March 24 2018
LAST DECEMBER, THE Mexican government enacted a new law that empowered its
military to act domestically against “internal security threats,” cementing the
role of the country’s armed forces in combatting crime and giving them expanded
surveillance authorities. The law also allows the Mexican president to deploy
troops for immediate action against those threats.
As the law, formally
called the Internal Security Law, was being debated, Claudia Medina Tamariz
spoke out about the way the country’s military has treated the citizens it
is supposedly fighting to protect.
In 2012, she was
arrested by Mexican marines on false charges of cartel ties and subjected to
horrendous torture. Marine troops tied her to a chair, shoved a rag in her
mouth, and electrocuted her with two cables attached to her big toes. They
splashed her with buckets of water, forced hot sauce into her nostrils, wrapped
her in an elastic band, and proceeded to kick and beat her. She was also
blindfolded and sexually assaulted. As the troops tortured her, they also
threatened to do the same to her children.
The charges against
Medina were eventually dropped, but the trauma lingered.
“When I got back
home, I arrived with a lot of fear,” she told The Intercept. “I couldn’t sleep
at night, thinking [the marines] would do something to me. My children would be
laying down, sleeping, and I would be at the window to make sure no one would
come in.”
She has spent years
fighting to clear her name and obtain justice. Recounting her torture, Medina
said she is horrified by the idea that the Mexican government is giving more
power to forces known to carry out abuses.
“It’s sad to see
that our senators, our representatives, everyone in Mexico sees this, and yet
they are continuing to hand Mexico over to sick people,” Medina said.
The U.S.
government is also well aware of these abuses. Nonetheless, the Trump
administration has remained quiet on the Internal Security Law and has
continued with plans to support Mexico’s security forces. Despite
President Donald Trump’s anti-Mexico vitriol and his public feud with Mexican
President Enrique Peña Nieto over a wall for the border between the two
countries, funding is still flowing from the American government. What’s
more, the Trump administration has cut funding from the U.S. State Department
and the U.S. Agency for International Development, which supported efforts
to strengthen Mexico’s criminal justice system, while U.S. military
funds have increased.
“Now, with Trump,
what we’re seeing is an intention to return to a focus on militarized help,” said
Ximena Suárez-Enríquez of the Washington Office on Latin America, or WOLA,
which tracks U.S. policy in the region.
The opioid epidemic
ravaging the U.S. is partly the reason for Congress’s insistence on giving
security assistance to Mexico. But according to Mexican government data, the
amount of heroin seized by the military has declined dramatically in recent
years. In standing staunchly behind Mexico’s war on drugs, Congress and the
Trump administration are funding a force that has routinely been implicated in
violence against its own people.
IN 2006, THEN-PRESIDENT Felipe Calderón deployed troops in his home
state of Michoacán, marking the first move in the Mexican drug war. Ever since,
Mexico’s military has been tasked with what would have traditionally been
police work: finding and capturing cartel members and seizing drugs. Along
with the military’s increased role in quelling cartel violence have come
reports of torture, forced disappearances, and extrajudicial assassinations, the
majority of which have not been investigated or prosecuted.
In December, Peña
Nieto approved the controversial Internal Security Law, which gives the
president the power to issue a “declaration of internal security protection”
and immediately deploy troops to intervene in any situation that may “threaten”
the country’s internal security. Effectively, the law formalizes the
military’s already outsized role in local policing.
The law “goes toward
a hybrid concept that blends the question of national security and public
security, to generate an intermediary concept that confuses the two, which
should be clearly separated,” said Santiago Aguirre, sub-director of the Miguel
Agustín Pro Juárez Human Rights Center, also known as Centro Prodh.
The legislation went
into effect immediately, although Mexico’s Supreme Court is currently hearing a
challenge to its constitutionality, and Peña Nieto says he will not issue a
declaration regarding the law until the court rules.
“We can safely say
this is the legislation that has been opposed by the largest number of public
and private institutions in Mexico in recent history,” said José Antonio
Guevara, executive director of the Mexican Commission for the Defense and
Promotion of Human Rights.
