faced criticism from many quarters, supporters argue that they had notable effects on immigration patterns.

Here are some of Trump’s key immigration policies:

Border Security and Wall Construction: Trump made border security a priority and pushed for the construction of a physical barrier along the US-Mexico border. Although significant portions of the wall were replacement or reinforcement of existing barriers, it to deter illegal crossings.��

Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP): The MPP, also known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, required individuals seeking asylum at the southern border to wait in Mexico while their claims were processed in US courts. Supporters argue that this policy helped manage the influx of asylum seekers and the incentive for fraudulent claims.

Title 42: It was introduced in March 2020 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under the Trump administration. This policy invoked a public health provision, allowing the swift expulsion of individuals who posed a risk of spreading infectious diseases, including COVID-19. It acted as a necessary and effective tool to protect both Americans and migrants themselves from potential health hazards.

Title 42 proved crucial in managing the overwhelming surge of illegal immigration at the southern border. By enforcing swift deportations, it discouraged the dangerous practice of human smuggling and reduced the strain on our already burdened immigration system. Curiously, the Biden Administration fought Title 42 expulsions even as it officially maintained the COVID crisis was ongoing.

Asylum Policy Changes: The Trump administration implemented several changes to the asylum system, including the expansion of “safe third country” agreements and imposing stricter requirements on asylum seekers. These policies aimed to limit the number of individuals qualifying for asylum and the asylum process.

Immigration Enforcement: Trump focused on ramping up immigration enforcement, empowering Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to target undocumented immigrants, including those with criminal records. This led to apprehensions and deportations.

Indifference by Design

The most egregious aspect of Biden’s approach lies in his weakening of border enforcement measures. The termination of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), has resulted in a surge of illegal border crossings. By allowing migrants to enter the United States while awaiting court proceedings (that more often than not are skipped anyway), Biden has effectively a “catch and release” system that encourages further illegal entry.

The Biden Administration, led by its disdain for immigration enforcement, In May 2021 began winding down Title 42. The impact of repealing Title 42 has been swift and devastating. The number of illegal border crossings has skyrocketed to levels unseen in recent history, overwhelming Border Patrol agents and immigration facilities. Our border communities are forced to bear the brunt of this burden, grappling with the consequences of uncontrolled immigration.

Furthermore, Biden’s reckless expansion of immigration enforcement priorities is a slap in the face to law-abiding citizens. The administration’s focus on dismantling ICE and limiting deportations has created a dangerous environment where criminal illegal aliens are shielded from justice. This flagrant disregard for public safety and the rule of law the very fabric of our society.

While the Biden administration claims to prioritize “humane” immigration policies, it conveniently ignores the humanitarian crisis that its own policies have exacerbated. The overcrowded detention facilities, unsanitary conditions, and the exploitation of vulnerable migrants are all consequences of an open-borders .By failing to provide a deterrent and a clear message that illegal entry will not be tolerated, Biden’s policies perpetuate a cycle of human suffering and incentivize more dangerous journeys.

Sound Immigration Policies, Not Border Chaos

It is not a matter of heartlessness or xenophobia to demand secure borders and a rational immigration system. The United States has a rich history of legal immigration, and we have always welcomed those who abide by our laws. However, Biden’s policies prioritize the desires of foreign nationals over the well-being of American citizens.

The solution lies in a balanced approach that combines border security, immigration enforcement, and compassionate solutions for those seeking legal entry. This means investing in technology and infrastructure to secure our borders, reforming our broken immigration system, and prioritizing the interests and safety of American citizens.

The Biden administration’s reckless disregard for the rule of law and the sovereignty of our nation will have lasting consequences. It is high time that we recognize the dangers of these policies and demand a return to a sensible, secure, and fair immigration system that puts America and its citizens first. Our nation’s future depends on it.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Truth About Joe Biden’s Immigration Policy appeared first on 51�Թ�.

An unsolved criminal case of suspected kidnapping and murder would spark column inches and large-scale police operations in other countries. But in Mexico, Estrada’s fate hardly merits a headline – and is far from an isolated case: 27 journalists have disappeared there since 2003,according to the press freedom organization Reporters Without Borders , and all of them are still considered missing. All are suspected cases of abduction or “enforced disappearance” but not one of them has been completely solved. In a few instances, suspected henchmen have been arrested, but the instigators of the crime remain at large. This was also the case with the journalist Roberto Carlos Flores Mendoza who disappeared on .

It is no secret that the situation for media professionals in Mexico has been precarious for years — and has worsened of late. Figures from RSF show that no other country worldwide has seen so manyjournalists killed in connection with their or disappearing without in unexplained circumstances as in Mexico. According to RSF’s count, 15 journalists have been killed so far in 2022, at least 12 of them because of their work. This is more than ever before in such a short stretch of time.

A vicious circle of violence and impunity

As worrying as these horrendous figures are, the greatest threat to journalists in Mexico comes from the rampant corruption of the authorities and their close ties to organized crime, especially to the drug cartels. It is precisely these networks that paralyze the Mexican justice system at all levels. Crimes against media professionals are rarely prosecuted, let alone punished. This in turn creates a deadly spiral that is most threatening to journalists trying to investigate this entrenched corruption. Even President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, whoannounced when he took office, has not been able to stamp out this vicious circle of violence, corruption and impunity. 

It is true there are already various government measures in Mexico to improve the situation. In practice, however, they often prove ineffective. The states that although the government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador has made the fight against corruption a priority, the results remain “sparse, if not contradictory”. Some former officials and government representatives are being investigated and there has been a large-scale operation against oil theft. Yet the fact that the government is trying to circumvent or weaken anti-corruption agencies raises doubts.

When Mexico Shut Down Changiz

READ MORE

The judiciary is also, the BTI says , “clearly biased” and citizens continue to face a “a very corrupt judicial system in which criminals are released and innocent people are detained for years before they are even tried”.

A reprimand from the UN might improve things

In a bid to improve the catastrophic security situation, press freedom organizations like RSF are fighting at various levels to increase the pressure on the Mexican authorities. For example, RSF is involved in the “” program, together with its Mexican partner organization Propuesta Cívica, to investigate unsolved murder and kidnapping cases. On November 2, the International Day against Impunity for Crimes against Journalists, RSF and Propuesta Cívica went one step further: together they submitted two complaints, so-called “individual communications”, to the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva.

The UN should now take a clear position on the case of the newspaper journalist and university lecturer Ramón Ángeles Zalpa, who went missing in 2010, and also on the Mauricio Estrada Zamora file. The organizations spent a year preparing for this step in close consultation with the families concerned. The selection of these two cases is not coincidental. Both Zalpa and Estrada disappeared in the state of Michoacán, and RSF and Propuesta Cívica have recently analyzed, in detail, the work of the public prosecutor’s office there. They allege that the two cases had numerous omissions in their investigations, both at the state and the national level. The crimes were not investigated with due diligence, nor were there serious efforts to find the journalists and to identify the perpetrators and those behind them.

In view of these findings, the organizations accuse the Mexican state of having violated its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Therefore, the UN Human Rights Committee should now call on Mexico to finally conduct an efficient and thorough investigation and to compensate the affected families. Whether the Committee will actually make such a “recommendation” remains to be seen.

[ first published this article.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Toxic Spiral of Violence Has Wrecked Mexico appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The post When Mexico Shut Down appeared first on 51�Թ�.

According to the Secretariat of Citizen Security (SSPC) last year, 3,752 women were violently killed. Of these were 969 classified as femicides — as the violent death of a woman because of her gender — a slight increase on the previous year’s figure. According to data by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, Mexico has the second-highest total number of femicides in the region — after Brazil — whilst nearby El Salvador and Honduras have the highest rates per capita. The of violent crime, a culture of machismo and weak implementation of measures designed to protect women mean Latin America is home to 14 of the 25 countries with the highest rates of femicide in the world.

What’s Behind ��󾱱���’s Vaccination Success?

READ MORE

The first months of the coronavirus pandemic were particularly dangerous for Mexican women, according to Maissa Hubert, the executive sub-director of Equis Justicia Para Las Mujeres, a Mexico City-based NGO. “During the first months of the pandemic, we saw a rise in various forms of gender-based violence,” she says. “In total, 11 women killed each day, compared to 10 per day at the start of 2020.”

In March 2020, the emergency call centers 26,000 reports of violence against women, the highest ever in Mexico. The number of women leaving their homes to take shelter in the National Refuge Network .

Outside the home, however, the continued growth of Mexico’s transnational criminal organizations and the militarized response of state security forces have further increased risks to women. While crime dropped in the first months of the pandemic, the security vacuum has increased clashes between 198 active armed in the country’s “hyper-fragmented criminal landscape,” according to International Crisis Group.

Gangs and Militarized State Security

“Organized crime has aggravated the situation with regards to the murder of women,” says Maria Salguero, a researcher who the National Femicide Map. “The crime gangs use the dead bodies of women to send messages to their rivals. In states where there is a lot of organized crime, such as Juarez, Chihuahua, Guerrero and Naucalpan, we see high incidences of femicide, disappearances and rape.”

The situation is exacerbated by the further militarization of state security. The (BTI) country report on Mexico notes that “the army has been called upon to perform internal security tasks and is receiving large amounts of resources in the context of the war against drug trafficking.” It adds that the widening of the military’s mandate to include civilian tasks could have worrisome implications for consensus building in the country. As noted in the BTI report, President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador‘s government risks losing public support if it cannot solve the challenges of corruption and violence in the country. It points out that “the fact that the army, which has so far not signified a threat to democracy, is required to undertake ever more tasks may be a threat in the future.” Such a breakdown in trust for institutions and the security forces could have knock-on effects for all violent crime.

On May 11, 2020, the Mexican armed forces and National Guard were given new to play a far greater role in policing violent crime in the country — giving them free rein to assume many of the police force’s duties — without any effective audit mechanism.

The effect of this process on gender-based violence is only now coming to be understood. “The attitude of this government and its predecessors has been that a military response to the security situation will protect all of us and women in particular,” says Hubert. “But the reality is that the increased circulation of firearms has had a tremendous impact on women.”  

Firearms were the weapon used in 60% of the total 1,844 murders committed against women in 2020. From 1998 to 2019, the number of women by firearms in Mexico rose by 375%. Over 2.5 million firearms have entered Mexico from the US over the last decade, and firearms accounted for the overwhelming majority of the total of 34,515 murders in Mexico in 2020, the highest number since 2015.

An Overlooked Issue

The continued emphasis on militarized security is sapping state funds at a time when resources for programs addressing violence against women in Mexico are being cut. In recent years, Mexican public policy has had a mixed record with respect to gender-based violence. It took until December last year for President Lopez Obrador to talk about gender-based violence, having previously avoided using the word femicide or acknowledge that women faced specific security concerns. In May 2020, he that 90% of domestic violence-related 911 calls were false. His team failed to provide evidence to support this claim when requested to by NGOs.

Despite this intransigence at the executive level, in recent years, there has been greater recognition of the problem at the federal and ministerial level, according to Hubert, with many long-lasting public policies proposed by the National Institute of Women, founded in 2001. However, many of the preventative and reactive policies introduced to tackle gender-based violence have been subject to cuts in government spending as a result of the pandemic.

“We analyzed the activity of the courts at the start of the pandemic, and we found gender-based violence was not being prioritized,” says Hubert. “Issues such as divorce and alimony are crucial for a woman looking to free herself from a violent situation, but they weren’t being attended to by the courts.” 

For Saguero, the priority is to keep recording the names and identities of the victims of Mexico’s “shadow pandemic” of gender-based violence. “Only by making the victims visible can we really make the scale of the problem visible,” she says, “but we have a lot of work to do because the numbers remain high.”

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Violence Against Women in Mexico Rises appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The same principle applies at many other levels of the economy, most spectacularly in the political realm. Because of the competitive nature of the global economy and the greater availability of information thanks to digital media, the Mexican public’s awareness of the damage caused by a culture of corruption has grown in recent decades. Mexico’s recently elected left-wing president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, known as AMLO, like his predecessors, coasted to victory in 2018 on the promise of combating the evident corruption of the previous regime.

Though no one expects the mordida culture to disappear overnight, things have already begun to change. The former chief auditor of the Mexican government, Juan Manuel Portal, has provided testimony that sums up how the system has worked in the past, calling into question the action of the former president, Enrique Peña Nieto. “Asked whether Peña Nieto took any action, Portal responded: ‘No, there was the intention, but he didn’t do anything,’” Mexico News Daily .

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Intention:

The commitment politicians make to talking about something worthwhile that they know will never be done

Contextual Note

Uncovered by a digital publication and an anti-corruption association, Mexicans Against Corruption and Impunity, the they have dubbed “The Master Fraud,” involved more than 50 government officials. One of the originalities of the scheme that worked through invoicing by 128 designated companies — many of which didn’t even exist — was to initially divert the funds through universities, their academic status rendering them exempt from the requirement of competitive tendering. The role of the universities consisted of nothing more than channeling public money straight to the phantom companies. For their service, the universities ended up retaining more than a billion pesos (nearly $60 million) for themselves (or their directors).

Lest we assume that Mexico is alone in North America to practice corruption at this level, a glance at what is happening in that most upright of North American democracies, Canada, could be instructive. Will there be an AMLO to replace Prime Minister Justin Trudeau after the SNC-Lavalin affair prevents his reelection, as? And although no direct scandal has yet made the headlines in the US, does anyone believe that President Donald Trump’s sense of the “art of the deal” doesn’t include that many would call corruption? What may his tax returns reveal, if they are ever made public? And what will historians make of some of his erratic foreign policy decisions that could possibly be explained by his real estate investment strategies?

Rosario Robles, President Peña Nieto’s secretary of social development, is now in prison. AMLO has followed up on the testimony of Portal and has declared that Peña Nieto knew exactly what was going on, hinting that legal action may be taken against a Mexican president for the first time. Although eventually convicting a former president for corruption will not in itself eliminate future graft, the fact that an ex-president may be understood by the public to be even potentially accountable could send a much-needed shockwave into Mexico’s persistent culture of corruption.

Portal has his own prescription for reform: “[T]he law needs to be changed to ensure that the heads of government secretariats and other agencies such as Pemex are required to sign off on the expenditure of large amounts of funds. Without that change, officials will continue to say ‘I didn’t sign anything.’”

Historical Note

Mexicans are so used to the mordida system that they tend to see it as a feature of the natural world. For most of the 20th century, following the celebrated revolution led by Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata that overturned Porfirio Diaz’s dictatorship, Mexico’s unique ruling party, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), put in place one of the most sophisticated systems and cultures of corruption in human history. The reign of the PRI finally ended in 2000 when an opposition candidate won the presidential election.

The United States greeted the victory of Vicente Fox as a historical breakthrough, which Americans assumed would consolidate the neoliberal ideology that both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush adhered to. But the PRI had already been seduced by neoliberal policies and, once in office, Fox accomplished very little in the way of reform. In the meantime, and despite the campaign promises of subsequent presidents, corruption remained the norm for the political class.

AMLO is seen as the first true left-wing president of Mexico since Lázaro Cárdenas (from 1934 to 1940), a politician who distinguished himself during chaotic times by nationalizing the oil industry and forcing through numerous socialistic reforms. He was also the only president of the PRI who did not leave the presidency a wealthy man. Nevertheless, Cardenas didn’t manage to change the underlying system through which money and influence flowed. He failed to institute certain reforms that the US threateningly opposed, such as and treating the consequences of drug use as a health problem. That reform would have undercut the logic of the drug trafficking that has grown into the plague we now know and permanently scarred the social landscape of both Mexico and the United States.

It’s too early to judge whether AMLO will be successful or fail in his combat against corruption or his even bigger struggle against the criminality associated with drugs. So long as demand in the US remains high, no amount of policing or border control will have a serious effect. And having to carry out his policies in the company of Donald Trump doesn’t make things easier. Nevertheless, the world may be witnessing an important moment of Mexico’s history. Mexicans have a reason to hope.

���ѳ���’s point out that “his plans are opaque and lack serious evaluation processes, and are aimed at creating a new clientele of voters for ���ѳ���’s party,” a tactic that worked well for Mexico’s last dictator, Porfirio Diaz. But it is important to remember that history changes not because a single dramatic event upsets the existing order, but rather because a cultural paradigm shift begins taking place.

President López Obrador has radically innovated in a fairly inconspicuous way by instituting a daily press conference. His critics see it as a symptom of his authoritarian personality trait, providing him with a permanent bully pulpit. But as Genaro Lozano in Americas Quarterly, the daily press conferences have “quickly made Mexico a more political and civically engaged society.” The traditional image of the powerful leader making decisions in a state of aloof isolation from the public has long comforted the belief — common to Latin cultures with their respect for hierarchy — that only an elite group of people has the capacity to govern a complex society. A president who deigns to explain the logic behind his administration’s policies challenges the traditional political culture. “Mexicans can now see every day how their leaders make decisions.”

Lozano remarks that AMLO is helping to “build a conception of democracy that is more robust and offers more tools with which the public can get involved in decision-making … he has transformed people’s perception of what power is and how it should look.” But what power looks like may be simply an illusion. Is it just the veneer of hyperreality that has become the accepted norm in the rest of the Western world? Or can it represent an authentic breakthrough for a nation and a culture that are condemned geographically to live in the shadow of the United States?

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book,, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Is Mexico’s Political Culture Undergoing a Paradigm Shift? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

According to the latest reports, the already alarming has increased in 2019. The new president cannot be blamed for it since his policies to reduce violence have yet to be implemented. López Obrador expects to turn the trend around once his new national security forces are fully operational. “In addition to expressing confidence that the National Guard will be successful in reducing violence, the president has said that his government’s social programs and crusade against corruption will help pacify the country.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Pacify:

Counter the aggressive forces encouraged by an economy committed to competition and rewarding greed in regions where the authority of local law is undermined by powerful international interests

Contextual Note��

Mexico now plays a major role not just in international politics, but especially in the news cycle, thanks in large part to US President Donald Trump’s obsession with the US-Mexico border. ���ѳ���’s presidency will be a story for observers of historical trends to watch. His election that took place almost simultaneously with the extreme, right-wing and authoritarian Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil marks a shift from the recent rightward . As Guillaume Long, foreign minister under Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, describes it, “the elites that are back in power in many countries are on a real mission of real revenge against these progressive governments that dared to change the status quo, redistribute a little bit of wealth, and kind of diversify relations.”

Following the resignation letter of Finance Minister Carlos Urzúa, who complained about ���ѳ���’s unorthodox approach to the economy, the president held a press conference on July 22, in which he affirmed his what he called “people suffering from neoliberal nostalgia.” He implied that Urzúa’s resignation would not be regretted, even if the called the departing minister “the strongest voice of fiscal prudence inside the administration,” while expressing its skepticism of ���ѳ���’s ability to do what it sees as any government’s fundamental task: “to re-establish credibility with markets.” This summarizes the neoliberal credo that redefines democracy as a government of the markets, by the markets and for the markets.

In contrast, Bloomberg, a media outlet that also believes in markets, to appreciate ���ѳ���’s consistency when it reported his explanation of the resignation: “In a democratic government there are always differences and disagreements. You have to get used to the changes and there could even be other resignations.” It concluded its article by citing López Obrador again: “This is a government of free men and women,” possibly a more acceptable definition of democracy than the one implied by the Financial Times.

Historical Note

Western media, apart from the Financial Times, have not made up their minds about López Obrador. His right-wing critics, such as the PanAm Post, based in Miami, attempt to identify his strategy with that of Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez. The late Venezuelan president was widely considered by the US government to be the devil incarnate, whose history proves that socialism — i.e., anything that deviates even slightly from neoliberalism — can never work. The proof, to have its full impact, sometimes requires that the purportedly socialist nation’s economy be systemically undermined by sanctions, clandestine sabotage and its political system constantly subverted or attacked.

CNN, while hardly echoing the dominant neoliberal critique of the Financial Times, projects a more of ���ѳ���’s accomplishments in his first seven months in office when it tells us “he has led the country to renegotiate a free trade agreement with the US and Canada, and to placate the United States over migration by stepping up controls at Mexico’s southern border.” These are things that will make not only Americans in general but even Donald Trump happy. They can be seen as positive signs that AMLO will not be another Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez or, worse, Nicolás Maduro.

AMLO, like all Mexicans, can never forget the — originally in Spanish — of Mexico’s 19th-century dictator, Porfirio Diaz, who was ultimately unseated by the Mexican revolution: “Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States.” Can any Mexican government free itself from the stranglehold the US has considered as its “responsibility” toward its neighbors ever since the Monroe Doctrine proclaimed in 1823? A year ago, in the aftermath of ���ѳ���’s election, Boston University’s Professor Kevin Gallagher offered : “Mexico is realizing that it has been overexposed to the U.S., and it’s now trying to hedge its bets.”

In his press conference on July 22, while criticizing the US neoliberalism that he made a point of specifically associating with the name “Clinton,” AMLO vowed to focus on combating corruption, the theme he sees as constituting the greatest obstacle to reforming the economy. Much of US influence in Latin America takes place through a form of corruption that “the markets” see as legitimate. Economic pressure on governments is one thing. Economic and eventually political opportunity for individuals is another.

Guillaume Long summed it up: “There’s clearly a whole agenda of moving away from a progressive foreign policy to a much more kind of, you know, sort of traditional inter-American bond with the United States. Top-down sort of traditional Latin American relationship with the United States and right-wing prerogatives in terms of foreign policy.”

How stable the inter-American bond will be in the coming years remains to be seen. As with the Venezuela crisis that dominated headlines in the first half of 2019, Russia and especially China have increased their presence and influence. As Diálogo Chino writes: “China now sees Latin America as a ‘natural extension’ of its Belt and Road connectivity initiative (BRI).” The flip side is just as obvious, as we learn that “the US has discouraged Latin American countries from cooperating more closely with China,” none more than Mexico itself, where Porforio Diaz’s insight has never been more true.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, , in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Mexican President ���ѳ���’s Complex Fight Against Corruption appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The post The Fourth Transformation of Mexico appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Donald Trump has two tools at his disposal as president. The first is his mouth: the insults and threats that he issues verbally or by Twitter. The second is the tariff. President Trump has imposed trade restrictions left and right, on allies and adversaries, for economic and political reasons, as part of a long-term offensive and out of short-term pique.

If Trump could use tariffs even more indiscriminately, no doubt he would. He would delight in slapping trade penalties on the Democratic Party, on Robert Mueller, on the mainstream media, on all the women who have accused him of harassment, even on the first lady for����at the airport in Tel Aviv.

Trump the man��favored the legal suit��as his attack of first resort; Trump the president has discovered the tariff. With his penchant for naming names, Trump����“Tariff Man,” as if boasting of a new superhero power. It’s all-too-reminiscent of the cult film����where the superpowers are either invisible or risible (Ben Stiller’s character, Mr. Furious, for instance, gets really,��really��angry).

Trump uses tariffs like a bad cook uses salt. It covers up his lack of preparation, the poor quality of his ingredients, the blandness of his imagination. It’s the only spice in his spice rack.

The latest over-salted dish to come out of the White House kitchen is the president’s threat to impose a 5% tariff on all Mexican goods on June 10. The threat has nothing to do with what Mexico has done economically (that’s a different set of threatened tariffs). Rather, it’s all about immigration. This time, Trump����the cost of Mexican goods “until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP.” The tariffs will, supposedly, rise 5% every month until they reach 25% in October.

Trump promised as a candidate that Mexico would pay for the wall he wanted to construct along the southern border. Now, it seems, Mexico will pay for the lack of a wall as well.

The escalation is quite clear. What Mexico has to do to avoid these tariffs is not. “So, there’s no specific target, there’s no specific percent, but things have to get better,” Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney��. “They have to get dramatically better and they have to get better quickly.” Such is the usual Sunday morning quarterbacking that happens with White House officials as they scramble to explain the inexplicable to a baffled news media.

Although they remain in the dark about what’s expected of them, Mexican leaders����that they will apply counter-tariffs if necessary and that the United States will suffer economically from such a tariff war. These are not idle threats. Mexico is the third largest US trading partner. Even congressional Republicans, desperate to avoid this spat, are talking about trying to block the tariffs. Trump�� “foolish” to do so. He plans to move forward anyway.

Full Spectrum Offensive

Mexico is only the latest country to feel the wrath of Tariff Man. In 2018, Trump����of the Trade Act to impose tariffs on solar cells and washing machines, targeting primarily East Asian countries. Shortly thereafter, he upped his game by assessing a 25% tariff on all steel imports, with Canada, Mexico and the European Union getting hit the hardest.

China, however, has borne the brunt of President Trump’s animosity. In early May, the Trump administration announced a surge in tariffs from 10% to 25% on $200-billion worth of Chinese goods. He has also threatened to apply tariffs to the remaining $325-billion worth of Chinese goods entering the country.

The escalation tactics don’t seem to have done much to improve the prospects of a trade deal between the two countries. China has naturally countered with its own tariffs.

When Trump lashed out against countries competing against the US steel industry, one of the major exceptions was Australia. That probably won’t last long. Just before his Mexico decision, the president was planning on imposing a tariff on Australian aluminum as well. His advisers��, at least temporarily. Canada and Mexico, meanwhile, continue to get a pass on the steel tariffs as long as the two countries sign a replacement deal for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). But Trump’s latest move against Mexico may����into jeopardy.

Push Back

The threat and even the reality of retaliatory tariffs seem to have little effect on Trump. He likes such geopolitical games of chicken. Congressional opposition only whets his appetite for more confrontation, for he holds even his Republican allies in contempt.

He disregards the more level-headed advice of economic mandarins — as well as����to Mexico — because he relishes flouting conventional wisdom in favor of his own unconventional stupidity. If farmers in swing states protest that the markets for their soybeans have dried up, Trump will just authorize����of their product — and suddenly prisoners all over America will be surprised by tofu and edamame on their cafeteria menus.

Republican voters����Trump’s trade policies — and the president really doesn’t care a fig about anyone else. The only pushback that might have some influence with Trump might be the business community. The auto sector is����billions of dollars in costs associated with the Mexico tariffs. The Chamber of Commerce, which has come up with a more precise����for US consumers of $17.3 billion for a tariff level of 5%, is����a legal challenge.

If the stock market goes into bearish hibernation, then the president is out of luck.��Ian Shepherdson, the chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, : “[H]e’s going to have to blink on tariffs, because the market can’t live with this level of crazy.”

Shepherdson is wrong. The market has lived with this kind of crazy for more than two years. And there are plenty of people who see profit in precisely the kind of volatility that Trump has brought to financial markets. When Trump went on a fundraising tour of New York recently, some big-name financiers leapt at the opportunity to fete the president. Howard Lutnick, the head of Cantor Fitzgerald,����in 2017 that Trump would provide a big bump for the world of finance (and, therefore, his own bottom line). Last month, as a reward for that bump, Lutnick����Trump to his triplex penthouse in Manhattan and raised over $5 million toward his reelection.

That’s the kind of crazy that the market is entirely comfortable with.

Misunderstanding Trade

Tariffs make sense for certain countries. For instance, East Asian countries used tariffs very successfully to protect their infant industries — steel, shipbuilding, information technology — against the overwhelming market advantages of more advanced economies. Those tariffs raised the price of imports and encouraged consumers to buy domestic. Tariffs can be part of a smart industrial policy of picking potential economic winners.

Tariffs can also protect a way of life — Japanese rice culture, Mexican tortilla makers, Vermont dairy farmers. Without some kind of trade protection, cheaper goods from outside will completely overwhelm domestic producers and destroy long-standing traditions. Of course, there are other methods of preserving such traditions, from government price supports to geographical designations (think: champagne).

Trump’s tariffs have nothing to do with either of these aims. US steel is not an infant industry in need of protection. Trump doesn’t care about protecting traditional lifestyles. He has neither a progressive industrial policy of picking winners and losers in the economy, nor a conservative approach to ensuring the integrity of communities.

For Donald Trump, tariffs are a substitute for diplomacy, just as harassment in his personal life is a substitute for normal human interaction. Tariff Man can think of only one way of dealing with other countries: grabbing them by their trade policies until they squeal. He believes, mistakenly, that trade is zero-sum (if they lose, American wins). He also labors under the misconception that the US Treasury somehow grows fat with the proceeds of tariffs (it doesn’t). He is as ignorant of the relations among nations as he is of the relations among people.

Tariff Man’s superpower is even more ridiculous than that of Mr. Furious. It’s worse than impotent. It’s self-defeating. Let’s hope that principle applies ultimately to the 2020 elections as well.

*[This article was originally published by .]��

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Misadventures of “Tariff Man” appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Some people today remember that, not so long ago, the power game we call politics still employed the two basic toolboxes Aristotle bequeathed to Western civilization in ancient times: rhetoric and reasoning. The political world we live in now has not only dispensed with reasoning, but also impoverished rhetoric and fully embraced the essence of hyperreality: exercising power through the creation of an illusion that replaces perceived reality.

Reacting to US President Donald Trump’s intention to fund his wall by declaring a national emergency, House majority leader highlights the of his intention: “If the president can declare an emergency on something he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think about what a president with different values can present to the American people.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:��

Illusion:

What people see when an appropriate number of well-crafted and well-managed cultural and technical procedures prevent the people from having direct access to reality ��

Contextual note

The ability to adapt to reality depends on the existence of what we may call a “lens of interpretation.” A lens can magnify, clarify or distort. Anthropologists and sociologists understand that every national or regional culture provides all members of that society with a set of values, assumptions and priorities that allow people to agree on the meaning of what they perceive.

For Pelosi, Trump’s wall is hyperreal. Even if it came into existence, it would not belong the reality. But she shouldn’t blame Trump. He didn’t initiate the trend toward hyperreality. And Pelosi herself has shown attachment to some of the key factors of US hyperreality, especially in her in “stakeholder capitalism,” in which capitalists are motivated, not so much by the obsession with profit as by responding to the needs of the community.

Hyperreal illusion works in two ways. First, it creates something that didn’t exist to replace our perception of what does exist. Second, it attempts to erase from our memory the embarrassing part of reality. If this week’s news is now dominated by Trump’s surreal wall and his unreal call for an executive response to an imaginary “emergency,” the controversy in the past week surrounding Democratic Representative offers an example of how hyperreality can go to great lengths as it seeks to deny the particularly embarrassing, everyday reality of political corruption.

Historical note

Hyperreality has always existed in the nation of P.T. Barnum. In the mid 20th century It gained speed in politics thanks to a Cold War that required a fantasized version of a world in which good (capitalism) confronted evil (communism). President Ronald Reagan, a pure product of Hollywood, modeled it into a characterizing the Soviet Union as an “evil empire run by godless men,” the scary enemy of a righteous and fearless superhero.

Undoubtedly influenced by Francis Fukuyama’s thesis of the “end of history,” conservative columnist the Bush administration his recipe for the active construction of the new hyperreality in early 2001, months before 9/11: “America is in a position to reshape norms, alter expectations, and create new realities. How? By unapologetic and implacable demonstrations of will.”

George W. Bush earned a as the “worst president ever” by applying the neocons’ “implacable demonstrations of will” to everything — from unnecessary and unjustified tax cuts for the wealthy to the military conquest of the Middle East and the detecting of an “axis of evil.” Whether Trump is, as many claim, worse than the previous “worst,” he has clearly taken hyperreality to a stratospheric level.

Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the border definitively establishes him as the P.T. Barnum of national politics. Trump’s actions have consistently demonstrated the extent to which hyperreality has replaced normal perception thanks to the “implacable will” of its perpetrators.

Take the telling example of corruption. Last week, establishment politicians, Democrats as well as Republicans, joined a chorus of lamentations about the “anti-Semitic trope” attributed to Representative Omar, who was merely reminding people of the type of corruption of which the Israel lobby is the agent as an explanation of the strangely one-sided foreign policy of the US with regard to the plight of Palestinians. Suggesting that Jews know something about how money can influence politics is, we are told, anti-Semitism because it evokes the “trope” of Jews and money. This effective strategy absolves Israel of its crimes as an occupying power and kills any discussion of the role of lobbyists’ money in Congress.

But the truth sometimes breaks through, before being stifled again. In an , host Chuck Todd expressed his surprise that Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell had endorsed Trump’s theoretically unconstitutional initiative. Former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele offered this explanation: “He’s taken his 30 pieces of silver,” a reference to Judas, the disciple who betrayed Christ.

This is a far more aggressive accusation of corruption than Omar’s pointing to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), whose raison d’être is to use its money to influence legislators. Caught off guard but playing the role of defender of the hyperreal version of democracy in which we are asked to believe that money plays only a minor role in politics, Todd responded with: “No, no, no… that… well, I… that’s interesting… I’m going to leave that there.”

Some quick thinking told him that his job was to respect the law of silence that his network and all mainstream media in the US adhere to.

This was a brief but revealing moment where we see a Republican commentator accusing one of his own of corruption, inciting the pro-Democrat TV channel MSNBC, to protect McConnell in the name of defending the political class as a whole and denying that corruption is at the heart of the system.

Sometimes reality breaks through the hyperreal veneer. But how many people would notice it?

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book,, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]��

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post When a Wall Is an Emergency appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Geopolitics, like thermodynamics, has its laws of conservation. If a wall comes down in one place, you can bet that it will go up somewhere else. It wasn’t long after the Berlin Wall fell that different kinds of walls went up in Eastern Europe. New borders separated the Czech Republic from Slovakia, and then, after much bloodshed, the new successor states of former Yugoslavia.

By the end of the 1990s, barriers were being established in small towns in the��, in�� and in����to separate Roma and non-Roma populations. Germans on both sides of the former Berlin Wall were declaring that they were one people. But in other countries in the region, the majority population was insisting, rule of law notwithstanding, that the citizenry was not one people and a wall was necessary to emphasize the distinction.

These discriminatory walls anticipated the next round of walls in the region: to keep out immigrants. Hungary built a wall on its border with Serbia in 2015, and then a����in 2017 just to be sure. Germany was letting in more than a million desperate people. Hungary and most of the rest of Eastern Europe, after making the earlier case that they belonged in the European Union, were shutting the door after themselves.

It’s not just Eastern Europe. The Brexit vote was basically an effort to build a big wall across the English Channel to separate the United Kingdom from Europe. Keeping out immigrants was a major motivating factor.

Walls are practically everywhere, alas. You can find a very sad set of walls separating Israel from the Occupied Territories. Spain has walled off its cities of Ceuta and Melilla from the rest of Morocco (yes, there are two Spanish towns in North Africa). There’s a wall between Saudi Arabia and Iraq. According to��, a geography professor at the University of Quebec-Montreal, there were 15 border walls around the world in 1989. That has jumped to 77 today.

Donald Trump’s Wall

As with so many of his fixations, Donald Trump’s call for a wall is hardly original. And this wall, too, is a response to the collapse of walls elsewhere. Economic globalization was responsible, from the 1980s on, for gradually tearing down all manner of barriers: to trade, to finance and to the movement of manufacturers. Trump and his economic populists have done as much as they can to put back some of those barriers — for instance, by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and by slapping tariffs on products from allies and adversaries.

But Trump’s wall along the US-Mexico border is first and foremost about keeping��people��out. Economic globalization removed some barriers to the movement of people, but primarily those with highly sought-after skills. As for the truly desperate who were trying to climb over walls and breach borders, they were often motivated more by war and the violence of non-state actors.

These two types of “open borders” — one for money, the other for bodies — have often been confused in the public imagination. Or politicians have deliberately conflated the two, as Trump supporters did in the case of the infamous Hillary Clinton����about “open borders.” She quite obviously meant economic globalization, not immigration, which was troubling in its own right, but for different reasons.

Trump is not a big fan of openness, in any of its manifestations. He loves the idea of exclusivity: private jets, elite parties, membership-only clubs like Mar-a-Lago. He prefers not to reveal his tax returns. He’d like to keep all of his financials well hidden. In Trump’s mind, walls define the parameters of privilege. Whenever he can wall off the press, his “low-intelligence” critics, the populations of “shit-hole” countries, he does so in a New York minute. He devises travel bans. He����his press secretary to dispense with the traditional daily press briefings. He stays within his Fox News enclosure. Even when he prances before the public in mass events, he wants to make sure that everyone in the crowd is on his side.

The Trump brand has always been about exclusivity, though of a rather tawdry variety: the appearance of prestige instead of the reality. As the writer Fran Lebowitz��, Trump is “a poor person’s idea of a rich person.” It could also be said that he’s a non-political person’s idea of a president. He projects the appearance of a president — handshakes with other leaders, photo ops in the Oval Office — without any of the substance. All of his talk of “fake news” is just an indirect admission of his own doubts about his own authenticity as a president.

No surprise, then, that Trump is offering the appearance of security rather than the reality of security. A wall is largely a symbol. It means nothing when the United States refuses to address the true causes of insecurity, both at home and abroad. Nicholas Kristof did a����in��The New York Times, drawn in part from my IPS colleagues’����data, about all the sensible ways to spend $5.7 billion: on America’s children, on gun buybacks and drug treatment programs, on job training for prisoners, and on helping people overseas. That’s what a real president would support, not a “fake president.”

Insecurity

But let’s dig a little deeper. The wall addresses a core psychological insecurity. Trump supporters — and many others — feel as if their own privileges are evaporating. Those privileges are connected to race and gender (the angry white men who now swell the ranks of the Republican Party). But they are also connected to class (the blue-collar workers that once formed the backbone of the Democratic Party).

And don’t forget the oft-overlooked privilege of being American. US citizens are feeling increasingly anxious as they watch the United States fail to achieve its objectives in one war after another — even as China expands its influence and Russia regains its great power status. Americans watch conflict, extremism, disease and the other horsemen of the Apocalypse engulf other countries, and they feel as if America can no longer ride in on its white horse to save the day (the last time was perhaps World War II). Worse, they can hear the drumbeat of those hooves approaching the very shores of this country.

Trump and his supporters want that wall to prevent all these privileges — individual, communal, national — from leaking out. It’s the architectural equivalent of a gun. It’s for defense, a way for people to “stand their ground.” But it’s also compensation for powerlessness and lack of control. As with guns, the sense of safety and security is almost entirely illusory.

Liberals, unfortunately, don’t offer much of an alternative. They use more inclusive language when it comes to individual and communal privilege — though liberals are also guilty of constructing walls when they live in the ghettoes of the wealthy, send their children to private schools or expunge any discordant viewpoints from their social media networks. These walls are largely invisible — just like the financial red lines that helped to create America’s urban wastelands — but they are no less powerful.

In terms of national privilege, liberals also believe in American supremacy, though they speak more in terms of restoring American leadership. America, in other words, has not really adjusted to a multipolar world, its more modest place within it or the resulting anxieties that torment the souls of Americans.

The US military, after all its failures around the world, no longer preserves American privilege. The US dollar, weakened by US debt and the strengthening of other national currencies, may soon lose its special glow. A wall is a fallback position, and a rather pathetic one at that. The United States desperately needs a leader — actually, a cadre of leaders — who can reconcile America’s relationship with the world, who can redefine US privilege and who can see the importance of a shift from global power��over��to global power��with. It would be a true privilege to elect such visionaries to leadership positions. The world is waiting.

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Psychology of the Wall appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Minutes after descending from the golden escalator at Trump Tower, Donald Trump fired the first salvo at what would eventually become one of his favorite electoral targets during his presidential campaign: Mexico. Trump attacked the southern neighbor from two different fronts: immigration and trade. In his����as a presidential candidate he stated clearly his adversarial vision of Mexico:

“When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically. The US has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems… When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best… They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”

On the surface, these two issues—immigration and trade—could seem unrelated. In reality, these are two policy areas that are heavily intertwined and, along with national security, are the main pillars of one of the United States’ most important relations with a foreign nation.

Immigration

The focus on immigration, particularly undocumented, soon gave birth to one of Trump’s greatest campaign devices: the building of a wall between the US and Mexico. Taking the issue further, not only was he advocating that the wall be built, but also proposed that��. “Build That Wall” became a campaign rallying cry in subsequent months and one of the key promises of the Republican candidate.

The purpose of the wall came along with the����to “secure the border” and create a “deportation force” to remove the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the US. Since about half of the undocumented US population is thought to come from Mexico, this narrative quickly added toxicity to the rhetoric that the Trump campaign had toward Mexico.

The electoral benefits of such a stance were evident, as hard talk on immigration remains one of the best ways to mobilize the conservative base. Moreover, adding trade and NAFTA to the rhetoric allowed Trump to break a traditional democratic stronghold and gain support of middle-class workers whose jobs prospects might have suffered due to globalization.

This perception of a southern border being overrun by undocumented people, however, is very different from what the numbers say. The Pew Research center recently��reported��that than coming in, and the US Border patrol statistics show that apprehensions at the border, a metric used to calculate undocumented crossings, are currently at a . In other words, the facts regarding immigration from Mexico do not match Trump’s campaign rhetoric.

Among the most important reasons for this shift is the fact that Mexican population growth has decreased considerably. In 1970, Mexican fertility rate was almost seven births per woman, one of the world’s highest. A couple decades later, about the time where the population born in the 1970s reached adulthood, the US experienced a peak in undocumented immigration from Mexico. The Mexican fertility rate since 2000 has been just above two births per woman and declining. In short, there are simply not enough young Mexican people for the migration levels to return to the levels of the 1990s.

Immigration is usually composed of both “push” and “pull” factors. The example of high fertility rates combined with the macroeconomic mismanagement Mexico experienced in the 1980s and 1990s were obvious “push” factors that led to more Mexican migration to the US. Since the late 1990s, macroeconomic management in Mexico has been prudent and has not experienced any self-inflicted recessions.

Economic growth, while not at the country’s full economic potential, has been consistent and allowed the economy to create enough jobs and stability to produce a “pull” effect that allowed Mexicans to have other options rather than immigrating to the US. The impact of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the opening of the Mexican economy to the world were key components of this new Mexican reality.

Bilateral Trade

Regarding trade, Trump’s statement that Mexico was “killing us economically” was the preamble of another great campaign device: the desire to renegotiate or repeal NAFTA. Early in the campaign, NAFTA became one of Trump’s favorite targets, often referring to it as the “worst trade deal ever.”

Along with China, Mexico—through NAFTA—was blamed for the loss of thousands, if not millions, of US jobs, particularly in manufacturing. Through this anti-free trade rhetoric, Trump was able to tap into the anger of certain strata of the population, particularly those in the manufacturing sector, who saw their factories close and move abroad over the last few decades. This allowed him to break the so called Democratic “blue wall” and capture the support of people in the rust belt and key states like Ohio and Wisconsin that paved the way for his presidency. Mexico, in the eyes of some��, is not only a source of undocumented immigration, but also a country that is taking jobs away from the US.

According to the����in the first 11 months of 2016 trade between Mexico and the US reached $482 billion dollars, making Mexico the third largest US trading partner and second largest destination for US exports in the world. As a matter of perspective, during the stated period, Mexico bought more US products than China, Japan and the United Kingdom—t��� third, fourth and fifth export destinations for the US,��combined.

One of Trump’s����to support his animosity toward Mexico and China is the current trade deficit the US holds with these countries. The US Census Bureau����shows that while the is by far the greatest��($319 billion),��the deficit with Mexico is much smaller ($58.8 billion) and similar to other US trade deficits with Germany ($59.6 billion) and Japan ($62.4 billion). It goes without saying that none of these three countries are part of NAFTA.

Deficits cannot be solely attributed to free trade agreements. One explanation for President Trump’s focus on China and Mexico could be outsourcing. Companies are not known to move US jobs to Germany, Canada and Japan, but there is no denying that this has occurred to some extent with China and Mexico.

However, placing outsourcing to China and Mexico in the same category is a gross misunderstanding of current international trade trends and the benefits of regional integrated supply chains. When a company moves jobs to China, it takes the vast majority of the production chain with it. This makes sense from a geographical standpoint, since production requires proximity to the supply chain.

The case of Mexico is very different. As a general rule, companies moved only part of their production to Mexico. In most cases, it was the low-skilled, labor-intensive portions of the production process. This allowed companies to keep higher-skilled jobs in the US by leveraging the cheaper labor in Mexico to produce parts and other necessary components of production. In other words, by moving some low-skill jobs to Mexico, manufacturers are allowed to keep part of their production in the US as opposed to sending the whole production chain to China.

Prosperity in Mexico has several benefits for the US: less undocumented migration, increased security and higher demand for US products. It is hard to find a better example of a win-win-win.

The results are quite clear. According to the��, a Chinese export has about 3-4% of US made contents/inputs, while a Mexican export product has, on average, 40% of US made content/inputs. Out of the $270 billion Mexican exports to the US, $108 billion—around 40%—eventually end up back in US companies due to the benefits of supply chain integration.

As an example, the number one US import and export with Mexico is the automobile. Due to supply chain integration, cars cross the border multiple times during production. One can argue that there is no such thing as a US, Mexican or Canadian-made automobile but rather a North American one. In the words of President John F. Kennedy: “A rising tide lifts all boats.”

President Trump continuously boasts his business acumen and credentials. Is it good business to ostracize your second largest customer? Furthermore, supply chain integration with Mexico makes the US and its exports more competitive worldwide. The US Chamber of Commerce states that trade with Mexico supports up to��. A high percentage of these jobs will be put in jeopardy if relations are meddled with. Is it wise to trade those jobs for the estimated 800,000 low-skilled and low-paid jobs that the US lost to Mexico?

Unintended Consequences

As stated, thinking of immigration and trade policy as two different issues is a mistake. Along with national security, these are deeply intertwined and one must be careful to act without considering the implications across all three realms.

Unfortunately, so far this is what Trump’s policy toward Mexico appears to be doing. The historical low levels of apprehension at the border, not seen since 1973, hardly justify building a $25-billion wall on the border. Indicating that NAFTA is the main culprit of the loss of manufacturing jobs in the US without mentioning advances and growth in robotics used in manufacturing only tells a small part of the story.

Mexico has made tremendous strides during the last decade toward creating economic incentives to keep its citizens within its borders. A large part of these economic incentives is derived from the burgeoning trade with the US. In 1993, the year before NAFTA was implemented, US-Mexico trade was��, according to the US Census Bureau. In comparison, through November 2016, yearly total trade between the countries reached more than $481 billion dollars. Mexico made the transition from a natural resource-based economy into one based increasingly on complex manufacturing.

Prosperity in Mexico has several benefits for the US: less undocumented migration, increased security and higher demand for US products. It is hard to find a better example of a win-win-win.

The frontal attack of the Trump administration on this equilibrium, particularly NAFTA—and hence the stability of Mexico—could have dire consequences for both countries. A withdrawal from NAFTA could prove disastrous in the short term for Mexico as 80% of its exports are destined for the US. Mexico could easily end up in a steep recession that could cost millions of Mexicans their jobs and sources of income. It is easy to imagine the consequences of what would happen if up to a million maquiladora workers right across the US-Mexico border suddenly find themselves unemployed. If history serves as guide,��

While the argument has been that current undocumented immigration numbers do not justify President Trump’s focus and escalation on the border, his nationalistic vision on trade could end up destabilizing Mexico to the point where people begin migrating north in numbers large enough to make the need for a wall a reality. His proposed policies are, therefore, counterproductive for both the US and Mexico as they could deteriorate this delicate balance to the point that his pessimistic and largely unsupported by facts vision becomes a reality.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:��

The post Trump’s Flawed Logic Regarding US-Mexico Relations appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Donald Trump has already built barriers around his relationship with Mexico that are higher than any wall. The diplomatic slip in the form of a tweet that ended with President Enrique Peña Nieto canceling their meeting was apparently fixed after����between the two presidents held on January 27, in which they����and expressed their desire to keep cooperating on issues like security. Tensions keep growing, however, as Trump’s promises turn into actions and confrontation with its northern neighbor becomes a serious possibility for Mexico.

What was seen as a bully’s message when Trump was still just a presidential candidate became a real issue when the now President Trump signed an executive order to build the promised wall along the US border with Mexico. And even though Congress , Trump insists that somehow he will make Mexico pay the bill.

His declarations were��by President Peña Nieto: “Mexico does not believe in walls. I have said it many times: Mexico will not pay for any wall.” In a����distributed on social media, Peña Nieto added that he regretted and condemned the US decision to continue the construction of a wall that for years “has divided us instead of uniting us.”

Soon came the POTUS tweet repelling that if Mexico was unwilling to pay for the “badly needed wall,” then it would be better to cancel the upcoming meeting, and his Mexican counterpart��—also via Twitter. Trump would later tell Republican lawmakers in Philadelphia that it was a mutual decision: “Unless Mexico is going to treat the United States fairly, with respect, such a meeting would be fruitless, and I want to go a different route. We have no choice.” He also repeated that the American people would not pay for the wall and proposed��.

Giving in over this issue is not an option for both Mexico and the US. Agreeing to avoid the topic publicly was the better solution at the time, but now both sides fear that their respective leader will not keep his promise.

Actually, Mexico’s biggest concern is that Donald Trump actually accomplishes all that he has said about the US relationship with the Mexicans. However, America’s southern neighbor isn’t as weak as it seems. Both countries are dependent on each other and, therefore, have cards to put down on the table. This is why it took so little for Trump and Peña Nieto to call each other and promise cooperation.

Over the Wall

The��biggest threat isn’t the border wall—actually,����already exists. The real menace is the barrier to commerce that might come with an eventual renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)—another of Trump’s promises.

The mogul president insists that the trade pact has led to a massive loss of American jobs as companies leave the country looking for investment opportunities and lower salaries in Mexico. The agreement has indeed allowed Mexico to draw foreign capital in and make its industry grow. Commercial deficit is also a fact: In 20 out of 21 years, Mexico’s sales have surpassed its purchases. However, this follows market dynamics rather than being an effect of the trade deal. NAFTA has given the United States����as to its neighbor.

According to the , trade between both countries amounted to more than $530 billion in 2015. Mexico is America’s third biggest trading partner and number one for����like Arizona, New��Mexico, Texas and California. alone exports $95 billion worth of good each year to Mexico, which equals 37% of total its global exports. The jobs of����depend directly on exports to Mexico. So do many of its��industries that use imported parts to complete production. In fact, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), this includes����for the Trump brands.

However, if an abrupt break from NAFTA will definitely hurt the US, for Mexico it may prove devastating. The US is by far its most important trade partner, representing 66.5% of its total international commerce. Since NAFTA was passed, the value of ��has risen by 638%. Today, some ��and��depend on its viability. If it is dissolved,��, and jobs created by the multinationals that Trump has promised to attract might not suffice to employ them.

It is exactly this asymmetry of what President Trump has in mind when he talks about negotiating with Mexico. A fair update of the treaty might benefit all its members, but he seems to be seeking more draconian changes, like eliminating Mexico’s trade surplus with the United States, limiting investment by American multinationals in its southern neighbor and adding a 35% on its products. If that happens, Mexico’s best option might be to leave the agreement altogether, just as Secretary of Economy��

Cards on the Table

With Canada����and the rest of its allies silenced, Mexico has been left to fight for its future alone. However, just as the former Foreign Secretary Jorge Castañeda��, the land of��charros (Mexican cowboys)��has got many chips to play.

Border security, terrorist threats and trafficking of illegal drugs, weapons and cash are only a��few reasons of why the US needs a good working relationship with its neighbor, as the White House����after the call between the two presidents. Bringing uncertainty over Mexico’s willingness to keep cooperating on these issues might be a great strategy to make Trump think twice about dismantling NAFTA, explained : “Will Mexico still cooperate in the fight against drug trafficking? Will it stop foreign terrorists from using Mexico as a way station into the United States? — Mexico can raise the stakes enough for Mr. Trump to reconsider his ‘America first’ approach to commerce.”

According to Porter, Jorge Castañeda seems to��agree: “‘Let Mr. Trump pull the United States out of Nafta,’ he argues. Instead of stopping Central American migrants at its southern border, Mexico should let them through on their way to the United States. ‘And let’s see if his wall keeps the terrorists out, because we won’t.’”

An even stronger (and riskier) tactic is playing with Trump’s desire to get a quick deal. Let’s put it this way: A victory over Mexico will make the new president look strong, leaving him in a good position to face China and other forces. Even if he can’t make a strong move against Chinese President Xi Jinping, he will have the Mexican issue as a flag to keep his voters happy. But if Mexico stands its ground and even lets NAFTA dissolve, it will send the world another message: Trump’s threats can be resisted.

This, however, is easier said than done. With��his ,��Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto is between a rock and a hard place on this issue. He cannot afford to leave NAFTA easily, especially because some of his most unpopular policies rely on the success of free trade.

The dollar-peso relation is another weak spot in Mexico’s position. The national currency has fallen from 15 pesos per dollar when Trump started his campaign to about 22 pesos per dollar today. Considering that his tweets have impacted this percentage on several occasions, it is not an exaggeration to say it might fall to 40 if Mexico leaves NAFTA, which will kill efforts to attract foreign companies to the country. Actually, Trump’s threats have already made����and����cancel long-planned investments in Mexico.

Despite this scenario, not everything is hopeless. Without NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Mexico has still got one of the highest number of��the world. It is the perfect timing to strengthen relations with other allies—starting with China, whose authorities have already declared themselves in favor of doing business with Mexico. Being too positive, this might also inspire a boost to the country’s domestic market.

As for the����that Trump is said to be considering, he will have to deal with America’s laws first and then the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) second before making it a reality. Furthermore, any increase in fees will be paid by American consumers. Mexican producers might only suffer indirectly under the logic that an increase in their prices leads to lower sales, which is unlikely to happen on basic products like tomatoes and avocados. Some hope the initiative will not pass, but that is what was said about the building of the wall.

An attempt to respond with an equal tariff on the southern side of the border might also be a good argument toward negotiation. “If Mexico puts a tax of 20% over American wine and alcoholic beverages, the most damaged would be the US,”��, founder and director of the consultancy firm Triplethree International. However, getting into a tax battle isn’t at all desirable. We have already experienced something similar in 2009, when Mexico put a 10% to 20% tax on northern products after America��, and both parties suffered as a result.

What has to be kept in mind is that Mexico does not want to go to��war with the United States. Both sides are simply looking for a more profitable deal. Just as the Mexican magnate Carlos Slim��, the new US president is not a terminator but a��negotiator,��whose style it is to crush the weak and talk with those he respects. If Mexican authorities stay firm, Trump will look for an easy deal, and they will be able to insist on their terms. If not, both economies will have a hard time prospering under Trump’s tenure—and so will their relationship.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:��

The post Are Mexico and America Heading for a Breakup? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Mexico starts 2017 with two trending topics: the announcement of new gasoline prices to the market, and multiple protests inspired by the adjustment period in the form of a 20% price hike. But while Mexicans are filled with outrage, moguls around the world anticipate the potential earnings that this represents. The big question is: Who will the energy reform benefit?

On December 20, 2013, President Enrique Peña Nieto approved the energy reform that aimed to solve a series of conflicts over fuel that Mexicans had been suffering from for decades, including the bankruptcy of the national oil company, Pemex.

Since 1938, when President Lázaro Cárdenas nationalized the oil industry, Pemex had held the monopoly over the resource, bringing in a hefty proportion of the national income. However, poor management, high spending and corruption prevented necessary investment for decades. Lacking technology and infrastructure, the company became less and less productive, to the point that it could no longer manage the abundant Mexican oil nor cover the country’s demand.

In just 11 years, Pemex went from being the third largest gas producer in the world to being . By then, 62% of the gasoline it sold had to be from eight different countries: the United States, the Netherlands, Spain, India, the Bahamas, Antilles, France, and Trinidad and Tobago. This caused earnings to decrease and spending to grow even more, perpetuating a vicious cycle.

Over the years, Mexican pockets were protected from feeling the effects of Pemex’s decline, as the government controlled gas prices and kept them artificially low. The so-called Special Tax On Products And Services (IEPS) took the US Gulf coast as a reference for prices and adjusted accordingly. When these were higher than the official cost of oil in Mexico, taxes over fuel sales could be levied. But when they were lower (which is what usually happened), it had a negative rate that needed to be subsidized through public financing.

The system costs grew along with oil prices and there was a point, in 2008, when and doubled the budget for the government program to combat poverty, dubbed Oportunidades.

This was unacceptable in a country with 48 million poor people, especially because the main benefits were received by the middle and upper class. For every 12 pesos that someone on a low-income used of this support, someone in a higher tax bracket would get 36, due to the number of cars he or she owned.

That was the time when the gasolinazos started—monthly increases in the official price of gasoline designed to equate and eventually overcome the one in the US Gulf as the treasury sought to recover the incomes of a positive IEPS. The measures were in place��from��2008 until 2014. By then, had almost doubled. During that time, Pemex remained the only company allowed to import and sell gasoline, so Mexicans had no choice but to buy at whatever price or quality the company offered.

Attempting Reform

What the did, among other things, was open the field for the exploitation, transformation and commerce of oil-based fuels. This would supposedly allow better resource utilization and commercial growth through shared technology, private investment and competition. However, the transition process into this scheme has been slow and harsh, due to scheduling changes and steep rises in the national costs of gasoline as they were brought in line with the international market.

In 2015, the government applied a single annual rise of 1.8% over the fuel prices instead of monthly increases, and in 2016 the formula to determine that IEPS changed, turning it into a fixed-rate cost. This was included in a range of minimum and maximum prices, calculated on the basis of international conditions with a 3% price difference at the beginning of the year. If the real price exceeded that maximum ban, citizens could claim the tax back—a non-feasible option for the .

However, although the price per barrel reached its lowest in decades, gasoline prices did not fall. This is partly explained by the strengthening of the US dollar, which in relation to the peso . Since barrels are bought in dollars, the difference was offset by the exchange rate.

In addition, until the middle of the year, Pemex continued to hold the monopoly on importing or refining gasoline, so there wasn’t a real competition among gas stations run by various companies that were starting to appear in the northern states, as they all sold the same product at nearly the same price.

The increase between 14% and 20% that took place on the first day of 2017——is the result of adding logistic costs to the maximum range. This also explains why, for the first time in decades, there will not be a standard price for the whole country, but that it would vary from region to region according to transportation logistics and quality standards set by local environmental policy.

It is only a temporal measure. From February onward, costs will change every day until they are released in each state. By the end of the year, prices will only be determined by that invisible hand Adam Smith talked about: the market.

The energy reform is a great incentive for foreign companies to invest in the country. Today, 22 companies have , and it is expected that there will be 15 in 2018, including the Mexican companies Oxxo and Hidrosina, and the American and .

This is also a powerful reason for the United States to strengthen its relationship with Mexico, despite President-Elect Donald Trump’s threats. His own secretary of state and current CEO of ExxonMobil, , agrees—his eyes have been set on the potential benefits of doing business with the southern neighbor.

Competing for More Options

For Pemex, on the other hand, this means difficulties. Competition against other gas producers and their cutting-edge technology will be fierce—a hard blow for a company that is currently in free fall. Even with the new private financement scheme and attempts to compensate for decades of neglect with modernization projects on four of the most important refineries in Mexico, it might not suffice to face companies like the energy giant Gulf.

Moreover, the necessary pauses in construction caused by a lack of supplies have led to a dramatic over recent years. With development projects expected and a growing debt that already , the once-great national company will have a hard time catching up.

The Mexican government aims to compensate the gap from Pemex contributions with a gasoline tax and the new companies arriving in the country. Without a subsidy to pay, there will be about 400 billion extra pesos to invest in social programs.The question is whether this money will be correctly managed or if it will be lost on salary bonuses, debt payments and corruption��that costs the country about .

On the other hand, with more options on the market, there will not only be a wider range of prices, but also of quality. This is important because the better the quality of fuel, the less polluting it is. In places such as Mexico City, air pollution levels are so high that special regulations for the use of transport had to be created. New rules regarding fuel will finally be introduced, although prices might be slightly higher that in other places.

However, many Mexican consumers prefer low costs, even if it means giving up better quality. The 20% increase in prices this January, even if temporary, will have a direct impact on their finances. If the cost of fuel rises, transport fees will grow and inflation will peak. suggest it will rise to 4.8%—t��� highest number in years.

The truth is that even with the increase, Mexican gasoline is cheap compared to the rest of the world. In countries like Denmark, France and Canada,��. The difference, however, relies on purchasing power. While a Canadian citizen earns an average of $7.18 dollars per hour, a Mexican worker with minimum wage gets only $1.01, which is not enough to cover the costs of a basic food basket.

The working class will be the more damaged by this situation, as salaries will not have an equal increase to prices nor to the new costs of driving to work. Using public transport is not a good choice either. First of all, because with the increase in gas prices,�� and, second, because in most cities it is inefficient and cannot cover the population’s needs.

Furthermore, even if prices are being determined by the market by the end of 2017, it will take at least three years to actually see the benefits, as new companies arrive and build the necessary infrastructure to operate. Meanwhile, the economy will be .

There are many other problems related to these issues that will affect Mexicans in the short term. The president’s popularity hit rock bottom with this week demanding prices to be brought down. There is a in 13 states caused by the insufficient production, damaged ducts and panic shopping, and ��reselling stolen gasoline on the black market at lower prices are gaining ground.

Only time will tell if Mexico’s energy reform will bring more benefits than perils—and for whom.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:��

The post Solving Mexico’s Oil Crisis appeared first on 51�Թ�.

When Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump visited Mexico on September 1, 2016, local protesters made it clear: His offensive, untrue and divisive rhetoric about the Mexican people was not welcome. Amid that backdrop of rejection on both sides it’s easy to forget that the United States and Mexico have been tied together by economic, cultural, political and geographical bonds for a long time.

Both countries share a where hundreds of thousands of people cross both ways legally each day, enabling up to $1.4 billion of annual two-way trade and more than 34 million tourists a year that generate a significant economic spillover on both sides.

Both countries share similar challenges along their sprawling border. Despite close collaboration between both governments, estimated on border controls from the US side and thousands of people dying on their attempts to cross the border, , Central and Latin America continue to come across the border without proper papers. It is nearly impossible for authorities to patrol such an expansive border. Far worse than unregulated crossings, powerful drug cartels in Mexico tied to the demand for drugs in the US have led to continuous violence in certain border regions.

It won’t be easy to solve these problems, but certainly collaboration between the US and Mexico would be necessary to improve security and migration mechanisms. An example of such collaboration, the Merida Initiative, has since 2008 promoted support between both governments to tackle the drug cartels and secure the border. However, the right-wing polarization promoted chiefly by Donald Trump threatens to halt cooperation within the region.

divisive foreign policy

Trump launched his campaign in June 2015 accusing the Mexican government of intentionally sending criminals across the border, and accusing Mexican immigrants of crimes they are more likely to be fleeing than committing: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists …”— followed by the promise of building a great wall around the southern border of the US.

One year later, during his first as a presidential candidate, Trump expressed his disapproval of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and advanced his nationalistic world view of adopting closed-door politics to better resolve internal affairs. Founded on the phrase “America First!” the candidate sells an isolationist foreign policy based on nationalistic and hyperbolic claims.

Even though the three signatory countries—Canada, the US and Mexico—have expressed the need to review current NAFTA conditions, it is clear that the treaty has generated relevant benefits for its members. Over its first two decades, and regional commerce has increased from $290 billion in 1993 to more than $1.1 trillion in 2016. In spite of controversial discussions regarding the flux of money and employment, it is clear that changes in the agreement would have sharp effects on the regional economies.

Besides serious threats posed to global trade, immigrants seem to be the most affected by the Trump tornado. The United States is a nation built on immigration. It is being particularly divided by Trump’s campaign, which seemingly purposefully generates clashes among different groups of the population—as would of course his election for president. Strong right-wing nationalism tends to be associated with rejection of people from different races and origins. In the case of North American relations, this scenario could potentially affect more than (27.6% of the overall foreign population) thus generating further tensions with its neighbor country.

Whereas anti-discrimination laws in the US are generally robust to protect diversity, the consolidation of an environment prone to right-wing nationalism and xenophobia is exacerbating division between the Democratic and Republican parties, as well as within��families and neighborhoods.

Political gridlock

Since 2014, findings from the indicate that Republicans and Democrats diverge more than ever before in American history. As a result, antipathy between the left and the right wing has risen, as well as political confrontation between opposite ideologically oriented citizens and politicians.

The bipartisan polarization in the US has in the past years already led to severe political gridlock in Congress, which has prevented necessary reforms in many policy areas, as the latest edition of the (SGI) project : “Governance suffers in the United States … because of the gridlock that results from polarized parties and divided government … the main manifestation of this gridlock is a low level of ability to implement government goals.”

51�Թ� provides you deep and diverse insights for free. Remember that we still have to pay for servers, website maintenance and much more. So, to keep us free, fair and independent.

This is one of the main reasons why the US is doing so badly in . In terms of the quality of economic, social and environmental policies, the US ranks only 26^th of all 41 OECD and European Union nations. The country has been slow to recover economically after recent crises, unemployment among minorities is high, social policies lack efficiency, and inequalities in education and income are increasing.

The high levels of polarization that are present in the America��today endanger the future growth of North America as a region and promote a context in which Donald Trump’s divisive agenda has gained wide support. Building walls on the border is certainly not a feasible solution for tackling these and other problems currently affecting the region.

Promoting stronger collaboration and empathy between countries, political parties and people seems to be a better option. The real barrier to achieving this are not just the results of the US presidential election, but whether Trump’s attitudes and policy prescriptions maintain strong support in the US long after November 8.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:��

The post Populism is Straining Regional Relations in North America appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Germany is facing the most important immigration crisis in its history since World War II. The recent attacks that took place on three consecutive days in , and broke the fragile peace that reigned in the country after the Islamic State-linked attacks in and earlier this year. These unfortunate events, which are all regarded as part of the latest wave of terrorist attacks to hit Europe, have renewed criticism toward the open-door asylum policy that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has��.

The fact that the state of Bavaria was the main point of entry for many refugees and the target of the recent attacks by asylum seekers has left a bitter feeling among Germans. Just months ago, German citizens had warmly welcomed refugees arriving on board the trains from Hungary following their treacherous journey from Syria and other areas of the Middle East and across eastern Europe.

In 2015, many homes and buildings in Munich, Berlin and other of “Welcome, Refugees.” Now, the so-called immigration crisis has politically polarized German society. Today, popular demands and proposals to swiftly combat the terrorist threat have taken the place of such welcoming attitudes.

Increasing Security or Infringing Rights?

Increasingly, some sectors of German civil society are and retract the freedom of movement and political liberties that the country granted to and upheld for its citizens and inhabitants until just recently. So far, some of the demands that seem to be gaining ground in the political discourse in Germany include: setting stricter border controls within the Schengen area and German borders themselves; expanding personal data holding programs on German and foreign citizens; increasing the number of police officers on the streets of Bavaria and the rest of Germany; and even using the army to safeguard public places.

Worryingly, many of such demands and the resulting policy proposals are aimed specifically at two particularly vulnerable groups: new immigrants and refugees. They include, for instance, the decision to process the deportations of irregular immigrants more expeditiously (regardless of of doing so), and monitoring refugee camps more closely (therefore, blurring the line between ).

Bringing the issue of immigration to the realm of national security has created a dilemma between the German government’s priorities and societal preferences. Until recently, Merkel and her cabinet had directed the government’s attention and efforts at promoting and sustaining the image of Germany as a country willing and eager to become a haven for persecuted and displaced people from around the world—especially from the Middle East.

After the recent attacks, however, some sectors of society appear to believe that Germany’s borders, police and military forces cannot adequately protect them from global terrorism and organized crime. Increasingly, immigrants and refugees in Germany are seen as a danger that must be addressed and controlled. Hence, the government’s priority has rapidly shifted toward regulating immigration flows and managing and enforcing its borders more strictly.

Perceptions and Policy in Historical Perspective

As with any other government, the kind of immigration policy that the German government pursues and sustains is also based on the perceptions that its people have about borders and immigrants. Should the immigration phenomenon be perceived as an opportunity, the government’s priority will then move away from security and enforcement and on to the effective integration of immigrants into society for its benefit. Achieving this latter objective is not only possible, but has already been done in previous decades.

During the 1950s, the German Federal Republic welcomed the Gastarbeiter��(guest workers) in response to the labor shortages that followed World War II. In need of rebuilding itself but facing a shortage of low-skilled labor, the government recruited mostly male workers from Italy, Spain, Yugoslavia, Greece, Portugal, Tunisia, Morocco, South Korea and Turkey through bilateral agreements with these countries set up in collaboration with West German employment offices.

The programs were generally considered successful. By the end of the boom years of foreign recruitment in 1973, the level of qualification of these workers remained relatively low, and most of them were employed and remained in low-skilled jobs. This issue had not been of concern to the government or the public. It was thought that the program responded only to the temporary demand for labor and that, by the end of it, foreign workers would simply leave. Nonetheless, when the workers did not leave and instead permanently settled in the country, German society gradually integrated them—albeit .

New Immigrants, New Challenges

The experiences of today’s immigrants to Germany, however, have been very different from those of their counterparts in the early 1960s. First, their arrival is not the outcome of a search for better job opportunities, but a forced departure from their homes in Syria, Afghanistan, Serbia, Kosovo, Iraq, Albania, Eritrea, Pakistan, Somalia and Ukraine due to wars and domestic conflicts. Such conflicts have caused a wave of asylum applications that has been steadily rising since 2011.

This phenomenon, along with an increase in the number of immigrants from the European Union, has brought the total number of foreigners in Germany to 10.9 million—a figure with which not all sectors of the German population feel comfortable.

On the one hand, some sectors, including the (CDU), as well as a large number of intellectuals, look favorably on the open-door policy of Germany and the arrival of refugees. On the other hand, there are groups like PEGIDA, or Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West, and the radical right. These groups argue that “uncontrolled” immigration from the Middle East has exacerbated the prevailing social and economic disparities existing in the country and has disrupted and threatened their lives and German society as a whole.

The perception of foreigners as a threat to Germany has become a headache for the country’s government and institutions. Initially, Merkel had sought to show a “” to refugees, which she upheld with more conviction than most of her fellow party members in the Christian Democratic Party. Now, she is being pressed into choosing between helping refugees, or responding to the to take a tougher stance on the fight against immigration.

Germany and Mexico compared

Surprisingly, the political debate and infighting that Germany is currently undergoing to ensure the civil liberties of its people��while protecting the security of the country has parallels with Mexico. While Mexico has historically been a for migrants, from the 1940s onward, it also started to become a . Therefore, it has experienced similar problems to Germany.

In those years, Mexico witnessed the arrival of tens of thousands of , as well as others escaping from European countries that had been . Similarly, three decades later, a large number of Lebanese, Argentines and Chileans left for Mexico, fleeing civil wars and political persecution in their countries. Likewise, in the 1980s, Mexico welcomed and became a from the civil wars in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala.

Subscribe to 51�Թ� for and we will gift you our and invite you to inspiring events.

Immigrants, especially refugees, were perceived in a positive light in Mexico, and their status in the country benefited from such a view. At that time, for instance, Mexico’s policy of open arms toward Central American refugees sharply contrasted with the unwavering refusal of the United States to provide asylum. Such perceptions��and policies resulted in one of the largest increases in the number of immigrants to the country. By 2000, the in Mexico had reached about 40,000 people. In 2015, that figure had surpassed the 60,000 mark.

With the rapid increase of immigrants, including those en route to the US via Mexico, soon changed and . Law enforcement agents as well as criminal groups��began profiting from ��across Mexico’s borders, while Mexicans in general began developing a negative view of immigration, especially from Central America. Consequently, toward the region began hardening.

Paradoxically, the discrimination and xenophobia that many Mexican migrants still endure in the US were reproduced by Mexico’s government and citizens against Central American immigrants. For instance,��in 2015, immigrants than the US. In Mexico, just as in Germany, borders began to be thought of as “floodgates” against the immigration upsurge.

The Impact of Popular Perceptions on Immigration Policy

It is worth noting that in Mexico, just as in Germany, the government does not regard immigrants as a national security threat. On the contrary, Mexico has traditionally been a refugee receiving country and, over the last decades of the 20^th century, it also became a transit country. However, at the dawn of the 21^st century, the country started receiving more and more immigrants. Increasingly, it has become a reluctant host to many Central American migrants who have escaped the that has hit their countries and have failed to enter the US.

Such a rapid increase in the number of immigrants is . Without adequate attention and support from the government, it is thought that such groups could become an economic burden to society or even a potential risk to public safety. One of such concerns, for example, is that if they are not provided with employment alternatives, they could be recruited by organized crime groups.

Views such as these have led individuals in both countries to speak of immigrants and refugees in the 21^st century as “qualitatively different” to those who arrived in the 20^th century. While the immigrants and refugees of the 20^th century are usually considered as integrated socially, economically and culturally, their counterparts of the 21^st are regarded as a collective threat to the security and wellbeing of Germany and Mexico.

Such a view of immigrants as a “danger” has alienated both local populations and newcomers. This hinders the effective communication, adequate integration, collaboration and mutual support that are the pillars of any society.

By toughening their immigration policies, Mexico and Germany are not only closing the doors to a social phenomenon that inevitably accompanies economic, political and social globalization. They are also breeding a critical mass of tension and mistrust within their countries which, as seen in Germany, could lead to harmful and deplorable attacks against civilians.

To meet these challenges, Germany and Mexico must seek progressive and sustained integration of newcomers. In the search for solutions, immigration should be understood as a complex and heterogeneous phenomenon, produced by economic differences between countries; historically-rooted patterns in bilateral relations; family and community ties; and political or humanitarian crises, such as those that have created the current flows between the , and . Unfortunately, many of these issues appear to be increasingly disregarded in the current immigration policies of both countries.

Restoring tolerance, restoring security

A large number of civil society groups in Mexico and Germany seem to have radicalized their attitudes and perceptions toward immigrants and refugees. For conservative groups and politicians in both countries (although more evidently in Germany), immigrants have become a “danger” to be contained. In domestic and international contexts marked by insecurity, terrorism and organized crime, the radicalization of such a discourse has led to the exclusion (and, in extreme cases, persecution) of immigrants and refugees, making these groups even more vulnerable.

The radicalization of anti-immigrant discourse makes both societies more likely to witness hate crimes within their borders—making them, in turn, more insecure for everyone. Germany and Mexico must remain vigilant to prevent public perceptions from negatively impacting their asylum, refugee and migration policies.

In previous decades, immigration to these countries had been a source of prosperity and well-being to both immigrants and host societies. By all means, Germany and Mexico could still see such a tolerant and mutually beneficial relationship restored early in the 21^st century.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your����is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post Immigration is a Tale of Two Countries appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Juan Armando Hinojosa Cantú, a Mexican construction contractor and business tycoon, is famous in Mexico for his alleged role in building a $7-million mansion for the first lady—best known as the president’s “White House.” But the Panama Papers have quickly made him much more famous, for a much larger sum of money. The Panama Papers, the largest cybersecurity breach in history, uncovered that after the mansion scandal, Hinojosa moved around $100 million to offshore accounts with the help from Mossack Fonseca, the Panamanian-based law firm from which the documents were leaked by an anonymous whistleblower.

As in many other countries, the Panama Papers leak has highlighted or exposed weak tax systems and government accountability in Mexico. The terabyte of information from Mossack Fonseca included 11.5 million documents with diverse mentions of offshore firms and accounts used to hide tax evasion and illicit transactions.

It took 190 journalists from 65 countries to sort through the information. In Mexico, two smaller outlets— and —partnered with the (ICIJ) to go through the data and build cases such as Hinojosa’s offshoring habits. But whereas in countries like Iceland the leak led to the immediate impeachment of the prime minister, in Mexico the legal case is still being examined, thus far with no consequences.

As recognized by Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Panama Papers show that toward the rich. By allowing vast economic transactions to proceed unnoticed and remain hidden, individuals with large amounts of money are able to increase their fortunes without providing a fair contribution to their governments. This leads to the formation of economic elites and perpetuation of income inequality. Funds that should return to states to provide benefits and services to the population are sent abroad to be kept in unmonitored personal accounts.

Magnates and Multimillionaires

Mexico is yet another example of how inadequate international financial regulation combined with weak local laws can perpetuate income inequality. Tax regulation reforms in Mexico have been recently : Among other things, a new tax regime for small taxpayers was introduced that includes reduced personal, social security, VAT and exercise taxes in firms’ first 10 years of operation. The aim is to induce informal enterprises to regularize their operations and start paying taxes.

However, a similar emphasis should be placed on multimillionaire companies. While entrepreneurs and middle-class businessmen struggle through the local bureaucratic process, adoption of digital tools and high tax rates, Mexican magnates have historically been able to find diverse mechanisms for tax evasion such as taking their fortunes abroad through shell companies.

There is still much sorting out to do in Mexico, and so far no legal actions have taken place in spite of the accusations against powerful businessmen, drug-related transactions and even current president Enrique Peña Nieto.

The Bertelsmann Stiftung’s (SGI) project ranks Mexico last in its assessment of tax systems of countries in the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Union (EU). This reflects that tax collection in Mexico is fairly complex—it takes a lot of time to pay and prepare taxes, generating additional costs that may be a burden for small organizations—and has seen little advancement over the past 50 years. , in Mexico “equitable tax collection is not really on the agenda due to the low level of direct tax collection; reform fatigue is thus likely to cement social inequality in the country.”

The Panama Papers revelations indicate that the Mexican federal government should be more watchful of multimillionaires and their companies, rather than focusing merely on targeting stricter fiscal auditing for small organizations. Such misguided targeting restricts legitimate and upstart entrepreneurship in Mexico, placing burden unequally on smaller businesses that have less capacity to keep up with compliance, and allowing big players to evade their fair tax contributions. Further attention should be paid on transparency to track large multinationals and fortunes, to strengthen federal resource collection and ensure a fair environment for lowering levels of inequality.

Although inefficiencies in the Mexican tax system are widely known, major regulatory improvements as an effect of the Panama Papers leak seem quite unlikely due to a persistent culture of corruption. On , Mexico is among the least efficient of all OECD members. Court cases are prone to be highly influenced by wealth and power, as is every part of the government and justice system.

No Consequences

Currently the Mexican Tax Ministry is conducting an investigation into 29 individuals and four organizations implicated in the leak. However, there is yet no certainty of the situation and further analysis must be performed to punish those who are found guilty of illegal tax evasion. However, considering weak national government systems for tax collection and enforcement coupled with high levels of corruption, it is likely that those hiding resources in offshore accounts will not suffer the consequences.

There is still much sorting out to do in Mexico, and so far no legal actions have taken place in spite of the accusations against powerful businessmen, drug-related transactions and even current president Enrique Peña Nieto. Some of the 289 Mexican names that have appeared in the Panama Papers include (President of TV Azteca), (Executive Vice President of Televisa), ��(both drug dealers) and government officers such as (President of PEMEX national oil company) or (Department of Treasury). The great labor of international investigative journalists processing this information has pointed out clear tracks to follow. However, as John Doe—t��� anonymous Panama Papers leaker—, “It will take years, possibly decades, for the full extent of the firm’s sordid acts to become known.”

The case of Mexico is just one example of a worldwide story of corruption and a few wealthy individuals propping up inequality. Both national and international tax systems as well as executive accountability have been publicly challenged through exposing some major gaps to the media.

The world’s biggest data leak demonstrates a precedent that may potentially drive adjustments in worldwide financial systems. Until then, the example of Mexico and the Panama Papers will either see whistleblowers and investigative journalists either spur change in attitudes and policy, or the prevailing power structure will remain too strong and citizens’ expectations of government too weak to affect lasting change.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:��

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your����is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post Misguided Tax Targeting Fosters Inequality in Mexico appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In mid-June, Mexican Secretary of Finance Luis Videgaray to deliver a speech at the inaugural session of the��.

Videgaray affirmed that Mexico remains one of the main proponents of further and deeper North American integration as a source of joint prosperity and security for Mexico, Canada, and the United States. He made explicit Mexico’s interest in working closer together with its partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to protect the region’s economically competitive position, amid a global environment characterized by uncertainty and ensuring its continued physical security.

While brief, his main message, aimed at North America’s policymakers, was clear: The bilateral and trilateral economic exchanges and cooperation arrangements between Canada and the US with Mexico on development, health, education and energy matters are vital to their own security and prosperity. In brief, “our North American neighbors need us.”

To get this message across to the��American��and Canadian governments and publics, Mexico is investing significant political and diplomatic capital. Videgaray’s speech was just one in a series of similar statements made over the past : Secretary of��Foreign Affairs Claudia Ruiz Massieu; Secretary for Energy Pedro Joaquín Coldwell; Secretary for Social Development José Antonio Meade; and Undersecretary of Health Pablo Kuri.

Their statements are part of����to push for the advancement of North American regional integration. Such an effort is a key part of the Mexican government’s current economic strategy to promote job creation in the country and the consolidation of Mexico as an exporting nation and emerging power.

Objectives

The objective of these efforts is, presumably, to set the scene for Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto to introduce ambitious proposals on the future of the regional integration project, in the context of the , which is set to take place in Ottawa on June 29.

Specifically, Mexico wants to secure concrete agreements on three issue-areas of strategic importance for the country: regional trade, cooperation for infrastructure development and cross-border mobility. However, there will be a significant gap between Mexico’s ambitious objectives at the summit and the actual results it will likely deliver.

In these areas, Mexico will look for three things.

First, the Mexicans want to secure their privileged position in the NAFTA, in preparation for the eventual ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In practice, this will extend the privileges and advantages of NAFTA membership to nine other countries in South America, Asia and Oceania.

Second, Mexico will attempt (once again) to secure a commitment from Canada to create and participate in a North American infrastructure improvement and development fund, modeled along the lines (or built upon) the existing North American Development Bank (NADBank).

It is worth remembering that during the NAFTA negotiations in the early 1990s, Canada refused to participate and jointly fund the work of the NADBank. Mexico will once again try to persuade the Canadians about the need for and the benefits of creating a truly North American development fund.

Third, Mexico will try to settle, once and for all, the diplomatic impasse created by the requirement of visas to Mexican travelers to Canada, which were imposed by the administration of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and that the new government of Justin Trudeau has vowed to eliminate, but��.

Complexities

If these are indeed the issues and priorities that will be discussed in the North American Leaders’ Summit, Mexico faces (figuratively) an uphill battle. Given the current political climate in Canada, the US, Mexico and now the rest of the world, this will be one of the most complex, difficult and probably less productive meetings between the three heads of state to have ever taken place since the establishment of these summits in 2005.

Numerous factors account for the complexity of this meeting. One is the ever-closer presidential elections in the United States, characterized by heated debates on domestic economic issues and animosity toward Mexican immigration to the country. Another is the limited bilateral engagement between Mexico and Canada that followed the “.” Yet another factor is the recent and long delays and changes in the appointments of a US ambassador to Mexico and a Mexican ambassador to the US.

And, finally, the economic distress and��—t��� —which all make it hard to both visualize the construction of a solid trilateral regional project and limit the prospects of reaching such ambitious accords in the short or medium terms.

The North American integration project, which appears to be in a permanent state of crisis and self-doubt about its existence, faces an even more difficult moment. The North American Leaders’ Summit might be the start of a renewed effort of the continued decline of regional integration in North America.

Mexico might be, metaphorically, very keen to reach the summit, but its companions seem to be more interested in just staying at base camp.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: ��/ ��

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your����is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post Mexico Faces Uphill Battle at Summit appeared first on 51�Թ�.

On February 17, Mexico’s central bank made the surprising move of raising the country’s interest rates by 50 basis points to 3.75%. At the same time, that institution, formally known as El Banco de Mexico (or the Bank of Mexico), announced that it would begin to sell American dollars directly to buyers in the marketplace. The goal of these measures is to stop the strong devaluation that the Mexican peso is suffering versus the currency of the United States.

At the moment, it seems that this decision is having an impact. Before anyone became aware of it, the value of the peso recovered a great deal of the ground it had lost in recent weeks. In 2015, the peso fell by 17% relative to the dollar. So far this year, before the intervention of the Bank of Mexico, the peso had fallen by 10%, marking a historic low point of 19.44 pesos to the dollar during early February. (By March 2, the Mexican currency had recovered somewhat to 17.81 pesos to the dollar.)

“Starting with the last meeting about monetary policy, the volatility of international financial markets has increased, and the Mexican economy has faced an environment that has continued to deteriorate,” noted Agustin Carstens, governor of the Bank of Mexico, in a press conference. At the same time, he made it clear that the decisions that have been taken do not indicate the beginning of a cycle of monetary contraction. “Going forward, the governing council will follow very closely the evolution of all of the determining factors of inflation, and its expectations for the medium and long-term horizon, especially [regarding] the exchange rate and its possible impact on consumer prices,” he added.

A Peculiar Situation

Until the intervention of the country’s central bank, the Mexican peso was one of the hardest-hit currencies in the emerging markets. This was especially notable because the economy of Mexico does not demonstrate any real signs of weakness, growing at a rate of 2.5% last year—compared with the 1% rate of Latin America as a whole. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is forecasting growth of 2.6% for this year, while the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is forecasting that Mexico’s real gross domestic product (GDP) will grow in excess of 3% in both 2016 and 2017. So, what’s at the root of the peso’s instability?

“In reality, the devaluation of the peso does not reflect any … special concerns about the Mexican economy,” notes Eugenio Gomez, professor of economics at the IPADE Business School in Mexico City. In his view, what’s taking place is an appreciation of the dollar versus many other currencies, due to the recovery of the US economy following the financial crisis and the resulting changes in monetary policy. “This is something that can be appreciated when you consider the devaluation that other currencies have suffered. For example, Chile and South Africa have suffered devaluations similar to what Mexico saw during 2014-2015, while in such countries as Colombia and Brazil, the devaluation has been twice as big as that of Mexico,” he says.

© Shutterstock

Einar Moreno Quezada, academic director of the department of finance and accounting at the University of the Americas in Puebla, Mexico, agrees: “More than a depreciation of the peso, we find that we are dealing with an appreciation of the dollar… The conditions that the economy of the United States offers, starting with the increase in its interest rates, are more attractive for investors. And as a result, the demand for dollars is growing, and [the dollar] is appreciating.” Meanwhile, “the risk level for those countries whose budgets are highly dependent on the petroleum industry—such as Mexico—continues to grow as a result of the decline in the price of crude,” he adds.

According to��, director of Wharton’s Lauder Institute, “The Mexican peso has evolved in a way that is consistent with a strong-dollar scenario. It makes Mexican exports more competitive in its main market—t��� US—and it makes Mexico more attractive as an investment destination. Mexico stands to benefit from the dynamics in global currency markets at the present time.” However, he adds a caveat: “Obviously, more currency weakness in China would erase part of these gains [on the part of Mexico,] because Mexico competes head-to-head with China for exports of auto parts, electronics, toys and clothing to the US market.”

Moreover, many analysts note that the Mexican peso has the virtue of being the most highly traded currency in emerging markets—a fact that imposes a curse on the peso in foreign exchange markets. The current depreciation of the peso is due to the fact that it is often used as a hedge in times of great volatility, they note. International investors like to use the peso for protection to a great degree because it is traded 24 hours a day, five days a week. This is something that occurs with only two other emerging market currencies: the South African Rand and the Turkish Lira.

However, Moreno Quezada points out that because the peso is now in demand 24 hours a day, it is more exposed to the ups and downs of markets during times of increased volatility than other emerging market currencies. “This is a currency that is being used for doing business all around the world. As a result, it is highly sensitive to movements of other currencies. That’s why there is no guarantee that the peso will maintain a constant volatility throughout time,” he notes.

Effects on the Economy

For Gomez, the devaluation of the peso can have consequences that are as positive as they are negative. “On the negative side, it can generate inflationary pressures because of the increased prices for imported goods—although these pressures have proved to be particularly weak lately, due in part to some other factors such as the worldwide decline in commodity prices, which has meant very low inflation rates in many countries. With regard to its positive effects, a cheap peso can favor tourism and [certain] exports,” he adds.

© Shutterstock

Moreno Quezada believes that even if there are no visibly significant effects on inflation, “clearly, there are positive and negative impacts.” On the one hand, he notes, there can be an economic impact because of remittances. On the other hand, he worries about the financial strangulation of those companies that have debt denominated in dollars but did not foresee that the dollar would rise to the levels that are now being observed. “The people who currently receive such remittances are maximizing their purchasing power by converting their dollars into more pesos than in the past. However, those enterprises that have taken out loans in dollars—but whose operations are in pesos—have the disadvantage of having to pay off the interest on their debt with a larger quantity of pesos.”

In this situation, when there are both positive and negative effects, the Bank of Mexico finds itself at a crossroads. Recently, it has opted to intervene by raising interest rates. Some economists believe that current macroeconomic data does not support that move, and that it could damage growth. However, inflation is not showing any signs of accelerating. Consumer prices in Mexico rose by 0.38% in January, reaching an annual rate of 2.61%, which is very close to an historic low point, and close to the central bank’s target of 3%.

Pedro Javier Uriz Borrás, economist at BBVA Bancomer, the largest bank in Mexico, told Reuters on February 15 that although monetary conditions suggest the possibility that interest rates might rise, there is not necessarily any magical solution for raising the value of the Mexican peso. Carlos Capistrán, chief Mexico economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, told Reuters that any rise in interest rates in Mexico would have the goal of counteracting a possible increase in rates by the US Federal Reserve. However, this is something that seems more and more unlikely, given the weakness of the global economy and the strength of the dollar. “To the degree that the global situation begins to improve, the Mexican peso exchange rate will do likewise,” predicted Capistrán.

Among analysts, the most commonly held opinion is that the peso will gain strength over the course of the year, supported by the strong fundamentals of the Mexican economy. According to Gómez, “The peso has been devalued more than we would usually expect, given the fundamentals of the Mexican economy.” He believes that this is a typical process of overshooting, which is common during periods of devaluation. “In this sense, it would be appropriate to expect that the Mexican currency will recover following the period of volatility. Nevertheless, it is hard to know when that would occur. Towards the end of 2016, the peso-dollar exchange rate could return to about 17 pesos per dollar. This will depend on various factors, of which the most important is the management of monetary policy in the United States.”

Moreno Quezada is somewhat more pessimistic about the evolution of the Mexican peso in coming months. He argues that “notwithstanding the strengths of the Mexican economy, the dollar continues to gain strength. Moreover, although the peso may show its true value relative to the dollar over the medium term, it will be quite a while before investors reassess their views regarding the advantage of investing in Mexican pesos.”

*[This article was originally published by , a partner institution of .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:�� / / /

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your ��is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post What’s Behind the Volatility of Mexico’s Peso? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

On January 13, Ruth Noh, a 7-year-old, was found in her bedroom in a Cancun apartment complex. The parents were taken into custody, and neighbors said the step-dad worked nights and the mom neglected the child, since she regularly drank alcohol with different men in the apartment.

In November 2015, a horrific streak of women killings in the Mexican city included the murder of a 24-year-old female in the same apartment complex. During this time, alarm engulfed the tourist hub as five disturbing homicides of women occurred within three weeks. Four of the victims died in the city’s periphery and one in the hotel zone.

The Streak Goes On

After the discovery of the fourth victim, the state public safety secretary, Juan Pedro Mercader Rodríguez, (the municipality that comprises Cancun) in light of the insecurity. However, that people are irresponsibly throwing around the word femicide in Quintana Roo, the state that is home to Cancun: “It’s not okay that people want to cut political profits and generate mass panic in the state.”

The following day, a fifth female victim of the streak passed away in an apartment in Region 223 of the city. She was identified as Deysi del Rosario, a 31-year-old Zumba instructor. Deysi was found naked on a bed, presumably strangled.

The panic that has since surfaced is due to the disconcerting violence utilized in all five homicides, and while in a handful of the cases authorities arrested suspects, citizens distrust the “proof” implicating these detainees and perceive pervasive impunity in these crimes.

The streak began on October 18, 2015, when Rebeca Rivera Neri, 24 and originally from Veracruz, Mexico, was found dead in the same apartment complex in Region 251, where 7-year-old Noh also lived. Her body was partially naked and her face was destroyed by thrashing. The cause of death was strangulation. According to Mexican authorities, initial investigations pointed to “a crime of passion” because “.”

On October 27, Karen Carrasco, a 19-year-old college student, was in Region 217; signs indicated severe force to the head and thorax, as well as rape.

Later that week on November 1, up to 5,000 people marched in Cancun to protest the violence and demand its place on the Mexican government’s agenda. Several civil society organizations requested a statewide gender violence alert. For this to occur, a civil society organization must make an official request to the Federal Interior Ministry (Segob), which would analyze the situation, and subsequently invite the state government to complete certain requirements by a given date. If the state fails to meet the requirements, the Segob could then declare the alert.

Late at night on the day of the march, a municipal police officer, in what authorities ruled a , presumably murdered 18-year-old Paloma Guadalupe Balam in Region 248.

On November 3, the fourth victim, Abril Alejandra López Valencia, 36 and originally from Mérida, Yucatán, was found in the hotel zone. , César N, age 29 and originally from Mexico City.

Other smaller cities of Quintana Roo have witnessed similar cases. In mid-January, an unidentified woman between 20 and 25 was found behind Hotel Paradisus in Playa del Carmen. On January 5, a 16-year-old student was found on a trash pile in a Tulum apartment complex.

Cases of Femicide

In spite of the brutal murders, the state secretary of the interior, Gabriel Mendicuti, and Prosecutor Carlos Arturo Álvarez have denied these cases are “femicides”—meaning murders of women due to gender-based reasons. If guilty of femicide in Quintana Roo, an aggressor could serve up to 50 years in prison, according to the state’s penal code reform in May 2012.

In the reform, gender-based reasons include: the victim and aggressor were relatives, concubines, married, dating, friends or neighbors; the aggressor had authority over the victim in terms of a work or school relationship; the body is found with signs of sexual violence; the body is found in a public area; or the body exhibits degrading injuries or mutilations. The reform also sanctions public servants who knowingly fail to act according to their capabilities and obligations or, without justification, to speedily conduct an investigation.

Nonetheless, the state only “created penal definitions that were difficult or impossible to accredit,” according to the National Citizen Observatory of Femicides (OCNF). Moreover, critics argue that the state does not have a protocol to classify femicides—frequently .

In 2014, the former state prosecutor, Gaspar Armando García Torres, stated by “decree” that authorities will only classify murders of women as femicides . The state has only one case of femicide: Jorge Rosales Piña is accused of killing four prostitutes in Chetumal. García said the perpetrator was angry after a prostitute infected him with HIV.

Over the past two years, several cases—labeled as femicides by the media and civil society, but not by government leaders—have . In April 2015, the 13-year-old María Fernanda Sánchez was found dead with more than eight stab wounds and sexual abuse in Region 251. In June 2014, the media described the case of Laura Jovita Guzmán Morán as one of torture, femicide and child pornography in Cancun. Also in 2014, Gloria García López, age 19 and eight months pregnant, died in her house in Region 10 from cranial trauma. The presumed aggressor was her partner who is currently a fugitive.

Cancun © Shutterstock

Alejandro Betancourt Pérez, president of the Lawyers College of Quintana Roo, said authorities would not label many brutal killings of women as “femicides” because, according to law, the term applies to aggressors who only attack women. The idea is that this indicates hatred toward the female gender. If this is not the case, courts consider the crime “a grave homicide.” It should be noted that given the “serial killer” requirement, a crime could be a “femicide” only if authorities determine the aggressor.

Why Cancun?

How can one begin to comprehend these disturbing stories in Cancun? A starting point is to understand the city’s development process, which revolves around international tourism, institutional abandonment of locals and short-term urban planning.

Mexico witnessed this process clearly on January 16, 2016, in the destruction of 143 acres of mangrove forest in Cancun. The objective was to build Malecón Tajamar, which would sport offices, shopping and apartments, involving 23 private companies. Before dawn on that day, 140 state and bulldozers and cranes that would flatten the area, where thousands of animals lived. Public manifestations accused the executive branch at the municipal, state and federal levels of not only being accomplices in ecocide, . Fonatur, the Mexican tourist board, promoted the project and expected immense profits for the region.