Supporters of the
law — mostly legislators from the center-right Institutional Revolutionary
Party — say the armed forces are necessary to continue fighting against
organized crime in Mexico. Since the military has already been on the streets
for over 11 years in a state of legal ambiguity, they say, this law provides a
legal framework to regulate and formalize the military’s role.
They also point to
rampant corruption within many police forces around the country. In Veracruz,
for example, police working for the state’s former governor have carried out
brutal paramilitary disappearances and executions; in 2016, they allegedly
threw bodies from helicopters, leaving some stuck in the treetops.
But the military’s
role in public security has not reduced the volume of blood running through
Mexico’s streets. The number of deaths has only gone up since the military was
first deployed. According to a government database, 11,806 homicides were
reported in 2006. Eleven years later, more than 25,000 homicides were reported,
making 2017 the deadliest year in recent Mexican history.
The database does
not specify how many of those homicides were related to the drug war or other
crimes, such as rampant so-called femicide. But a report by the Center for
Research and Teaching in Economics — or CIDE, its Spanish-language acronym
— a renowned public research institution, explains that having the military in
the streets has heightened violence in two ways. First, by fragmenting criminal
groups, leading to bloody fights and turf wars between fissured cartels; and
second, by triggering the groups to retaliate, often costing innocent
bystanders their lives.
“The data shows us
that the military, taking care of public security matters for 12 years, has
produced what is probably the gravest human rights crisis Mexico has had since
the time of the revolution,” Alejandro Madrazo, a researcher from CIDE, told
The Intercept, referring to the decade of armed struggle in Mexico between
1910 and 1920.
The armed forces
themselves have been implicated in the violence and human rights abuses, with
several cases that have caught international attention.
On January 30, in
Culiacán, Sinaloa, marine forces burst into a party, seeking members of
criminal organizations. “I’m going to fuck up anyone who has a cellphone in
their hand,” one marine can be heard saying on a video that was
clandestinely recorded.
According to
official sources, there was a shootout and four armed men were killed. However,
an investigation by RioDoce, a local news organization, suggested that the
military had actually committed extrajudicial executions of the four men while
they were cuffed and kneeling on the floor.
This recent instance
has similarities with another high-profile case from 2014, in which bullets
rang out on the outskirts of Tlatlaya, in Mexico state. According to the
official story put forth by the Mexican attorney general, military forces came
under attack by alleged kidnappers, and the ensuing shootout left 22 dead. But
subsequent investigations revealed inconsistencies and suggested that between
12 to 15 of the dead were executed as they surrendered.
WOLA released a report
in November 2017 that found that between 2012 and 2016, the attorney general’s
office launched 505 investigations into human rights violations committed by
soldiers. But in the same time frame, there were only 16 convictions of
soldiers.
“We have seen how in
cases documented by the National Commission of Human Rights, soldiers, with
investigations, have altered the crime scene, have planted weapons,” said
WOLA’s Suárez-Enríquez. “With the new law, there is no guarantee that the
situation will change. There is no guarantee there will be an improvement in
investigations.”
Mexico will hold
elections in July – an event that has historically led to social movements in
response to claims of election fraud. Although the Internal Security Law
includes an article specifying that social or political protests will
never be considered a threat and cannot be subject to a presidential
declaration, critics like Madrazo, of CIDE, say the law’s language is still
worryingly vague.
“The law says there
are two situations in which it can be activated, not just against ‘threats’ to
internal security, but [also] ‘risks’ to internal security. And ‘risks’ is even
more lax and open,” Madrazo said. “Political-electoral protests were not
excluded from being considered ‘risks.’ So the military can act against a
political-electoral protest if they consider it to be a ‘risk’ and not a
‘threat.’
WHILE THE U.N. and
a host of international human rights organizationshave
protested Mexico’s militarization, the U.S. government continues its generous
funding of Mexican armed forces.