Despite laws passed in 2007 that protect mangroves, the Malecón Tajamar project, its advocates argued, did not have to abide by the law since it was prior. Activists fought the project hard, including an injunction pushed by 113 local children that was granted in September, but removed after a judge ordered them to pay around $1 million in compensation to the companies. However, as an by Carlos Brown states, the “legal” is not always the ethically correct. But the cynical government attitude definitely has an impact on local well-being.

in the Americas. From January to August 2014, international tourists to the country increased by 19% over the previous year. In Mexico, tourism provides 8.4% of the national GDP.

Cancun, strategic for this growth, grew from scratch for international tourism development purposes. Daniel Hiernaux-Nicolas the geopolitical selection of Cancun for a tourist hub. No important urban center existed in Quintana Roo until the invention of Cancun, and economic development was dubious. Given its proximity to Central America, the government feared an indigenous uprising in that rural area of the country. Similar concerns lie at the roots of in Los Cabos, Baja California Sur and Ixtapa, Guerrero.

Thanks to loans from the International Development Bank and the World Bank in the 1960s, the Mexican federal government conceived the idea of Cancun as a center for mass tourism.�� Within a few decades, Quintana Roo passed from last place (of 32) in state GDP per capita to sixth place. Residents from surrounding deprived states paid attention to that growth. By 2007, the Benito Juárez municipality daily incorporated 74 new people, “required 15 homes, 11 cars, 42 vacancies in the labor market, schools and hospitals, .” But today, “” there is a greater lag.

© Shutterstock

Solidaridad, the municipality that contains Playa del Carmen, developed later than Cancun and today its population grows faster. It is important to mention that of all municipalities in Mexico with a population over 15,000, Tulum, Benito Juárez and Solidaridad rank in the top ten of rape reports per capita.

One may attribute this to tourists’ greater willingness to report rapes. However, this is not necessarily the case. A study by Contreras on sexual crimes from 2005 to 2006 in Benito Juárez shows that the majority in Regions 103, 101, 100, 228 and 75 (a total of 49) on the outskirts of the city, while in the Hotel Zone there were 14.

This shows the Regions of Cancun, geographically distant from the Hotel Zone. Five of the seven women killings mentioned in this article occurred on the city’s periphery: two in Region 251, and the others in Regions 217, 223 and 248.

A recent article by argues that Cancun once had the potential to be an urban sustainability model, but not anymore. The government designed Cancun for immediate profit. More than 160,000 of Cancun’s 650,000 inhabitants live in conditions of “high marginalization” and more than 50,000 in “very high marginalization.” Eighty-six percent of workers hold employment in the tertiary sector, and most of these jobs are seasonal, unstable and provide a precarious income, half of which goes toward rent.

Migrants, Tourists and Corruption

Between 1995 and 2000, Quintana Roo was the state with the highest proportion of its population composed of migrants arriving in that period, representing 16.4% of its population. Migrants arriving between 2005 and 2010 represented 12.3% of the state population, with Quintana Roo .

Migrants in Quintana Roo tend to arrive from Tabasco, Yucatán, Chiapas and the Federal District. They arrive with expectations to obtain employment within days. According to Ariadna Rabelo, director of the Project for Migration Flows and Evaluation of Migration’s Economic and Social Impact in the Northern Zone of Quintana Roo at the University la Salle, migrants can earn a better salary in Quintana Roo than where they originated. However, “in reality they are receiving minimum wages with increased costs of living … in the end the rural poverty that they live in .”

The cost of living in Cancun contributes to this precariousness. According to Mercer’s 2015 Cost of Living Rankings, Cancun is the second , following Los Cabos, Baja California. The index considers housing, food and transport costs.

Tourism hubs are strategic points for organized crime, which benefits from high drug and alcohol demand, money laundering opportunities, sexual tourism, human trafficking and the production of child pornography. Child sexual exploitation through the Internet takes third place on the list of cybernetic crimes in Mexico (after fraud and threats), according to the federal police. In fact, “Mexico is among the tourist destinations most searched by pedophiles,” mainly due to .

Corruption flourishes in the real-estate market in Cancun. In Cancun, “more than 70 percent of the residential developments registered in the municipality operate with several irregularities because they did not complete all of the requirements for the municipal council .”

Cancun © Shutterstock

The accelerated growth in Cancun and Playa del Carmen detonated when the government incorporated ejidos into the urban terrain market, which produced uncontrollable urban problems, including rampant corruption, says M. Saul Vargas. Land invasion complicated the situation. Since the government failed to control these processes, “the settlers became the .”

Through focus groups, Araceli Nava observes that youth in Cancun experience violence in many aspects: suicides, family- and gender-based violence, juvenile delinquency and increases in homicides. “Youth perceive an accelerating violence in all aspects of socialization and social life. However, in the more marginalized sectors, this perception .” Some young people in the focus groups perceived that “Cancun’s future will look like Ciudad Juárez or Michoacán,” and others observed a clear alcohol problem in the city. Young women reiterated they have experienced sexual harassment either personally or through . Focus groups of women with arrest records have experienced gender-based violence in the home from early ages, mainly by .

Nava emphasizes that migration processes provoke in the floating population an inadequate formation of family and social networks, which can lead to depression or despair. Forty-five percent of suicides in Quintana Roo occur in Benito Juárez, and 86% of suicide victims died in a state of intoxication. Many of the victims are between 16 and 18 years old.

Infrastructure and adequate provision of basic services (like housing and clean water access in homes) to the locals did not accompany the rapid population growth in Cancun. Tourism development in Mexico has implicated displacement and property dispossession of local indigenous groups. One can speak of a de facto socioeconomic apartheid in . Authorities planned space in Cancun to separate the servants from the served. Cancun’s planners were about segregation, more so than in Acapulco or Puerto Vallarta.

Where’s the Link?

that the link between a city and global economy influences its development possibilities. In Mexico, export-oriented sectors—like global assembly and international tourism—mold patterns of female employment and gendered-jobs in the labor market. Literature has discussed the association between the maquila and femicide violence, but less so the link between tourism and gender-based based violence. Tourism culture reinforces commoditization of female characteristics and uses them—through advertising, for example—to invent an idea of paradise and the exotic to attract tourists. explain this well:

“Unless we understand the gendered complexities of tourism, and the power relations they involve, then we fail to recognize the reinforcement and construction of new power relations that are emerging out of tourism process. From the values and activities of the transnational tourist operator to the differential experiences of individuals participating as either hosts or guests, all parts of the tourism experience are influenced by our collective understanding of the social construction of gender.”

While the causal relation among tourism development, migration, gendered-jobs, frenzied urbanization and gendered-based violence is imprecise, it may be a worthy starting point toward understanding femicide violence in Quintana Roo, as well as in the dormitory cities of the state of Mexico, petroleum towns of Tabasco, and export-oriented centers of Mexico’s northern border.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: / / ��/��

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your����is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post What’s Behind Femicide in Mexico? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

An international jury of independent human rights experts and advocates has found , the United States and key countries of origin of migrants in transit jointly responsible for widespread human rights violations in Mexico, based on hearings held at New York University in September 2015. The jury has called for the suspension of US military and police aid to Mexico.

The��verdict of the is based on testimony and documentation regarding the cases of 43 disappeared students from Ayotzinapa, the San Fernando massacre and mass graves of August 2010 and April 2011; the Acteal massacre of December 1997; and the systematic violation of migrants’ rights in detention centers and along the migratory route.

The tribunal’s verdict also draws attention to attacks on journalists and freedom of expression, such as those faced by Anabel Hernández, who was a key expert witness for the tribunal regarding her investigation of the Ayotzinapa case.

The verdict also highlights the relationship between human rights violations in Mexico and those in the US in the context of racism, femicide and gender violence; the criminalization of youth; mass incarceration; detentions; deportations; and the abuse of force by police and military authorities on both sides of the border. All of this has been reinforced recently by the scapegoating of migrants and refugees in Europe and the US—and of Muslims and Arabs in particular—as inherent dangers to national security.

The hearings in September coincided with the first anniversary of the Ayotzinapa case, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto’s visit to New York for the United Nations General Assembly, and Pope Francis’ trip��to the US. Witnesses included spokespersons for immigrants’ rights organizations, such as the Movement for Justice in El Barrio, the Popular Assembly of Migrant Families or APOFAM, and the Northern Alliance of Ex Braceros. Father Alejandro Solalinde, founding director of Hermanos en el Camino, a migrant shelter, testified on corruption and abuses by Mexican authorities.

Witnesses also included representatives of human rights groups based in Chiapas and Oaxaca, and human rights defenders in the US-Mexico border region of Las Cruces, El Paso and Ciudad Júarez.

Scale of Violence

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights�� has����the “staggering” numbers of victims in Mexico (more than 150,000 dead and 26,000 disappeared since 2007), following an official visit there. Hussein underlined that, “While some of the violence can be laid at the door of the country’s powerful and ruthless organized crime groups, many enforced disappearances, acts of torture and extrajudicial killings are alleged to have been carried out by federal, state and municipal authorities, including the police and some segments of the army, either acting in their own interests or in collusion with organized criminal groups.”

The United Nations (UN) official emphasized that the scale of Mexico’s violence was especially notable, given that it is not a country normally classified with those characterized by armed conflicts such as Colombia or Syria.

The US has recently announced the to Mexico��through the Mérida Initiative, which includes $195 million currently appropriated, as part of over $2.5 billion in aid related to the drug war that has flowed since 2008.

© Shutterstock

The Leahy Law restricts US aid to regimes and military units deemed responsible for generalized recognized human rights standards. UN monitoring bodies such as the����and on��, and international human rights organizations such as����and��,��have expressed similar concerns.

The tribunal noted a large gap between Mexico’s proactive stance at the UN as a supposed champion of the rights of migrants and Indigenous peoples—two of the sectors most gravely affected by the violations documented in the sources cited above—and the reality as presented in testimony to the jury.

An increasing cascade of mass human rights crimes in Mexico has intensified concerns within the country and beyond. This includes the Aguas Blancas, Acteal and El Charco massacres in 1995, 1997 and 1998; the San Fernando massacre in 2010; and mass graves in 2011. It also includes several incidents since the Tlatlaya Massacre in June 2014; followed by the disappearance of 43 students from the Ayotzinapa Rural Teachers’ College (Guerrero) in September 2014; and in the first half of 2015, several atrocities between January and May with a total of over 100 victims in Apatzingán, Villa Purificación and Tanhuato.

Two additional incidents along similar lines took place in July in Calera, Zacatecas—seven farmworkers�� and found dead several days later in a mass grave—and in the town of San Miguel Ostula in the municipality of Aquila in Michoacán, where a 12-year-old child was killed and several others injured, when military personnel�� on community residents who had blocked local roads in protest of the arrest the day before of a leader of their Indigenous community police force.

The Drug War

All of these involve significant numbers of civilian victims and varying degrees of direct or indirect participation by federal, state and local police, together with the military as key actors, in contexts related to the country’s “drug war.” Several of these cases were presented before the tribunal.

There is a widespread tendency to describe Mexico’s “drug war” as a process of “Colombianization.” Today, Mexico’s battle against drugs is, in effect, a strategic, territorial and conceptual extension of Colombia’s in the 1980s and 1990s, through the Mérida Initiative. This arose within the framework of the national security component of NAFTA known as the. The initiative was originally referred to in US government circles as Plan Mexico, emphasizing its origins as the Mexican version of Plan Colombia

These trends provide a road map leading from the 1997 Acteal massacre in Chiapas, to the San Fernando massacre of migrants in transit in August 2010 and mass graves of April 2011, and most recently to the September 2014 case of the 43 disappeared students of Ayotzinapa. In each of these cases, the direct responsibility of paramilitary and narco-paramilitary forces for such crimes has been combined with decisive dimensions of state complicity.

The sheer number and seriousness of the human rights violations against migrants and other vulnerable sectors, such as the ones above, led the jury to find an overall pattern of state terror and state criminality.

The US, through its massive military and diplomatic aid for the government of Mexico, is enabling the continuation of egregious and systematic human rights violations.

*[A version of this article article first appeared in��.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:�� / /

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your����is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post Mexico and US Responsible for Human Rights Crisis appeared first on 51�Թ�.

On St. Bartholomew’s Day in 1572, Catholics slaughtered Huguenots in Paris. Soon, the killings spread across France. Historians continue to debate as to who instigated the massacre. Most hold Catherine de Medici, the Machiavellian Italian mother of the weak King Charles IX, responsible. More important is the way Catholic bigwigs reacted to the genocide. Pope Gregory XIII ordered the singing of as a special thanksgiving and struck a with the motto “Ugonottorum strages 1572,” which is Latin for slaughter of Huguenots. Even the dour Philip II of Spain “ for almost the only time on record.”

Religion still remains a good reason to kill people. This week, Nilay Chatterjee, an atheist of Hindu origin, was murdered by radical Islamists in . He was killed at home by men yelling “Allahu Akbar” (God is great, in Arabic) and using machetes. Ansar-ul-Islam, a local chapter of al-Qaeda, has claimed responsibility. Chatterjee’s murder follows that of three other bloggers: , and Ananta Bijoy Das. They were attacked in public places, while Chatterjee is the first blogger to be murdered��at home.

Like much of South Asia, Bangladesh is witnessing an in religious radicalism. The Bangladeshi government has failed to deliver basic services to its 160 million people, more than 90% of whom are Muslim. When Bangladesh became independent in 1971, it represented the failure of the idea of . The idea that all Muslims in South Asia were one nation stood discredited after the fair-skinned Punjabi, Sindhi and Pathan Pakistanis refused to accept their electoral defeat and unleashed a campaign of subjugation on Bengali Muslims. Murder, rape and torture were part of the toolkit of the Pakistani army and its Islamist collaborators. However, despite their best efforts, East Pakistan died and Bangladesh was born.

Ironically, Bangladesh is now turning toward radical Islam. The people have lost faith in their leaders. They have no hopes from the political process and are falling prey to charismatic clerics with a call. Flush with Saudi , these clerics are changing the gentle Islam of Bangladesh into a harsher, puritanical and unforgiving creed.

Earlier this year, Islamists submitted a list of 84 bloggers to the government, demanding that they be arrested and tried for blasphemy. To placate them, the government arrested and then bailed out bloggers. The targeted writers are fighting for secularism. They want a separation of religion and the state. They also want justice for war crimes committed by the former henchmen of Pakistan, who invariably tend to be Islamists. Unsurprisingly, Islamists want these bloggers dead and buried.

Even as bloggers are being killed in Bangladesh, journalists are being murdered in . Rubén Espinosa Becerril, an investigative photo journalist, died this week. The police found his body along with those of four women in an apartment. Espinosa was tortured before he was shot dead. According to Reporters Without Borders, he is the journalist to be murdered in Mexico since 2000.

Espinosa was the official photographer of the Veracruz governor in 2009. He criticized the violence against journalists in Veracruz and had to resign. Veracruz is one of the deadliest Mexican states for journalists and Espinosa had publicly accused Javier Duarte de Ochoa, the governor, of violating the freedom of the press. Espinosa had left Veracruz and moved to Mexico City because he feared for his life and had claimed that Duarte had threatened him.

Espinosa’s murder marks a new nadir even for Mexico. The country is ranked 148 out of 180 countries in the 2015 World Press Freedom . Both authorities and drug cartels get rid of inconvenient journalists when they fail to intimidate or buy them. It is safer to be a journalist in Iraq than in Mexico.

Citizens are not much better off. As per the Mexican government itself, drug-related killings occurred in the country from 2006 and 2011. The real number is much higher. Mexico lacks rule of law. Its institutions are decrepit and corruption is a way of life. Extreme economic inequality and poverty continues to blight the country. The elite tend to be descendants of Spanish conquistadores who live in palatial mansions with private bodyguards, while the hoi polloi inhabit another universe where beheadings, kidnappings and extortion are daily phenomena.

For 71 years ending only in 2000, Mexico was ruled by Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), and Mario Vargas Llosa, a Peruvian writer and Nobel laureate, rightly the PRI government “the perfect dictatorship.” Old dictatorial habits are still alive and well. Politicians enjoy dipping their hands in the till and expect deference from journalists. Media barons put pressure on journalists too. The culture of violence makes Mexico even more intimidating than Bangladesh.

The drug lords have added a sinister dimension to Mexican journalism. Once the British East India Company grew opium in India and exported it to China. Today, the likes of El Chapo, the notorious drug lord who recently escaped from jail, carry on the fine tradition of this legendary British company. People like El Chapo lead cartels that are locked in mortal combat for the control of the multibillion dollar narcotics business. These cartels bribe officials, police, military, judges and journalists to turn a Nelson’s eye as they carry on with their daily business. Those who do not play ball are packed off to meet their maker. Might is right in modern-day Mexico. Espinosa, the murdered journalist, lost his right to life because someone powerful decreed so.

Threats to fundamental freedoms are increasing in many other countries such as Egypt, Rwanda, Pakistan, Thailand and even the United States. Concentration of power—whether in a government, church, corporation or mafia boss—is a dangerous thing. In the days to come, citizens will have to fight hard to speak truth to power.

*[You can receive “The World This Week” directly in your inbox by subscribing to our mailing list. Simply visit����and enter your email address in the space provided. Meanwhile, please find below five of our finest articles for the week.]

[seperator style=”style1″]El Salvador’s Draconian Abortion Laws: A Miscarriage of Justice[/seperator]

© Shutterstock

As Latin American women continue to struggle for autonomy over their bodies, freeing the “Las 17” is critical.

“We are here to speak for them, to call for their release. When there is an injustice, silence is complicity,” said Father Roy Bourgeois, founder of School of the Americas Watch and a decades-long advocate for human rights in Latin America. He was referring to the 17 women, known as Las 17, who are currently serving 30-year sentences in prison for having miscarriages in El Salvador.

Father Bourgeois is one of the six human rights activists who staged a sit-in at the Salvadoran Embassy in Washington DC on April 24, calling for the release of the women. Four of the protesters were arrested by the Secret Service.

“It was an honor to go to the embassy and be arrested in solidarity with the women in El Salvador,” said Father Bourgeois. “Our greatest enemy in the United States is ignorance, so our job is to tell…

[seperator style=”style1″]Assange: The Untold Story of an Epic Struggle for Justice[/seperator]

© Shutterstock

As August 20 approaches, another chapter in the Julian Assange case is set to unfold. John Pilger explains.

The siege of Knightsbridge is both an emblem of gross injustice and a grueling farce. For three years, a police cordon around the Ecuadorean Embassy in London has served no purpose other than to flaunt the power of the state. It has cost £12 million. The quarry is an Australian charged with no crime, a refugee whose only security is the room given to him by a brave South American country. His “crime” is to have initiated a wave of truth-telling in an era of lies, cynicism and war.

The persecution of Julian Assange is about to flare again as it enters a dangerous stage. From August 20, three-quarters of the Swedish prosecutor’s case against Assange regarding sexual misconduct in 2010 will disappear as the statute of limitations expires. At the same time, Washington’s obsession with Assange and WikiLeaks has intensified. Indeed, it is vindictive American power…

[seperator style=”style1″]The Democratic Platform: Bernie and Hillary[/seperator]

© Shutterstock

Much work lies ahead for US presidential candidates to define American values and identify credible policies.

Any presidential candidate faces broad challenges in illuminating the harsh injustices of America and endorsing specific policies to fix them. Yet this is precisely what our leaders must do to create a nation of justice and opportunity.

We live in a nation of two tiers of experience: drinking bottled vs toxic tap water; eating organic vs dangerous food; speeding by on privatized roads vs sitting in traffic; accessing good vs failing schools; and escaping vs falling prey to a web of banking fraud and predatory corporate practices. Yet the ensconced economic elite makes or influences the rules.

The wealthy take for granted—as we all should—that they are relatively protected from global shocks, that their bodily sanctity will be protected, and that traditional government services like infrastructure and education will help their families thrive.

Below are some major challenges ahead that any US presidential candidate (or large nonprofit) should…

[seperator style=”style1″]Obama: Opponents of Iran Deal Are Warmongers[/seperator]

© Shutterstock

In a dig at Republicans who oppose the Iran Deal, Obama outlines the failures of the Iraq War.

Lame duck President Barack Obama pulls no punches. In his major address on August 5 over on the Iran deal, Obama let his critics have it.

I take it he has done the math and knows that the Republicans in the House and possibly the Senate will reject his Iran deal, but that they do not have the votes to override his veto of any restrictions they try to put on it. So he, unlike first-term Obama, has no illusions that he can reason with the GOP gangsters on the Hill.

Instead, he is already reaching over their heads to the American public and trying to convince the people that he is doing the right thing. So since he can’t likely persuade the GOP Congress, he is letting them know what he really thinks of them at last. Obama said: “Now, when I ran for president eight years ago…”

[seperator style=”style1″]Corbyn Fever Brings Winds of Change to Britain[/seperator]

Flickr

The Jeremy Corbyn bandwagon rolls on in Britain, but will there will be problems ahead?

There is a wind of change blowing in British politics. It is sweeping along with it a body of the population that has become bitterly disappointed with today’s politics and social realities. A few weeks ago, no one could have imagined that Member of Parliament (MP) Jeremy Corbyn would be the foremost candidate for Labour Party leader and opposition spokesman in the British Parliament. At his 42nd hustings in Birmingham on August 2, this author had the opportunity to listen to the man, appreciate his politics and observe the effects he had on an audience that was brimming to the rafters. The Corbyn momentum was very much in full flow.

Corbyn wants to create a “different and better world,” where “democratic representation” remains alive and well. He wants to fight against a dominant hegemonic discourse and against the acquiescence to the austerity measures that the current Labour Party adheres to unchallenged. He regards…

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: /

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your����is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post The World This Week: Threats to Freedom From Bangladesh to Mexico appeared first on 51�Թ�.

For years, countries in were ruled by military dictators. Finally, democracy is taking root. Now, these countries are facing the perpetual questions that every democracy has to confront. How does a democracy further public interest when there are contending interests jockeying for power? How do political parties find funding to fight elections? How do voters ensure that politicians who get elected do not line their pockets or further the interests of those who fund them? This week, three Latin American countries confronted these questions in all their starkness.

In , the long-running Petrobas scandal claimed its biggest scalp. Maria das Graças Foster, its chief executive, has resigned along with five other senior colleagues. Petrobas is a state-controlled oil giant that has long had a cozy nexus with politicians. The recent scandal pertains to claims that Petrobas asked construction companies to cough up billions of dollars. Some of this money found its way to political parties, including the Workers’ Party. Both President and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, her predecessor, belong to this party and have been excessively favorable to Petrobas. The question of propriety and public interest will play out messily in Brazil over the coming days.

In , it is President Enrique Peña Nieto himself who faces scrutiny. He, his wife and his finance minister are under pressure for allegedly deriving inappropriate if not illegal benefits from contractors. In November, a news website run by Carmen Aristegui, a leading Mexican journalist, that Grupo Higa had built a mansion for Peña Nieto and his wife, a former soap opera star. The mansion is valued at $7 million, a bit more than 1% of the $652 million contracts Grupo Higa won from 2005-11 when Peña Nieto was governor of Mexico State. It turns out that Finance Minister Luis Videgaray has also purchased a large weekend home from Grupo Higa for a suspiciously low price. People suspect that this is payback for the $3.7 billion high-speed rail contract that it recently won as part of a Chinese-led consortium.

Peña Nieto announced an investigation into the matter but complained when it was not met with applause. Pent up fury broke out against him, with #YaSeQueNoAplauden (I know that they don’t clap) becoming the trending topic on Twitter. Already, much of the country is furious with the government. In 2014, the police intercepted 43 student protesters who later went missing. It brought to a head widespread dissatisfaction with corruption, which many believe is the root cause of the lawlessness and violence afflicting Mexico. Mexicans see Peña Nieto as being unconcerned about corruption or violence that is blighting their lives. The truth is that state structures are rotten. The police are often worse than drug lords and courts simply do not function. Mexico is a young democracy that needs vigorous debate and institutions that work. Until 1997, Peña Nieto’s party ruled the country for 71 years. The fact that he is being hauled over the coals is a jolly good thing for Mexican democracy.

Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner and Felipe Calderon / Flickr

Latin America is known for melodramatic soap operas, but all of them pale in comparison to events unfolding in . In January, prosecutor Alberto Nisman was found dead. He was investigating the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. Nisman had accused President of covering up Iran’s role in the bombing. This week, it emerged that he had drafted a warrant for the arrest of Kirchner. This is Argentina and so the plot is thickening. A former spymaster wanted in connection with Nisman’s death has gone missing.

The truth in such matters is rarely clear and never simple. However, in most decent democracies, inconvenient prosecutors and grizzled spooks do not usually die or go missing. Argentina is blessed by the bounties of nature with fertile soil and had the tenth highest per capita income in 1913. Decades of profligate Perónist populism has decimated the country’s economy. Concentration of power under the Kirchner couple has broken the spirit of a country that has never been able to shrug off the shadow of caudillos ruling the roost. Democracy is not deep in Argentina, and the country will remain a cursed place until it develops institutions that function.

In the Middle East, the (IS) beheaded a Japanese journalist and burned alive a Jordanian fighter pilot. It released gruesome videos of both events. Some claim that these are brilliant if inhuman tactics by an insurgent group that lacks the men, money and equipment of state actors. By shocking and scaring its enemies, it saps their will and draws new recruits. Others hold that this gratuitous violence is a product of irrational fanaticism. It will lead to a backlash and cause the eventual downfall of IS. Already, the burning of the pilot has caused outrage. executed two suspects in retaliation. Its pilots unleashed air strikes on IS in both and . More Jordanians support the fight against IS. Yet many are scared and a long drawn out battle awaits.

In Africa, , a jihadist group that has sworn allegiance to IS, launched its first attack in Niger. This followed close on the heels of its slaughter of 70 people in a Cameroonian town. Boko Haram has killed thousands and displaced millions in the northeast of . This week, troops from Chad and Cameroon attacked Boko Haram bases with support from French jets. They claimed to have killed 250 militants, but it is clear that the group can punch back. Colonial state structures in West Africa seem to be crumbling in the face of millenarian ferocity, setting the stage for a protracted conflict.

In Europe, French President and German Chancellor are meeting Russian President as hostilities escalate in Ukraine. The pro-Russian rebel leader has announced that he would be expanding his militia to 100,000 men. It is an open secret that Russia is arming the rebels and testing new weapons. Moscow is increasing its military expenditure even as its economy is plummeting and its population is declining. Worryingly, it is increasing its nuclear arsenal. Russian fears of decline and dismemberment have been exacerbated by US actions. With US President sticking with his Asia Pivot policy, indebted and aging European states might find that a raging civil war to their east might be too hot to handle. Hence, Hollande and Merkel, who thoroughly dislike each other, have teamed up to visit Moscow in the hope that Putin can be persuaded to make peace.

You can receive “The World This Week” directly in your inbox. Please click����to subscribe. You can also sign up to our “Daily Brief” on the same��. Meanwhile, please find below five of our finest articles for the week.

[seperator style=”style1″]Iceland Will Not Join the European Union[/seperator]

© Shutterstock

An exclusive 51�Թ� interview with former Icelandic Foreign Minister Jon Baldvin Hannibalsson.

We usually don’t find it making the headlines, but Iceland is a nation that has struggled with the question of whether to join the European Union (EU) or not. It has historically played a significant role in regional developments and made important contributions to security and democracy in Europe.

Along with Haiti, Mauritius, Monaco, Panama and Vanuatu, Iceland is one of few countries that have no standing army but a limited military. It has been Iceland’s policy to not maintain an army since 1869, however, it is an active and founding member of NATO and joined the Atlantic coalition in 1949.

Iceland is an official candidate to join the EU, even though its former foreign minister, Jon Baldvin Hannibalsson, believes the Nordic country will not unite with the European alliance in the foreseeable future.��

[seperator style=”style1″]US Intervention in Ukraine Risks Further Conflict[/seperator]

© Shutterstock

The US is considering whether to arm the Ukrainian military, however, such a move could provoke further escalation of the conflict.

Despite numerous attempts to enforce the ceasefire agreement reached in Minsk in September 2014, the separatist conflict in eastern Ukraine is deteriorating. On January 23, Alexander Zakharchenko, leader of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic, rejected any prospect of a truce, and the separatists’ unwillingness to enter negotiations forced the abandonment of peace talks in Belarus a week later.

Kiev has echoed a separatist pledge to conduct a major recruitment drive, as separatist forces continue their assault on the city of Debaltseve. The city is strategically located between the separatist strongholds of Donetsk and Luhansk, and its fall would represent a major victory for the pro-Russia forces. The level of the separatists’ territorial ambitions was perhaps indicated by their brief attack on Mariupol on January 24, a city that lies on the road to Russian-controlled Crimea.

[seperator style=”style1″]West Beats the Drum for War, While Russia Plays Games in Ukraine[/seperator]

© Shutterstock

Arming pro-Kiev forces would be a huge mistake, argues Adam Swain.

In recent weeks, eastern Ukraine’s Russian-backed rebels have won several military victories on the battlefield in the Ukrainian Donbas. First, they captured the virtually destroyed Donetsk airport, then they pushed back the front lines, taking more territory. Now, they look set to secure Debaltseve, strategically located between the rebel-held cities of Donetsk and Luhansk.

The warfare has taken a terrible toll on Ukrainians on both sides of the “demarcation line.” More than 5,300 people have now been killed and over 1 million displaced. The Minsk Agreement of September 2014 has obviously failed.

It is clear the Russian-backed rebels want to fight Ukrainian forces to carve out a viable statelet in the east of the country. The prime minster of the Donetsk Peoples’ Republic (DNR), Aleksandr Zakharchenko, has for months declared his intention to retake cities overrun by Ukrainian forces in July 2015, such as Slavyansk and Kramatorsk.

[seperator style=”style1″]American Sniper and The Interview: Hollywood’s “Furriner” Problem[/seperator]

© Shutterstock

In films like American Sniper and The Interview, Americans are the heroes and “furriners” are the targets — an undifferentiated group of people so alien that they’re practically subhuman.

I was waiting to buy a ticket to see the new film American Sniper when the guy next to me provided a capsule review. It was a fantastic movie, he told me. The main character, Chris Kyle, was a great guy, and the film really showed what the war over there was like. “And the Taliban are evil,” he added. “They were just doing terrible things, using kids to throw bombs and stuff.”

The fellow told me that the movie had inspired him to look up more information about Chris Kyle on the Internet and learn about his tragic death. But despite this additional research, he still believed that Kyle was fighting against the Taliban. In fact, American Sniper is about Kyle’s four tours in Iraq.

[seperator style=”style1″]Three-Person IVF: Science Shows Ethical Questions Remain Unanswered[/seperator]

© Shutterstock

Britain could become a pioneer in helping those with mitochondrial disease.

Diseases caused by genetic mutations in the mitochondria — the powerhouses of the cell — can be disabling or even deadly. That is why mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT), otherwise also known as three-person IVF (in vitro fertilization), is being touted as a much-needed option for women carrying mitochondrial mutations.

Most genes in a cell are trapped in the nucleus, but a tiny fraction are present in the mitochondria, too. When eggs are fertilized, the genes in the nucleus of the egg combine with the genes in the nucleus of the sperm to create a new cell. However, mitochondrial genes do not undergo this mixing and are passed on from mother to child.

The idea behind three-person IVF is to find a way of replacing the mitochondrial genes in an affected egg cell before they are passed on to the child.

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your����is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a����or you could choose to be a��.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: ��/

The post The World This Week: Democracy is Messy appeared first on 51�Թ�.

As we enter 2014, the world continues to be as kaleidoscopic a swirl of activity as ever. At a time of emails, tweets and cell phones, there is a real risk of drowning in the noise. Our goal is to cut through the clutter and give you the information that matters. In other words, we want to help you make sense of the world.

Please keep an eye out for our best articles of 2013 and tell us how we can do better. We wish you all the best for the new year.

In the US, the National Security Agency (NSA) saga rolls on. A week after a judge damned NSA surveillance in a 68-page judgment, another has found it legal. New York District Judge William Pauley NSA surveillance as a "counter-punch" to al-Qaeda. He believes that the Fourth Amendment, which was discussed in the previous , is "fundamental, but not absolute."

The debate over NSA activities was long overdue and will now be carried out not only by the , the public and the Congress but also by the judiciary. Ultimately, the case will go to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, NSA surveillance might be rolled back on the recommendations of a presidential panel which has already stated that fundamental values such as the protection of privacy and civil liberties "."

Cuba continues to gradually open its economy. The government has eased restrictions on loans to private borrowers. Individuals and small businesses can now borrow smaller amounts. The minimum lending amount has been reduced from 3,000 pesos to 1,000 pesos. Borrowers will have longer to repay their loans and will be able to use their houses and jewelry as security. Last , Cuba lifted restrictions on citizens buying foreign-made cars.

In Mexico, five decapitated bodies were found in the western Michoacan state as drug cartels continue their turf wars that have inflicted incalculable damage to the country. Despite the federal government sending thousands of troops to the state, violence has continued. Mass graves were recently found and three local police officers were killed last week. The War on Drugs is simply not working anywhere and Mexico is no exception.

The Russian city of Volgograd has been hit by terrorist attacks at a train station and on a trolleybus. Over 30 people have died so far in both the attacks. Russia is gearing up for the 2014 Winter Olympics that will be held in Sochi. The city is close to the Caucasus region where resentment against Moscow has led to insurgency in Chechnya and Dagestan. The country has suffered terrorist attacks in the past but has largely managed to control both insurgency and terrorism.

In Ukraine, protests persist and tens of thousands have marched to the private Mezhygirya residence of President Viktor Yanukovych demanding his resignation. Protests have been continuing for more than a month. They seemed to be losing momentum, especially after Russian President Vladimir Putin promised Ukraine $15 billion and a sweet gas deal. However, Tetyana Chornovol, a prominent journalist, was attacked on Christmas provoking outrage. She had accused Yanukovych of corruption over the financing of his Mezhygirya residence.

In France, the ridiculous rate of 75% taxation for high earners has been approved by its highest court. The initial proposal to tax individuals was deemed unconstitutional. Therefore, President Francois Hollande’s government came up with a measure to make employers liable for the tax on all salaries that exceed €1 million.

After banning the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s government has now declared the Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization. It has launched a crackdown and arrested thousands of protesters. Protests, violence and repression are increasing in Egypt. A violent crackdown on universities, especially, the famous al-Azhar of Cairo, has led to deaths. The press is being persecuted too. In the latest incident, four Al Jazeera journalists have been arrested in Cairo.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is embroiled in a major corruption scandal involving juicy real estate deals. Three ministers have resigned but Erdogan has vowed to fight on. One of the departing ministers has called for Erdogan to quit as well.

In neighboring Syria, the government has been bombing the rebel-held parts of Aleppo killing more than 300 people, including 87 children. It has used barrel bombs – crude devices filled with explosives and fuel – that kill indiscriminately. Syria’s civil war has spilled into Lebanon. Mohamad Chatah, a former finance minister and prominent Sunni leader who was a prominent critic of Syria and Hezbollah, was killed along with 11 others. Any new civil war in Lebanon will be between Shi'as and Sunnis and mirror the brutal conflict in Syria.

Military forces loyal to South Sudan’s president, Salva Kiir of the Dinka tribe, have driven away a militia of largely Nuer youths that was advancing to the town of Bor. Barely two years after independence from Sudan, the specter of civil war is haunting South Sudan as 1,000 people have already died and over 100,000 have fled their homes. Conflict broke out after Kiir accused Riek Machar, his Nuer former vice president, of plotting a coup. Machar’s rebellion has spread, reaching the oil-producing Unity and Upper Nile states. Oil production has fallen by at least 45,000 barrels per day to 200,000 barrels daily. Because South Sudan has oil, more powerful nations have an interest to intervene.

In Central African Republic (CAR), a full-scale civil war is on. Two more peacekeepers were killed and citizens from Chad are being targeted because many rebel Seleka gunmen hail from that country. The battle has fused a tribal conflict with religious fervor thanks, in no small measure, to the work of missionaries.

In Niger, more than 20,000 people have marched to protest against President Mahamadou Issoufou's rule. Demonstrators are demanding an end to corruption and media censorship as well as an improvement in living standards.

Russia is extending its arc of influence in Central Asia. After Belarus and Uzbekistan met to discuss deeper economic cooperation, Uzbekistan joined the free trade zone of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which is a loose association of former Soviet republics.

In Afghanistan, campaigning for elections has begun. Qayum Karzai, President Hamid Karzai’s brother, is trailing in opinion polls to Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani Ahmedzai. The latter is leading in the polls because of support from Uzbek leader Rashid Dostum.

In Pakistan, charismatic cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan continues to keep the pressure on Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif over US drone strikes. Sharif had claimed that protests by Khan’s party were isolating Pakistan. In a fiery response, Khan accused Sharif of emulating the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and engaging in duplicity by covertly supporting US drone strikes. Most Pakistanis find drone strikes humiliating and support Khan on the issue.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited the Yasukuni shrine that honors many war criminals, infuriating not only China but also South Korea. Most of Asia found the visit deeply distasteful because the Japanese committed numerous war crimes such as killing civilians, torture and mass rape. The US was disappointed by this visit, which it felt would "exacerbate tensions" with neighbors.

In China, more than 500 municipal lawmakers in Hunan province have resigned following an election fraud scandal. Li Chongxi, a senior leader from Sichuan province and an aide to disgraced ex-Security Chief Zhou Yongkang, is being investigated as well.

Government frugality is unlikely to be matched by Chinese parents. The number of students going abroad has tripled in a decade. A degree from a top US school like Harvard or MIT is worth its weight in gold and often more prestigious than business success. China may be an economic superpower but it still suffers from an inferiority complex.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Image: Copyright © . All Rights Reserved

The post Make Sense of the World: Weekly Roundup appeared first on 51�Թ�.

As we enter 2014, the world continues to be as kaleidoscopic a swirl of activity as ever. At a time of emails, tweets and cell phones, there is a real risk of drowning in the noise. Our goal is to cut through the clutter and give you the information that matters. In other words, we want to help you make sense of the world.

Please keep an eye out for our best articles of 2013 and tell us how we can do better. We wish you all the best for the new year.

In the US, the National Security Agency (NSA) saga rolls on. A week after a judge damned NSA surveillance in a 68-page judgment, another has found it legal. New York District Judge William Pauley NSA surveillance as a “counter-punch” to al-Qaeda. He believes that the Fourth Amendment, which was discussed in the previous , is “fundamental, but not absolute.” He went on to say that restrictions on the Fourth Amendment are to be judged by their reasonableness. At a time when “people voluntarily surrender personal and seemingly-private information” to companies that profit out of them, the NSA’s action passes the test of reasonableness because it is subject to “executive and congressional oversight, as well as continual monitoring by a dedicated group of judges.”

The debate over NSA activities was long overdue and will now be carried out not only by the , the public and the Congress but also by the judiciary. Ultimately, the case will go to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, NSA surveillance might be rolled back on the recommendations of a presidential panel which has already stated that fundamental values such as the protection of privacy and civil liberties “.”

About 1.3 million people will stop receiving “emergency employment compensation” in the US from . This program was created on June 30, 2008, by former President George W. Bush as a response to the recession. Many Republicans argue that the government should not be spending $25 billion on the program, while the White House argues that the program is essential to keep millions of families out of poverty. At a time of continuing economic weakness and a harsh winter, it is doctrinaire for Republicans to cut a mere $25 billion when they have opposed other cuts, especially in the military. In a US budge of around $3.6 trillion, $25 billion amounts to a mere 0.69% of the total figure, which could have been cut later.

After being hit by a record fine of $13 billion by the Department of Justice, JP Morgan is in further trouble. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are investigating JP Morgan in an anti-bribery case. In 2006, JP Morgan began the “Sons and Daughters” program to hire friends and family of the ruling elite of China. They were subjected to less stringent standards and the suspicion is that they helped JP Morgan win lucrative business. Well-connected people around the world have long pushed their children into important positions. Nepotism has long been a universal problem. Legacy students are admitted to Ivy Leagues and the pudgy North Korean leader succeeded his father without having to do anything to prove himself. Details have yet to emerge, but either JP Morgan engaged in some quid pro quo with Chinese leaders or the SEC is locked in overreach.

Cuba continues to gradually open its economy. The government has eased restrictions on loans to private borrowers. Individuals and small businesses can now borrow smaller amounts. The minimum lending amount has been reduced from 3,000 pesos to 1,000 pesos. Borrowers will have longer to repay their loans and will be able to use their houses and jewelry as security. Last , Cuba lifted restrictions on citizens buying foreign-made cars. Two years ago when Raul Castro took over from his brother Fidel, he launched a series of measures to reform Cuban socialism. After years of communism, the Cuban economy is in dire straits. The reform process is inevitable and will eventually gather momentum. At some point, the Cuban economy will be in a similar position to Myanmar’s with investors rushing in to profit from untapped opportunities.

In Mexico, five decapitated bodies were found in the western Michoacan state as drug cartels continue their turf wars that have inflicted incalculable damage to the country. Despite the federal government sending thousands of troops to the state, violence has continued. Mass graves were recently found and three local police officers were killed last week. The War on Drugs is simply not working anywhere and Mexico is no exception. Troops are unlikely to succeed in a poor society where high payoffs draw a steady stream of recruits to gangs. Some towns have formed vigilante armed groups but they are unlikely to succeed in the long-run. Ultimately, there is no solution for Mexico except to try alternatives like Uruguay’s policy of legalization of the growing, sale and use of marijuana.

Southeast Brazil is suffering catastrophic floods following torrential rain. The states of Espirito Santo and Minas Gerais have reported their worst downpours in 90 years. More than 40 people have died and around 70,000 have been forced to flee from their homes. Bridges and roads have suffered extensive damage. In 2011, Brazil suffered its worst natural disaster when over 800 people died in floods. Clearly, weather patterns around the world are becoming more erratic and Brazil is going to be more vulnerable to disastrous floods by virtue of its geography.

In a freak event that will undoubtedly inspire Hollywood films, more than 60 people in the Argentinean city of Rosario were attacked by a swarm of piranha fish when they were cooling off in the Parana River.

El Salvador’s Chaparrastique volcano erupted. Thousands fled their homes for safety. Emergency shelters have been set up and people within three kilometers of the volcano are being evacuated. This is a coffee-producing region and the fear is that this year’s crop might be affected.

The Russian city of Volgograd has been hit by terrorist attacks at a train station and on a trolleybus. Over 30 people have died so far in both the attacks. Russia is gearing up for the 2014 Winter Olympics that will be held in Sochi. The city is close to the Caucasus region where resentment against Moscow has led to insurgency in Chechnya and Dagestan. The country has suffered terrorist attacks in the past but has largely managed to control both insurgency and terrorism. The attacks demonstrate that Russia’s policy of brutal repression has its limits and the country remains vulnerable to Islamist insurgent groups of the Caucasus. These groups are likely to target other Russian cities in the run-up to the Olympics to draw attention to the region. Moscow, on the other hand, will try to avoid any further attacks to avoid losing face.

In Ukraine, protests persist and tens of thousands have marched to the private Mezhygirya residence of President Viktor Yanukovych demanding his resignation. Protests have been continuing for more than a month. They seemed to be losing momentum, especially after Russian President Vladimir Putin promised Ukraine $15 billion and a sweet gas deal. However, Tetyana Chornovol, a prominent journalist, was attacked on Christmas provoking outrage. She had accused Yanukovych of corruption over the financing of his Mezhygirya residence. Naturally, Yanukovych denies being behind the attack on Chornovol. Initially, protests began because Yanukovych reneged on a deal with the European Union (EU) at the last minute. This attack epitomizes for many Ukrainians what they are fighting for. They are fighting to become a truly democratic state that respects fundamental freedoms and functions through a rule of law. Unfortunately for them, Yanukovych and his supporters from the eastern part of the county still feel more attracted to Russia. The strife in Ukraine is set to continue for some time to come.

In France, the ridiculous rate of 75% taxation for high earners has been approved by its highest court. The initial proposal to tax individuals was deemed unconstitutional. Therefore, President Francois Hollande’s government came up with a measure to make employers liable for the tax on all salaries that exceed €1 million. This measure will last two years and has met with howls of protest from businesses. Football clubs have gone on strike over it and noted actor Gerard Depardieu has taken Russian citizenship in protest. France is a country where the government already controls over 56% of the GDP. The private sector has been squeezed out. Red tape has driven French entrepreneurs abroad. The French economy needs to be freed from the dead hand of the state if it is to bloom again. Instead France is hurtling to disaster and will damage the rest of the eurozone in the process.

After banning the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s government has now declared the Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization. It has launched a crackdown and arrested thousands of protesters. Protests, violence and repression are increasing in Egypt. A violent crackdown on universities, especially, the famous al-Azhar of Cairo, has led to deaths. The press is being persecuted too. In the latest incident, four Al Jazeera journalists have been arrested in Cairo. General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi is expected to be the next president and there are only two possibilities facing Egypt. First, it descends into civil war just as Algeria did in the 1990s. Second, it becomes an authoritarian state where .

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is embroiled in a major corruption scandal involving juicy real estate deals. Three ministers have resigned but Erdogan has vowed to fight on. One of the departing ministers has called for Erdogan to quit as well. The government has changed rules for the police, appointed new police chiefs, and brought in new prosecutors. Journalists have been banned from visiting police stations. Erdogan is blaming outsiders, in particular the US, to drum up patriotic support. He is also blaming the Gulen movement that comprises of fellow Islamists and that used to be an ally. Just as during the Taksim protests over the summer, Erdogan is demonstrating his authoritarian streak. Turkey is facing a ��and a slowdown in the economy with the Turkish lira hitting a record low. This scandal will weaken both Erdogan and Turkey.

In neighboring Syria, the government has been bombing the rebel-held parts of Aleppo killing more than 300 people, including 87 children. It has used barrel bombs – crude devices filled with explosives and fuel – that kill indiscriminately. Syria’s civil war has spilled into Lebanon. Mohamad Chatah, a former finance minister and prominent Sunni leader who was a prominent critic of Syria and Hezbollah, was killed along with 11 others. Sunni Muslims are largely supporting their brethren in Syria while Shi’as back the Alawite Assad regime. Sectarianism is exacerbated by foreign influence. Saudi Arabia is already funding fighters in Syria with experience in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Libya and Iraq. It has just pledged $3 billion to the Lebanese army and French President Hollande, who was visiting Saudi Arabia, has agreed to supply weapons to its former colony. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Maronite Christian community fought Muslims, both Shi’a and Sunni. Any new civil war in Lebanon will be between Shi’as and Sunnis and mirror the brutal conflict in Syria.

In Iraq, the same Shi’a-Sunni conflict is already playing out. Ahmed al-Alwani, a Sunni lawmaker, was arrested in Anbar, a western province bordering Syria, after a clash that left his brother, sister and three bodyguards dead. Iraqi troops are engaged in a major operation in Anbar to flush out al-Qaeda militants that are gaining a foothold both in Anbar and neighboring Syria. The US is rushing Hellfire missiles and surveillance drones to help the Iraqi government. The speaker of the Iraqi parliament, Usama al-Nujaifi, a Sunni leader, dubbed the operation a “blatant violation” of Iraq’s constitution and called upon Sunnis to defend themselves, as violence in Iraq reached its worst levels since 2006-7.

Military forces loyal to South Sudan’s president, Salva Kiir of the Dinka tribe, have driven away a militia of largely Nuer youths that was advancing to the town of Bor. Barely two years after independence from Sudan, the specter of civil war is haunting South Sudan as 1,000 people have already died and over 100,000 have fled their homes. Conflict broke out after Kiir accused Riek Machar, his Nuer former vice president, of plotting a coup. Machar’s rebellion has spread, reaching the oil-producing Unity and Upper Nile states. Oil production has fallen by at least 45,000 barrels per day to 200,000 barrels daily. Because South Sudan has oil, more powerful nations have an interest to intervene. It also means that potential sanctions can be used as leverage. Unsurprisingly, pressure from the United Nations (UN) has led to Kiir agreeing to release eight of 11 senior politicians who have been accused of colluding with Machar to organize a coup. Plenty remains to be done but an end to conflict is a real possibility.

In Central African Republic (CAR), a full-scale civil war is on. Two more peacekeepers were killed and citizens from Chad are being targeted because many rebel Seleka gunmen hail from that country. The battle has fused a tribal conflict with religious fervor thanks, in no small measure, to the work of missionaries. The Christian-Muslim conflict is intensifying and 1,600 French troops and 4,000 African Union soldiers are clearly too few to bring peace. Since CAR has no oil and few resources, outside powers are likely to intervene. Conflict is raging even in the capital Bangui and, unlike South Sudan, there are no prospects of peace.

In Niger, more than 20,000 people have marched to protest against President Mahamadou Issoufou’s rule. Demonstrators are demanding an end to corruption and media censorship as well as an improvement in living standards. In one of the world’s poorest countries with a fast growing population, thirst, hunger, lack of education and little healthcare torment most of its inhabitants. Issoufou was elected in 2011 on the promise to change the situation but has failed so far. Although oil production is 16,500 barrels a day and Niger is the world’s fourth largest producer of uranium, government revenues remain low. Companies such as the French nuclear power firm Areva have been suspected of bribing the government, while opposition leader Seini Oumarou claims that the government facilitates an “organized looting” of Niger’s natural resources. The popular upsurge may lead to renegotiation of contracts with companies extracting natural resources.

In Tanzania, the killing of elephants has increased sharply. In November and December, 60 elephants were killed as compared to a mere two in October. The reason for the increase is the suspension of the anti-poaching operation in which security forces followed a shoot-to-kill policy. Appropriately termed Operation Terminate, this exercise led to the killing of 13 civilians and more than 1,000 arrests. After an inquiry by members of parliament, President Jakaya Kikwete has sacked many ministers and called a halt to the operation because of its human rights abuses. He is calling for international help to strengthen Tanzania’s wildlife department and ranger service. However, the massacre of elephants is likely to continue because of the huge demand for ivory from Asia.

Russia is extending its arc of influence in Central Asia. After Belarus and Uzbekistan met to discuss deeper economic cooperation, Uzbekistan joined the free trade zone of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which is a loose association of former Soviet republics. Other members of the CIS free trade zone are Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have signed the free trade deal and are expected to ratify the treaty.

In Afghanistan, campaigning for elections has begun. Qayum Karzai, President Hamid Karzai’s brother, is trailing in opinion polls to Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani Ahmedzai. The latter is leading in the polls because of support from Uzbek leader Rashid Dostum. Most of Ahmedzai’s supporters come from the north and east. Abdullah’s support comes from the north. This is good news for the US because these regions fear the Taliban takeover of the country and are in favor of the long delayed Bilateral Security Arrangement (BSA). Meanwhile, the US is ratcheting up pressure on Afghans to sign the BSA. Its ambassador said that if no US troops remain in Afghanistan, the Afghans could expect little aid. So far, $88 billion of aid has flowed into the country leading to 7 million more children attending school and a dramatic 80% reduction in maternal mortality during childbirth. If the BSA is not signed, US intelligence estimates that gains made by the Americans will be lost by 2017.

In Pakistan, charismatic cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan continues to keep the pressure on Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif over US drone strikes. Sharif had claimed that protests by Khan’s party were isolating Pakistan. In a fiery response, Khan accused Sharif of emulating the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and engaging in duplicity by covertly supporting US drone strikes. He claimed that both Sharif’s party and the PPP were worried not about isolation but about the safety of their assets stashed abroad. Khan has promised to continue blockading NATO supplies until US drone strikes end. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, the callow leader of PPP and a scion of the Bhutto dynasty, delivered a speech at Garhi Khuda Baksh where his mother and grandfather are buried. Zardari spoke Urdu in an English accent and was often shrieking at the top of his voice. He accused Khan of being a traitor who was in cahoots with the Taliban and who was mourning the recently assassinated Taliban leader, Hakimllah Mehsud. In a long rant, he railed against the late military dictator Zia-ul-Haq, the Punjabi establishment and Sharif. Zardari is just a nuisance but Khan is a real worry for Sharif. Most Pakistanis find drone strikes humiliating and support Khan on the issue.

In India, Arvind Kejriwal has become the youngest chief minister of Delhi. Leading the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), an anti-corruption outfit, he has made history by upsetting the ruling party run by the Nehru dynasty as well as the opposition party led by Narendra Modi, the chief minister of Gujarat. Kejriwal is known for his personal integrity and it is clear that voters in Delhi want a break from business as usual. Indians beat the Russians in keeping money in Swiss banks. With the rise of Kejriwal, this might start to change.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited the Yasukuni shrine that honors many war criminals, infuriating not only China but also South Korea. Most of Asia found the visit deeply distasteful because the Japanese committed numerous war crimes such as killing civilians, torture and mass rape. The US was disappointed by this visit, which it felt would “exacerbate tensions” with neighbors. Although Abe declared that he did not want to hurt Chinese and Korean feelings, the visit was gratuitous provocation and nationalism at its worst. It broke an unwritten agreement with China that serving Japanese leaders would not visit the shrine. Besides, Abe broke his own promise of not even considering a visit “as long as the issue remains a diplomatic problem.”

All countries in East Asia are careering down a dangerous path of provocative nationalism that can lead to disaster. China and South Korea have been flexing their muscles over islands in East China Sea. However, Japan’s actions are increasingly the most worrying of all. Its peacetime constitution has been rolled back, its military is being strengthened despite a still weak economy, and a draconian bill is curtailing transparency thereby endangering Japanese democracy. Under the new law, anyone revealing information about the Fukushima nuclear disaster could be locked up.

Abe has long been a nationalist. His grandfather, Nobusuke Kishi, was minister of industry for much of the war but was never charged and went on to serve as prime minister. Even more so than Britain and France, Japan has never confronted its past. Just as British students learn nothing about the massacres of colored people in other continents, Japanese students learn nothing about war crimes. Abe’s visit is not just insensitive, it seems to be deliberate. Abe might have wanted to provoke China so that he could use the backlash for his purposes. Abe aims to continue consolidating power and revising Japan’s post-war constitution. He believes that the constitution is a post-war national humiliation and wants to reclaim Japanese sovereignty. If Abe had his way, human rights and civil liberties would be put on the chopping block along with pacifism. Furthermore, Abe might be shoring up the support of his right-wing supporters by playing the tough guy.

In China, more than 500 municipal lawmakers in Hunan province have resigned following an election fraud scandal. Li Chongxi, a senior leader from Sichuan province and an aide to disgraced ex-Security Chief Zhou Yongkang, is being investigated as well. They have had to go because of President Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign that has pledged to target both “tigers and flies” – both high and low ranking officials. New government buildings and lavish banquets have been banned as Xi aims to start a new age of austerity to gain public trust and popularity.

Government frugality is unlikely to be matched by Chinese parents. The number of students going abroad has tripled in a decade. A degree from a top US school like Harvard or MIT is worth its weight in gold and often more prestigious than business success. China may be an economic superpower but it still suffers from an inferiority complex. Conversions to Christianity, the adulation of western education, consumption of luxury brands, and the desperation to work for a multinational reveal that this is still a country with a lot of growing up to do.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Image: Copyright © . All Rights Reserved

The post Make Sense of the World: Weekly Report appeared first on 51�Թ�.

One of the most frequently touted arguments of those opposing immigration reform in the US is that sanctioning any sort of guest-worker program would have a deleterious effect on native workers. But this ignores the fact that entire sections of the economy thrive on the cheap, unskilled labor provided by illegal immigrants; labor which from within the American workforce.

Passing through almost any town in any US state which borders Mexico, one cannot help but be struck by the extent to which these sections of the economy thrive on this foreign labor force. Restaurants, farms and construction sites are particularly replete with cheap labor from across the border. There are millions of workers across the US who have entered the country illegally, and each year, hundreds of thousands are deported, often along with children who were born in America. As such, recognizing the role played by these workers by bringing them into an official system of worker rights — including the possibility of attaining citizenship — is not just a moral imperative, but an economic one too.

Recent efforts to address the status of America’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants have failed, including as well as . But developments since the 2012 presidential election have indicated a newfound urgency among lawmakers to address the issue. President Barack Obama predicted the passage of a reform bill . On April 10, the Rally for Citizenship saw in cities across the US. And several business heavyweights, such as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, have called for an end to an immigration policy which is

The Role of Demographics

But what of the Republican Party, who are normally steadfastly opposed to any reform beyond a tightening of border controls? The current demographic reality of the US may finally bring such unified opposition to an end. There are around 24 million Hispanic Americans who are eligible to vote, and this already substantial bloc is in coming years.

In last year’s presidential election, Mitt Romney lost the Hispanic vote . There is thus an increasing belief among Republicans that if the party is to have any chance of regaining the presidency, it must start appealing to Hispanic voters. And with most of America’s illegal immigrants being of Hispanic origin, a softening of attitudes towards immigration reform is likely to be a key part of this appeal. It is therefore unsurprising that among the "Gang of Eight" responsible for the in June, is Florida senator, and potential Republican presidential nominee in 2016, Marco Rubio, himself the son of Cuban immigrants.

The Senate bill would allow undocumented workers who have been present in the country since before 2012 to apply for "temporary status," following the payment of a fine in recognition of their thus-far illegal activity. This status would enable them to work under a legitimate and taxed system — but without eligibility for state benefits — and would create a path first to permanent resident status, and then to citizenship.

As a necessary precondition before those with temporary status can apply for a Green Card, the government would have to meet key border security goals, including the stopping of 90 percent of illegal entries into the US.

To this end, billions of dollars would be spent securing the most porous sections of the border with Mexico. This is seen as a crucial element for this bill to succeed where others have failed. The bill would also allow for a greater number of skilled immigrants to remain in the US technology industry, while including provisions designed to assuage the fears of conservative lawmakers, such as preventing companies from hiring cheap foreign labor over US workers.

An Uncertain Path

Then why are some claiming that the prospects for real reform are already dead in the water? Simply enough, the demographic pressures which exist for those concerned with the Republicans’ presidential prospects may not apply to the same extent to House Republicans, . Speaker of the House John Boehner has unequivocally announced that the Senate bill will not progress through the House. Instead, by representatives, which will include yet further provisions on border security. At the very least, this will slow down the legislative process considerably.

Furthermore, there is clearly a delicate balance to be struck between providing a pathway for legal status, and ensuring that the numbers and categories of those joining the US labor force are suited to America’s economic future. Those opposed to reform, such as the Heritage Foundation, which is presided by leading Tea Party member Jim DeMint, insist that anything resembling a mass amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants to those who are working in the US legally.

Yet it is clear that President Obama views immigration reform as a key goal in his second term of office, and has said that he will take the lead if Congress fails to do so. Opposition to reform continues to erode, with even the conservative that new legislation would inflict further damage upon the economy. While obstinacy among House Republicans certainly poses a substantial obstacle, it is not an insurmountable one. By blocking reform of an issue which has received so much media prominence, Republican representatives would be handing a different kind of political victory to the Obama administration.

For President Obama, and for those Republicans who genuinely care about their party’s long-term presidential prospects, this issue is too important to be allowed to wither on the vine once more. Therefore, there is still good reason to hope that some form of reform will be brought into law. With a little luck, whatever shape reform ultimately takes will reflect the fact that the US is a country founded by immigrants, in which foreign workers continue to play a vital role. 

*[This article was based on an earlier version published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Image: Copyright ©     . All Rights Reserved

The post US Immigration Reform: A Mirage on the Horizon? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Immigrant women face numerous barriers when it comes to escaping, reporting, and getting help when they face domestic violence, sexual assault, or human trafficking. In addition to the fears common to many women — that no one will believe them, that they were somehow to blame, that they will be economically vulnerable or even separated from their children — immigrant women also face the fear of deportation that comes with the decision to contact or cooperate with law enforcement.

Immigration relief is a key to freedom for survivors of these crimes. In 1994, Congress recognized this and created the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which among other things enabled abused immigrant spouses to self-petition for their own legal immigration status, thus eliminating their dependence on an abusive spouse to remain in the United States. In 2000, Congress again recognized the need to provide immigration relief for victims of serious crimes, including rape and human trafficking. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) established the “T” visa and the “U” visa, which allow survivors to receive immigration relief and eventually a green card if they cooperate with law enforcement and meet other legal parameters.

The U visa is a temporary nonimmigrant status that is available to victims of crimes that include rape, stalking, torture, trafficking, kidnapping, and involuntary servitude. There is currently an annual cap of 10,000 for these visas, and sadly we are reaching this cap every year, leaving approximately 1,200-1,300 people to wait precariously in limbo for the next window to apply.

U visas are critical for women. At my organization and at many others, individuals call or come in who have been severely exploited by their employers or defrauded by foreign labor contractors after spending their life savings or going into devastating debt, but their circumstances do not meet the high standard for proving human trafficking. If what they went through isn’t classified as a qualifying crime for a U visa, we have to turn them away and refer them to employment justice organizations, most of whom are strapped for resources and often do not have social service components.

The Senate bill would help exploited women by not only increasing the cap on U visas so that no one is left waiting, but also by adding serious violations that happen in the workplace, like exploitation and retaliation, to the list of crimes and violations for which a woman may be eligible for relief. This not only provides the security she needs to escape the situation and report the crime, it also sends a message to abusive employers and recruiters that these practices have been noted and are taken seriously by the US government.

After an immigrant survivor of violence has left the abusive situation, whether it is domestic violence in the home or human trafficking at her workplace, the role of the social and legal service providers is to apply for immigration relief, and help her find emotional and financial stability while she recovers. However, one serious obstacle that survivors frequently face is the inability to work legally in the United States while their visa application is pending. Sometimes the lack of financial resources, especially for women who left their home countries to provide for families left behind, is a factor in choosing to remain and suffer in abusive relationships.

Once a survivor is granted immigration relief and “certified” as a victim, she can obtain an employment authorization document (EAD). Even if she is granted a temporary status known as “continued presence” by an investigating law enforcement officer while her case is being investigated, she could be eligible for certification and an EAD.

One of our clients at my organization had six children, four of whom were in school. The other two were struggling to care for them while my client came to the United States to work as a nanny and send money home. Soon after arriving, she discovered that she had been tricked and was working long, difficult hours with no pay and was unable to leave the home. We helped her escape, and could offer her enough assistance to cover her most basic needs, but we didn’t have the funding to continue the remittances she had been sending home to keep her children fed, clothed, and schooled. Without employment authorization, she had to make a choice: take a risky black-market nanny job, or have her family suffer while she waited for a year for her visa.

The problem is not just on paper, but also in practice. Some law enforcement agents are reluctant (or refuse) to apply for immigration relief for victims, a critical failure that puts people in harm’s way and impedes the survivor’s ability to complete a visa application. But sometimes even completed T or U visa applications can take up to a year for DHS to process. The inability to work legally leaves survivors oftentimes unable to provide fully for themselves and their families, potentially putting them at risk for re-exploitation, or forcing them to return to an abusive partner.

While law enforcement agents dragging their feet on applications is an issue of long-term training, the hardship incurred by processing times was addressed in the bill. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced an amendment, now incorporated into the legislation, which would allow survivors to gain work authorization at least within six months after submitting an application for VAWA self-petitions, U visas, or T visas.

Also, the Senate bill now contains provisions clarifying that domestic violence survivors can have access to public or assisted housing programs when they qualify for certain VAWA remedies. As survivors often have to choose between remaining with an abuser or facing homelessness, the Senate bill offers critical protections for immigrant survivors fleeing violence.

Addressing Women’s Issues in Immigration Detention

Women detained in immigration facilities are at high risk for sexual abuse, and often do not have adequate access to medical care, in particular gynecological care, or even proper hygiene.

An that exposed a horrific pattern of sexual abuse in detention centers outlined the story of a young woman named Raquel, who began receiving death threats after her husband was murdered and she tried to investigate, forcing her to flee to the United States for safety. She was swept up by border control officers and detained in a facility in Texas. When an investigating officer determined that she had a credible case to pursue asylum, she was released on bond. It was during her transport to the airport that she was assaulted.

“[The driver]… motioned for me to lay down on my back. I refused. When he saw that I wasn’t going to cooperate, he went to the back of the van. He pushed my things off the seat in the cage inside the van and gestured for me to get back in. I complied. He followed me into the van. I told him I would report him if he continued to touch me and he pushed me into the van. I was crying and I thought it was the end of my life. I thought he was going to kill me. I thought I should have stayed in my home country if my life was going to end like this because at least I would have had more time with my children. He got in the cage with me and started unzipping his pants and pulling off my clothes. He exposed himself to me. He was angry that I would not take off my clothes. I kept yelling, saying that if he didn’t stop I would tell someone. He finally stopped, got back in the front of the van, and drove fast to the airport. When we got to the airport he opened the door and the cage. I jumped out and I started running. I ran into the airport and I was still crying.”

The report from ACLU continues: “While centers in Texas resulted in the largest number of allegations, sexual abuse allegations have come from nearly every state that houses an immigration detention center.” Since this case and many others were brought to national attention by the ACLU and the Women’s Refugee Commission, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has begun making progress in addressing the problems, finding and helping the victims, and requiring detention facilities to abide by new national standards for care of detainees.

However, advocates for immigrant women insist that these are only steps. What is needed is a new frame on detention as a whole: Can we prioritize alternatives to detention given the high risk of assault and mistreatment? Are there real safeguards in place to prevent victims of crime from being detained and thus re-victimized? Are there real safeguards in place to prevent assaults? Is there effective, and mandatory, training for officers and facility employees about how to respond to sexual assault?

For its part, the Senate bill added a measure to ensure that female officers are continuously present during transfer and transport of female detainees, and restricts enforcement actions in sensitive areas like schools, churches, and domestic violence shelters like those of my colleagues from Georgia. In addition to the important protections around children and parents put through by Senator Franken, the Senate bill added language about promoting alternatives to detention restrictions around solitary confinement, and protections for people with mental illnesses. While these will go a long way to solving some of the biggest crises that families face in enforcement, the last minute “border surge” amendment that was added to the bill will certainly be a step backward on the path to a more humane, and less militarized, US policy around immigration.

Where We Go From Here

The current comprehensive immigration reform effort has better reflected the needs of women and families than any previous attempt, but there is a lot of room for progress.

Sadly, advocates expect that when the conservative House takes up the charge, much of the hard-won protections will be scrapped or made contingent on impossible triggers for border security. Even in the Senate bill, the final passage hinged on the last-minute “Corker-Hoeven amendment” which was essentially a replacement of the original bill, but with drastically militarized border and enforcement measures, which will continue to put families in danger. This kind of compromise occurring already in the Senate does not bode well for the future of the final legislation when it comes to the lives of women and families.

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Image: Copyright © . All Rights Reserved

The post What Immigration Reform Means for Women (Part 2/2) appeared first on 51�Թ�.

On June 24, the US Senate agreed to an important border security amendment to the proposed immigration reform bill, and ratified the legislation the following Thursday with a vote count of 68 to 32. The bill will now move on to the House of Representatives before it can get to President Barack Obama’s desk.

Senate Bill 744, or the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, aims to double the funding and manpower that will go to monitoring the US-Mexico border. All of this also would include a new 700-mile stretch of physical border fencing that will spike its budget even higher. Border security is a big issue for Republicans and their constituents, as they see the proposed immigration bill as tantamount to all out amnesty for individuals perceived as living in the United States “illegally.”  

The Vote

The vote to go ahead on a border security amendment to the proposed immigration bill is significant in two ways.

Firstly, the passage of the immigration bill into law will depend on a majority of Republicans in Congress voting yes. This seems like an unrealistic situation at the moment. Most House Republicans say they want to see the dividing wall along the US-Mexico border extended, and want increased surveillance along at the border via increased manpower and a state of the art biometrics system. Suggestions which opponents of the new security amendment describe as a concerted effort to fully militarize the border and further privatize the nation’s security.

Secondly, concerns of the border security amendment have grown exponentially as estimates of its potential effects become known. Migrant advocacy groups worry a fully militarized border will sharply increase deaths as the hazards of border crossing become nearly inescapable. More boots on the ground will surely bring more abuse of power, corruption, unaccountability, and ultimately death. Concerns of environmental damage have also been expressed at the proposed 700-mile fence as border towns begin to think about the construction, noise, pollution, and what all these encroachments of their cities might mean.

In addition to border security, the measure phases in a mandatory program for employers to verify the legal status of potential workers, and calls for a separate program to track the comings and goings of foreigners at the nation's seaports and airports.

This part of the measure will leave any incoming migrant with zero prospects of employment, further precipitating their agitated situations. Taking into consideration that the decade length of provisional status offered in the proposed immigration legislation requires paying all back taxes, hefty fees and fines, and no lapses of employment greater than 60 days during the ten years before any type of application can even begin to be processed, the anguish of United States’ undocumented communities is palpable.

Christmas Deadline

All of this may end up being a backstory and a moot point at year’s end. Obama has publicly stated that he wants to see an immigration reform bill on his desk before Christmas. House Speaker John Boehner came out recently with his own declaration; stating he will not send a bill to the floor without a clear majority of the 234 Republicans.

Therefore, passing the immigration bill into law is anything but certain. We will see what happens when the House begins debate on the bill sometime in July. What is certain, however, is that if this current version of immigration legislation becomes law, it will open up a whole can of proverbial worms for a region of the country which is already under immense duress.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Image: Copyright © . All Rights Reserved

The post A Rumble at the Border appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Emerging Society of Victims

“Draw the scaffolding so that the last step of the ladder comes in clearly. The criminal must be just stepping onto it, his face as white as note-paper. The priest is holding a cross to his blue lips, and the criminal kisses it, and knows and sees and understands everything. The cross and the head — there’s your picture; the priest and the executioner, with his two assistants, and a few heads and eyes below. Those might come in as subordinate accessories, a sort of mist. There`s a picture for you.”

—Fydor Dostoevsky, The Idiot

To the chagrin of the demigods of humanitarian law, Dostoevsky is always showing us that the act of justice makes the world more obscure, rather than (in that all-encompassing term so popular in civil society) making justice more “transparent.” Indeed, for Dostoevsky, reconciliation can prove far more dangerous than revenge. In this scene from The Idiot, that danger is captured by the criminals not only kissing the cross (as is mentioned in the passage above), but by kissing (as is said elsewhere) “greedily,” as though his aim was to devour the cross. Reconciliation is profanation when a corrupt criminal, still hungry for power up until his last breath, manages it. And precisely this danger of “eating” corruption under the pretext of reconciliation is the danger now facing Mexico.

A new law, directed particularly towards victims of the “Calderon War” on drugs that by some estimates has cost 130,000 lives since 2006, is a law that also promises to cover all violations of human rights in Mexico and is on the brink of coming into effect. El Ley General de las Victimas, or the General Law of Victims, was passed late last month by the legislature and signed by President Peña Nieto into law, after a similar law had been vetoed by Calderon in 2011. The law promises new tribunals controlled by human rights and civil society activists that would decide monetary retribution for victims (both ones whose cases are related to the drug war and not), as well as offering psychological services, educational services, and guarantees for the investigation of crimes. The new law even purports to deal with the cases of “potential victims” whose lives are under threat.

In short, Mexico may be on the verge of becoming a society of self-described victims. In Columbia, a more limited victims’ law (on which Mexico’s is partly based) has been wrapped up by some in slogans unabashedly and eagerly promising a society of victims: “One needs to view the victims as the builders of peace and as the builders of society,” declares Camillo Sanchez of Columbia’s Centro de Estudios de Justicia (Center for Legal Studies). Mexico seems to be heeding similar calls from its own activists and legal culture. But what of that worrying scene of Dostoevsky, in which reconciliation threatens, below all the grand rhetoric, to give more power and knowledge still to the criminals?

In the context of Argentina’s struggles with victims’ laws seeking to give overdue justice to victims of that nation’s “dirty war” against its citizens in the 1980s, the threat of aiding corruption has been far more sharply pointed out than is the case in Mexico today. The prominent Argentine victims’ organization, Madres de Plaza de Mayo, has famously refused to “eat corruption.” “Would you be able to bring a morsel to your mouth,” one member of the organization asks, “knowing that you bought it with the money they gave you because they killed your child?…The life of our children has no price.” In the end, the Madres famously rejected financial reconciliation offered by the Argentine government.

In Mexico, on the contrary, it has been victims’ organizations themselves — in particular the Movimiento por la Paz con Justicia y Dignidad (Movement for Peace with Justice and Dignity) — which have spearheaded the law and been generally lauded in domestic and international press for their efforts.

The Society Behind the Civil

The cheers still echoing through civil society circles in Mexico would die down if a very strange fact were confronted. Namely, it is clear that in Mexico, the very complicity of families and local police (as well as some federal politicians) with the cartels is the social condition on which the possibility of this victims’ law rests. The notion that “local justice” (murders and disappearances that spurred the law are often crimes committed among formerly complicit or mutually-known parties) can be achieved by federal and state compensation is more than deceptive, it is calculated. If the society for which civil society tries to speak were truly in simple opposition to the cartels, the call would be for an end to impunity, not for a listing and reimbursement of victims; the legislation would be for citizen-monitoring and participation in investigations, rather than in further rounds of empty guarantees for justice (guarantees now to be sweetened with monetary pay-offs). Instead, citizen paramilitary groups in Oaxaca and Michoacán purporting to protect neighborhoods against criminals and protesters against police have been unsurprisingly condemned by the federal government as illegal nuances.

Calderon’s failed war on drugs was something approaching simple opposition to the cartels. That opposition produced the unmeasured violence that the present victims’ law must try to make sense out of — to make compensation in pesos and centavos (cents) as well. The victims’ law thus builds up a new zone of complicity, in which the power of the cartels is affirmed by the government taking responsibility for crimes attributable to anyone and no one (the cartels, the army, governmental policy, US drug law enforcement, families, and society).

Here, is a threatened repetition in Mexico of the very politics that the Madres de Plaza de Mayo has fought against in Argentina. In Argentina, government payoffs of victims arrived along with pardons of politicians already indicted for war crimes, and the emergence of new laws granting political immunity to soldiers who had been involved in crimes against Argentine citizens. The Madres declared: “We don’t judge our detained-disappeared children, nor do we ask for their freedom. We want to be told where they are, what they are accused of, and ask that they be judged according to legal norms with the legitimate right of defense if they have committed any crimes.”

This is another kind of stark opposition to corruption, distinct from the violent opposition of Calderon’s government; yet in Mexico, Calderon’s failure may have cast too large a shadow for civil society to face this difference. There are few similar calls, for instance, coming from leaders of the current Mexican victims’ movements. And even when Mexican critics speak out, the pressure to comply is evident in their muffled rhetoric.

In a New York Times article not directly concerned with the victims’ law, but concerning the related controversial construction of a victims memorial in Mexico City, we find a brief quote from Viridiana Rios, a Mexican researcher at Harvard University and former adviser to the Mexican Interior Ministry “We are fighting a war against an enemy we don’t know,” says Rios, and “we need to answer to the public. There are claims many of the victims are innocent. I would like to know if that is the case.” This is a coy manner of saying, of course, that it is the case — that many victims are not innocent. The delicacy, bordering on euphemism, with which Rios forwards his criticism suggests how dangerous the national situation has become with the new law.

While Calderon’s rhetoric ushered in a tide of bloodshed, the dawning political “society of victims” in Mexico is making language itself the first victim, plunging the crimes into an emerging bureaucracy. The government is scheduled to heavily pay (up to one million pesos per victim, one version of the law promises) for the right to manage public pressure concerning revelations of how deep the cartels and other sectors of Mexican society, such as local families and local police, are imbricated. As the Madres saw quite clearly in their own case, this amounts to bribery. In the Mexican case, it may more precisely become a legally mandated system of reciprocal blackmailing in which criminal investigations do not improve on the oft-cited track record of Mexican justice that�� currently sentences culprits in 4 percent of reported murders.

The absurdity of it all hit a high note in a rare critical article in the prominent political magazine El Proceso. The article quotes at length lawyer, Julio Hernández Barros, who was involved in the drafting of the new victims’ law. While a proponent of the law, Barros poses a question for himself that he is more than ill prepared to answer. Playing “devil’s advocate,” as the article puts it, Barros asks if “relatives of El Chapo (the notorious cartel leader) might seek compensation if he is killed by the army?” Barros affirms the possibility, offering a “victim of society” defense: “Many times they are victims of the society in which they happened to be born or live. I could not blame El Ponchis (for instance), who is fourteen, because the first culprit is your family, then your community, and thirdly the State.” The strangeness of this explanation should be obvious.

If Mexicans really thought like Barros, wouldn’t we be seeing families reimbursing the state for their children’s crimes, rather than the reverse? Barros’ logic, and the general structure of blackmail on which the new victims’ law is erected, relies on a common fantasy: It is the fantasy of families, friends, and spouses who “didn’t know” about the illicit actions of their loved ones, even among the gossip of the neighbors about new clothes, or new cars, or new friends and habits. We are not so far, then, from the psychological conundrum made famous by Hitler’s Third Reich, in which the question arises: “how much did you know?” If Mexico becomes a society of victims, in which communities acknowledge crimes only after funerals, or after trials without defendants, the criminals gain.

Dostoevsky’s narrator paints, in his verbal portrait of the criminal facing execution and justice, the aura of the criminal’s power: “[He]knows and sees and understands everything.” He tastes reconciliation in the kissing of the cross with the mouth of a trapped animal, yet feels in the vengeance of the state that looms over him (the guillotine, in this case) the bubbling of his own sovereign rule, the complicity in evil of a society that the criminal is said to fancy an�� “accessory,” like a crown.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Image: Copyright © . All Rights Reserved

The post The New General Victims’ Law in Mexico: Stories and Silences appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Peña Nieto`s Three Opening Gambits

Mexican President-Elect Enrique Peña Nieto seems to have already prepared three term-opening political gambits. They all hinge on a re-negotiation of corruption in Mexico. The combined success of this opening flurry may well determine the overall success of the new regime. If these initial efforts prove successful, we will presumably see a “stronger” Mexico in the international arena. He may succeed in managing the nation’s “corruption” in a much more clever manner than the nation`s current president. Yet, Peña Nieto is no magician able to make corruption simply disappear; rather, he will merely reshuffle its focus, similar to a political broom sweeping dirt under the rug.

His first move calls for government transparency: new laws emphasizing tighter oversight of local government would be paired with expanded access to public information. South Africa offers a clear example of these phenomena: their freedom of information laws spurred the creation of publically accessible legal institutions that track documents dating all the way from the apartheid era. South African journalists have also used these laws, with guidance from freedom of information institutions, in order to expose high level corruption in the ruling government. But, Peña Nieto must beware of endangering his own party or his freedom of information gambit may become a crippling shot in the foot of the new government.

Second, Peña Nieto has made gestures toward joining the recent policy shift among Latin American nations in forwarding debate on the legalization of narcotics. In this second piece of policy, the language of “market solutions” appeals to another sense of open government that compliments the incoming government`s freedom of information policy. As with the new freedom of information��policy, however, there is a strong danger that this “open” narcotics policy may cause a backlash from Mexican society wary of outright legalization. Will the virtue of “open markets” and the vice of overt alliance-making with cartels meet face to face in a divisive public debate over the heart and soul of the nation?

Third, substantial plans to further militarize Mexican cities, chiefly with a new paramilitary organization of 40,000 “national gendarmerie,” will be combined with Peña Nieto´s promise to shift military efforts away from targeting cartel leaders and toward the essential, but less glorious task of violent crime prevention.

Yet, there is cause for concern that the administration`s transparency policy focused on local security oversight would divert public attention away from high-level political corruption. Corruption is a political challenge internationally, offering opportunities and pitfalls that typically favor elite politicians – although the South African case shows how these efforts to gain the good will of civil society can backfire. The cases of Nigeria and eastern Europe, likewise, offer lessons that Peña Nieto`s government would only ignore at its own political peril.

The Public Perception of Domestic Corruption

Government policy and societal norms work together to deflect responsibility for corruption away from politicians. Gordon Daniel Smith describes how “Nigerians see the repercussions of corruption in everyday life as both caused by and contributing to the demise of morality. The perception that corruption is rooted in social amorality obscures the political and economic underpinnings of inequality, while paradoxically creating hope.”�� Rather than blame the government official for corruption, Nigerians would more likely lament the degradation of solid moral principles in society.

Dirk Tanzler’s writing on European corruption echoes Smith`s conclusion in the Nigerian case.�� He claims that the eastern European underclasses tend to defend their own acts of petty corruption by means of cynicism.�� Many find economic conditions so limiting and grand corruption so rampant that their own abuse of political power for personal gain becomes an act of retribution against a failed system and its amoral elites. Corruption is justified by the illegitimacy of public leaders.�� Tanzler’s description goes further than Smith’s, arguing that amorality in society both perpetuates and excuses corruption simultaneously. Since it both describes the curse and is capable in itself of distracting public attention away from the roots of the problem, it thus further deepens the scourge of corruption.

We hear the same logic of Tänzler`s eastern European underclass when Morris writes that in Mexico, “not only does corruption constitute a mechanism of everyday survival as often noted, but it also becomes a way to get ahead and exploit the system’s weaknesses for personal gain. Hence, while the public may condemn corruption, they nonetheless are quick to engage in it when the course lays open to them, justifying their actions by pointing to the fact that public officials and others engage in similar conduct.”

Avoiding Public Perceptions of Corruption through an Alliance with the Middle Class

One goal of Peña Nieto`s move to gain the favor of civil society is to make the public drama of corruption a local affair. As a population relatively unexposed to narco-violence, the middle class`s investment in the new government`s policy would mean “seeing no evil” in a country where evil is still a social reality. Insulated from the direct effects of government abuse, the middle class`s allegiance to Peña Nieto`s social policies would, ironically, further alienate it from the manufacturing and agricultural classes, which risk losing wages and subsidies at the enrichment of the federal government.�� If the middle class accepts Peña Nieto’s pledge against petty corruption as legitimate, it may in fact be endorsing corruption on a much larger scale.

Still, Peña Nieto cannot yet count on middle class support for his initial agenda. Police corruption limits the ability of the middle class to invest in anti-corruption politics without tainting itself. The legalization of narcotics might allow the entrance of “another” middle class whose “corrupt lifestyles” affront traditional values of a Catholic and family-centered society. In comparing public toleration of open narcotics use in Mexico to public toleration of open homosexuality, we find that both habits are labeled as “unnatural” by conservative Mexican politicians. A poll by the newspaper El Universal, showed that only half of the urbanites polled supported a measure in 2009 to legalize same-sex marriage in Mexico City. It should be noted that in the case of gay marriage, the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) did not necessarily encourage public debate. Even in rural Mexican communities where narcotics-centered corruption is more often tolerated and homosexuality less often, the weight of further surveillance by the new national gendarmerie may backfire. If the potential government crackdown on local government corruption aggravates fragile rural communities, the new government may lose some rural supporters without gaining the loyalty of the middle class.

Civil society might profit politically and economically from a crackdown on local corruption. But for the middle class, such profits can only be relative. If the new national gendarmerie is embraced, even temporarily, as a “good neighbor” to civil society, then anti-corruption reform may be viewed as legitimate by an optimistic middle class. But who is to say that such optimism would itself be legitimate, and not simply the side effect of a middle class shedding its guilty successes in a country racked with injustice, through political tinkering? In either case, a successful alliance with Mexican civil society at the start of his term may just make or break the incoming Peña Nieto regime.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Refocusing the Public’s Perception of Corruption appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The story is all too familiar.  A conservative president launches a disastrous war against terrorism, killing tens of thousands of combatants and civilians.  After his term, his party is swiftly swept out of office, by a charismatic centre-left junior politician.  Beyond security, the new president faces problems in unemployment and economic growth, but most of all a polarized opposition struggling to recover from defeat.

This is not the saga of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, but the tale of Mexico’s President, Felipe Calderon and President-elect Enrique Peña Nieto.  Calderon was the first leader in Mexico’s history to employ the military against the country’s monolithic drug trafficking organizations.  The result has killed well over 60,000 people, a number that some expect will double over the next few years without drastic changes in security policy.  Rising insecurity combined with a stagnate economy drove voters away from the conservative Nation Action Party (PAN) and ushered in the election of Peña Nieto, the 46-year-old one-term governor of Mexico’s Federal District who promises to rethink Mexico’s policies in hopes of a brighter future.

But there’s a twist from the US version.  Mexico’s democracy is a three party system and the formidable opposition to the new president comes from the left.  Moreover, where president Obama’s moderate agenda in the face of grave national crises was met with strong conservative opposition, the agenda of Peña Nieto is likely to receive support.  If he is able to show effective leadership, his six-year term may just be one of the most productive in recent history.

Mexico’s Democracy

Peña Nieto’s party, the Revolutionary Institutional Party (PRI) ruled Mexico for 71 years before they were defeated in 2000 by Vicente Fox of the PAN.  Though no longer in the presidency, the PRI all but blocked the agenda of the new president who failed to gain the support of the leftist Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD), which lay at the opposite end of the political spectrum.

Though the next president, Felipe Calderon was more successful at reaching across the aisle to the PRI, his presidency quickly became marred by the drug war.  And while violence soared, the stagnating economy became a marginal issue and his administration failed to ignite the same progress seen throughout the rest of Latin America.

Now with the PRI back in power, perhaps the new president will have the support he needs to aggressively modernize Mexico’s economy.  As a party at the center of Mexico’s political spectrum, it is more likely that he will be able to reach across both aisles.

Oil on the Agenda

Mexico sells more oil to the US than Saudi Arabia.  And as the Middle East becomes increasingly more chaotic and US politicians advocate for energy independence, it is ever more crucial for the US to continue building upon this petro-partnership with its southern neighbor.  In Mexico, maintaining its status as a petroleum exporting country is even more important to its national income and its domestic energy supply. 

But since 2004 falling production .  If production continues to decline, there are worries that Mexico could soon become a net petroleum importer.  The main problem is a lack of credit available to expand oil exploration due to the government’s tight control over the state oil company PEMEX.  Mexico’s 1937 constitution nationalized the company as means of protecting the country’s resource sovereignty, following decades of social turmoil.  As a result, allowing foreign investment in PEMEX requires a referendum to the constitution through approval from 2/3 of the legislature.  Since the PRI – the party that originally authored the constitution – was voted out of power in 2000, there has not been enough support for opening up the company.

By contrast, Brazil opened its state enterprise, PETROBRAS to foreign investment and gave the company more than twice the amount to capital available to its Mexican counterpart.  Combined with technical assistance, these investments have allowed Brazil to begin a massive oil exploration project off its coast that may make this South American country among the world’s largest petroleum producers.

As president, Peña Nieto has promised to open up PEMEX to foreign investment.  If he can muster support from the PAN, perhaps he can succeed in reinvigorating the country’s national petroleum profile.

Workers & Corporations

Mexico’s economy suffers from two major internal problems.  Powerful unions advocating job killing labor laws and almighty private monopolies that control entire sectors of the economy, preventing innovation and competition.

During the PRI years, a few powerful unions dominated through intimidation and support from the government.  Their leaders became wealthy, while they failed to properly represent the interests of the workers that paid their dues.

Their domination prevented labor reforms that would have made it easier for businesses to hire new workers and fire ineffective ones.  On average .  Yet there are only 250,000 new jobs created annually.  The result pushes more than 2/3 of those in need of work into the informal economy, across the border or into organized crime. 

A new labor law under discussion in congress promises to cut through these archaic restrictions and create 400,000 new jobs every year.  In addition, it will allow for secret voting in major unions and the creation of independent unions.  Protests against the new bill rages on the left and among the PRI unions.  Perhaps, Pena Nieto will be able to effective stand up to the autocratic unions of his own party. If Mexico wants to become a powerful economic player it must make its unions more democratic and allow independent representation organizations. 

The new labor bill will include some of these reforms and make work more flexible by instituting hourly pay, rather than a daily rate based on an 8-hour work day.  Many Mexicans work more than 8-hours a day or hold several partime jobs.  The current system allows employers to avoid paying overtime and de-legitimizes part time work, forcing much of it into the informal economy.  The new bill will essentially put more pressure on employers to pay fair wages for these workers and place many back into the protections of the formal economy.

In addition to greater wage garuntees and more democratic worker representation, Mexico desperately needs to reform its monopolistic business climate.  When the country privatized its state enterprise following its 1982 financial crisis, state owned monopolies were mearly converted into privately owned monopolies.  The world’s richest man, Carlos Slim, is the CEO of Telmex and América Móvil, two companies that control almost all of Mexico’s telecommunication industry.  His immense wealth is testament to the country’s monopolistic private sector and the cronyism required for new businesses to enter the market.

Pena Nieto will have to pass a variety of strong anti-trust laws capable to breaking up the control of single corporations over entire sectors of the economy if he wants to foster the competitiveness of the country’s firms and protect the quality of services for consumers.

Conclusion

Pena Nieto has a lot on his plate in the six-year term ahead.  An ongoing drug war, the monopolization of the private sector, slow economic growth, a corrupt political system and inefficient bureaucracy stand in the way of Mexico’s future prosperity.  Reforming the oil sector, protecting the rights of workers and changing the way business is conducted will provide some crucial steps towards achieving future progress.  His party controls the most seats in the legislature and if he is able to secure the support of the PAN, perhaps he can help Mexico succeed in passing an ambitious agenda.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post A Productive Term for Mexico’s Next President? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Like a bizarro Tea Party mixed with the youthful cyber-savvy and anarchistic Occupy Movement, emerges the Yo Soy el 132 ("I am the 132"), a collection of student activists demanding an end to the corporate monopolization of the economy and the media.  Protesters partly blame the defeat of their candidate, the leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador from the Revolutionary Democratic Party (PRD), on the mainstream media’s coverage of the election.  They argue that Televisa, a media company controlling , explicitly portrayed their candidate in a negative fashion, while reserving unabashed praise for the victor, Enrique Pena Nieto of the Revolutionary Institutional Party (PRI). Indeed, leaked cables from Wikileaks allege that the candidate may have .

The Root of Animosity

In the view of the new movement, Pena Nieto represents everything that is wrong with Mexico’s democracy.  They claim he is inexperienced, overly-reliant on his good looks and the champion of a party that governed Mexico with an iron fist for 71 years.  In general, Mexican students are no friends of his party, the PRI, which in 1968 notoriously gunned down students at an anti-government demonstration, killing hundreds.  The massacre of Tlatelolco as it was known, came to represent national shame and has since become a symbol of martyrdom for student movements. 

Social Movements and Social Media

The Yo Soy el 132 emerged out of a wave of social media activism, in response to the over centralization of tradtional media in the hands of the few and powerful.  Through twitter, youtube and facebook, the movement has effectively communicated its message to a wider prospective audience.  Like in the Arab Uprisings of 2011, these outlets have also proved an effective organizing tool, capable of coordinating mass demonstrations and raising awareness in civil society.

While there is no question that Mexico’s television broadcast media is controlled by a few networks favoring the PRI, the emergence of social media as a campaign tool has been decentralized and inclusive.  It allows political campaigns to engage with users on a personal level and on a mass scale.  Facebook fan groups provide voters with a space to find quick up-to-date information on a candidate and then share their views with friends, creating a multiplier effect.  Indeed, 40 mn Mexicans are connected to the internet, nearly double the amount in the last election six years ago, making the use of digital social communication an invaluable tool for campaigns across the politcal aisles.

Unlike traditional media, such as newspapers, television and radio, social media partly dismantles the division between the producers and consumers of content.  Users are able to generate, consume and then actively analyze the information presented to them, all within the same platform. 

However, the changes only go so far.  .  In fact, it is largely a means of disseminating, commentating and summarizing content created by traditional media outlets.  While the process of sharing and promotion is more participatory and inclusive than voicing one’s opinion through a syndicated article, ultimately an effective tweet or facebook post relies on links to already well-established credible sources. 

During the Mexican elections, the distribution of traditional media paralleled the distribution of social media.  Studies concluded that the PRI also dominates the social media-scape – winning the so called “battle of clicks.”  Conversely, the leftist PRD, the party of the tech-savvy Yo Soy el 132 finished last, well behind even the conservative PAN, which placed third in the national elections.

Disseminating the Cause

Rather than fundamentally changing who controls the discussion, social media often only alters how well-established figures engage with the public. This does not imply that new actors cannot emerge independent of traditional sources, or that marginal public figures cannot use social media to elevate their reach.  Entire political movements have been born on Twitter, Facebook and Youtube and unfunded individual blogs have gained notoriety as credible sources.   Yo Soy el 132 movement emerged by broadcasting their message to those with common sympathy across the country.  However, overwhelmingly, public figures with high profiles have an edge in the social media-scape. Those with more resources can afford to promote their content in these outlets and hence eclipse smaller players.

Reflecting the rise of the Yo Soy el 132, social media is most inclusive, when applied to a cause rather than a figure or campaign.  It has the ability to raise broad awareness on issues censored or ignored in traditional media-spheres.  People relate more to the credibility of a new movement voicing a particular interest or concern, than they do to an unknown figure.  From there, support for the cause gains momentum and powerful figures can then emerge.  Often the traditional media will pick up on these movements, further cementing its credibility with the public and in turn perpetuating its presence on social media.  New supporters can then engage with this previously marginal cause, which then receives a multiplier effect through sharing.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Social Activism and Establishment Media appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

The party of Mexico’s 71-year civilian dictatorship is back.  On July 1, Peña Nieto of the Revolutionary Institution Party (PRI) claimed victory in presidential elections over leftist Andrés Manuel López Obrador of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) and conservative Josefina Vázquez Mota of the incumbent National Action Party (PAN). Half of the votes were recounted on July 6, following a wide range of alleged irregularities, but Nieto retained his near seven-point lead.

The defeated Obrador accused the PRI of buying as many as 5mn votes. His claims are based on a survey conducted by an independent election monitor, in which 28% of respondents admitted to being asked to sell their votes or said they had been subjected to some form of coercion. Additionally, the media distorted coverage of the candidates.  Two companies, Televisa and TV Azteca, control the vast majority of all broadcast television in Mexico and consistently portrayed the PRD in a negative light, reserving favorable coverage for the PRI.

How is the PRI Victory Relevant?

The PRI ruled Mexico from 1929 until 2000.  Originally founded to quell the decade of infighting that followed the Mexican revolution, the party reigned supreme by allying the various interests groups of the state into one giant coalition.  The presidency alternated between top members of the party, each presiding for six-year terms with no reelection. 

But no dynasty is eternal.  After an election scandal in 1988 and widespread apprehension over a number of free-market reforms implemented during the ‘80s and ‘90s, the conservative PAN, led by Vicente Fox, won a historic victory in the 2000 presidential election.

For the next 11 years, PAN struggled to forge a new Mexico, facing strong opposition in the legislature from the PRI.  Though Fox failed to implement many of his reforms, his successor Felipe Calderon would leave an indelible mark on the country.  Calderon’s bellicose drug war strategy led to more than 55,000 deaths and failed to significantly diminish the influence of the cartels.

On the drug front, the PRI was once known for cutting deals with cartels and turning a blind-eye to their expansion.  Conversely, PAN is criticized for escalating the problem into a full-scale war. Nieto says he will take the middle road.  Rather than the Calderon’s hodgepodge of approaches, he plans on focusing on three central crimes: murder, kidnapping, and extortion, while still combating the issue with a frontal assault.

The return of the PRI will have serious implications for Mexico’s drug war strategy and democracy, as well as its economic and foreign policy.  President-Elect Peña Nieto wants to “reposition Mexico again as an emerging power,” and encourage private investment to help increase production at the country’s state oil monopoly. His promises are ambitious and partly reflect those of the last two presidents before him.  Whether he will be able to produce more substance than his predecessors remains to be seen.

The post Mexico Faces a New President and an Uncertain Future appeared first on 51�Թ�.