In
2008, the State Department established the Mérida Initiative, a partnership
with the Mexican government to disrupt organized crime. Congress appropriated
$2.5 billion through the initiative to support, train, and provide equipment to
Mexican law enforcement and has already provided $1.8 billion of the allocated
funds. Although funding levels have declined slightly in recent years, from
$169 million in 2016, under former President Barack Obama, to this year’s White
House request for $78.9 million, the U.S. still supports an array of programs.
“They
have been rapidly expanding to also include other contexts,” Iñigo Guevara,
Latin American security analyst and director of Jane’s Aerospace, told The
Intercept. Guevara said U.S.-Mexico military cooperation also includes disaster
response, intelligence and information exchange, and more traditional types of
military training.
When
reached for comment, a State Department spokesperson said the department
does not publicly share which Mexican military units have received support
through Mérida.
“U.S.
assistance to Mexican security forces is contingent upon rigorous vetting for
gross violations of human rights in accordance with the Leahy amendment,” the
spokesperson added. The Leahy laws prohibit assistance to units with human
rights violations.
The
Defense Department also collaborates and trains Mexican armed forces, and
according to the Congressional Research Service, such cooperation has been
increasing. Recent data shows an overall shift in funds going
toward Mexico from the State Department to the Defense Department, a
change that makes security assistance more difficult to track.
At the
same time, the Trump administration has cut back on State Department funds to
Latin America through USAID, which, according to WOLA’s Suárez-Enríquez, were
being used to strengthen Mexico’s judicial system and to help protect
journalists and human rights defenders. She sees the USAID cuts and Defense
Department increases as a step backward.
The
Pentagon reports to Congress the money it plans to spend on
counternarcotics in Mexico: an estimated $54.8 million in fiscal year 2016,
$58.1 million in 2017, and $63.3 million in 2018, according to the
Congressional Research Service. It is unclear how much more money may flow
to Mexico from other DOD accounts.
Training
from Northern Command, the DOD arm that focuses on Mexico, includes courses on
surveillance, interdiction, and logistics.
“USNORTHCOM
has provided training to Mexican service members in a wide variety of technical
and professional courses,” a Northcom spokesperson wrote in an email. “All
recipients of USNORTHCOM assistance undergo a rigorous process for human rights
vetting.”
The
U.S. has also moved forward with weapons sales to Mexico, approving earlier
this year the possible sale of $98.4 million in missiles to the Mexican navy.
Congress
appears to want to send even more assistance to Mexico than the executive
branch. For 2018, the House of Representatives authorized $129 million, and the
Senate $139 million, for Mérida Initiative funds. Both Congress and the White
House have tied the U.S. opioid crisis to the flow of drugs from organized
criminal groups.
But
despite this support, according to publicly available documents from the
Mexican government analyzed by The Intercept, there has been a decreasing
rate of narcotic seizures by Mexican armed forces. In 2015, there were 425
kilograms of heroin seized by the army and navy. In 2017, however, the army
seized just 218 kilograms, and the navy reported having seized none.
The
Mexican Naval Secretariat and the Secretariat of National Defense did not
respond to requests for comment.
U.S.
military support to Mexico worries those who oppose the Internal Security Law.
In its November report, WOLA wrote that U.S. security assistance “supports a
concerning and open-ended role of the Mexican armed forces in combatting drug
trafficking and organized crime in the country and provides backing to a
military that has a record of committing widespread human rights violations
with impunity.”
“It’s a bad idea,”
Suárez-Enríquez said. “It’s worrying because
there are adverse effects for communities living nearby.”
For
Medina, the woman who was tortured in 2012, it is essential that Mexicans
question the actions of the military, even though the risk is great. She had to
flee Veracruz with her children. Even with the support of prominent human
rights groups, her reputation was tarnished after being labeled a cartel
member, and her husband remains behind bars.
“There
was a lot of fear, because speaking out is confronting the government — because
it’s against elements of the marines, of the federal government,” Medina said.
“It’s confronting a big monster. But thanks to God, I spoke up.”
The
“big monster” is not just the Mexican authorities relishing their impunity. It
is also the entire structure that funds and enables further abuse, including the
U.S. government.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario