Last week, we continued our discussion of maquiladoras and ended with the screening of Maquilapolis. To finish off this discussion, we are pleased to invite guest speaker Garrett Brown, coordinator of the Maquiladora Health & Safety Support Network.
From their website:
The Maquiladora Health & Safety Support Network is a volunteer network of 400 occupational health and safety professionals who have placed their names on a resource list to provide information, technical assistance and on-site instruction regarding workplace hazards in the 3,000 "maquiladora" (foreign-owned assembly) plants along the U.S.-Mexico border. Our goal has always been to build the capacity of workers and their organizations to understand occupational health and safety issues and to be able to speak and act in their own name to protect their health and to exercise their rights. Our activities have included providing information and trainings to workers, plant-wide health and safety committees, and to community, human rights and professional associations; technical assistance to workers filing complaints under international trade agreements; and technical information for grassroots organizations monitoring the performance of transnational corporations and government health and safety agencies in the global economy.We hope you can bring your questions from the film and our class discussions for Mr. Brown.
This week, we would like to discuss drugs, violence, and the militarization of the border. The TWO readings are Narcovirus by Alma Guillermoprieto and Stage of Siege by Denise Dresser. If you took the course The Southern Border, you may have read these articles. Denise Dresser discusses the "militirization of Mexico." This following quote was taken from another reading:
"The growing military presence at the border is a "low-intensity warfare against immigrants."How do you think this "militarization of the border" has come to affect immigrants? This changes the security and drug discussion to one about social justice and human rights. Think about projects like Operation Gatekeeper and the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Currently, the Obama Administration is still following Bush's plan to build "The Great Wall of Mexico," as some have coined it. There have even been talks of bringing U.S. troops to the border. This NYTimes article sheds some light on the current immigration and security discussion in politics. Also think about our discussion with Michael Dear and his images of the border to answer this question. Post your response on this blog.
In class, we will be watching some video clips from the documentary project, "The Wall" and try to connect two different perspectives on this issue.
Posts
10 comments:
"Mexico has a political, economic and
social structure that makes crime possible. It is a country
characterized by politicians who protect drug traffickers
and drug traffickers who finance politicians;"
"75 percent of crimes are not
reported due to lack of trust in the authorities, where 98
percent of crimes are never resolved or punished."
It seems that the militarization of the border would create more incentive to cross if only to get away from the chaos and into a better life. At the same time it seems a way to cage Mexicans into the mess we contribute to maintaining. The continuation of U.S.-funded military presence along the Mexican border is creating a hostile and dangerous environment for immigrants that seems to, more often than not, create health and safety problems and death.
The drug problems at the border are a perfect example of the way U.S. government creates, and then strategically denies involvement in, the problems that existed elsewhere in the world. The instability and violence at the border is just one more reason to close that border with a wall without ever addressing our complicity in the violence.
The Secure Fence Act of 2006 inflicts geopolitical territoriality onto the border cities of Mexico and the United States. Despite the continuing construction of a "Great Wall of Mexico", its impending existence does not reflect the opinions of border inhabitants;mayors of such
cities have expressed opposition to the construction of such barriers. As Professor Dear clearly emphasized in his visit, the border cities are uniquely cooperative and thrive on their interaction with one another. Building this wall alters the sociocultural, socioeconomic and physical environments of border towns negatively-forcibly redefining the geography and territoriality.
President Obama understands that the fence affects local communities the most, instead endorsing surveillance and patrol in his campaign. Today however, he is hesitant to cease all wall construction because the issue of Drug Cartels and consequential violence strikes fear in the hearts of most Americans--as if the wall would somehow contain the violence and hinder it from spilling over. This could never happen-Mexico is only feeding the United States' drug addiction, so much so that an infamous Mexican drug lord topped the Forbes' richest list last year. Drug cartel violence is only spurred on by easily obtained guns from the U.S.
Simply militarizing the border and building the wall is like sticking a band aid on an illness that requires invasive surgery.
In "State of Seige", Denise Dresser explained that the militarization of Mexico "ignores the high-level corruption that no one wants to combat" (corruption that is fueled by the drug trade which is inextricably linked back to the United States desire for such "goods"). Then, there is also the environmental degradation of building over wildlife refuges and conservation areas. So many issues come into play at the border--building a wall would not serve any purpose but to fuel the fire and spread the disease.
I find it interesting to learn about the effects of narcoculture. Even if Mexicans are not involved directly in the drug trade, the ideology infused within the culture seems to affect, and perhaps infect, a larger population. Just like mass media affects the United States population by framing what is “important” and advancing a certain understanding of our role in the world, narcoculture seems to permeate Mexican society. It creates a space for shared grievances to be articulated and affirmed, and common values to be expressed and perpetuated. The lack of opportunity in Mexico for maintaining sustenance outside the systems that are infected by corruption are few and far between, and within the narcoculture these grievances can be voiced and answers can be produced, reaffirming the decisions (if they even can be called decisions) that accompany the precarious situation these people are in. Additionally, the fact that “two-thirds of all the illegal drugs consumed in the United States enter the country from Mexico” (3), draws attention to the great extent to which our problems are inter-implicated. So long as there is a market for drugs in the United States and elsewhere and a lack of other industries in Mexico that can provide enough money to cover basic human needs, there will not much incentive or capacity for the development of other industries or a restructuring of the entire political and economic system.
Growing up in a traditional Mexican Family I didn't question the wording in narco-corridos. I thought it was normal for people to praise corridos about Cartel Leaders, such as "El Chapo, El Mochomo, and Carrillo Fuentes Family." It seemed normal to dance and listen to corridos that talked about cartels, money, power and killings. However, recently I have become more aware and better understand the history behind "Narco-Corridos" The "Narco Culture" has developed a sense of culture to promote over drug trafficking.
The development of Drug Trafficking has evolved over the years, and now Mexico is at the Center! "The twisted relationship with power is perhaps the most insideious element in the fight against the drug trade, and it is a central element of the culture in which traffickers thrive."
The border cities with the US holds the most affluential and powerful Cartels'. Thus, the drug trafficking violence has created the Mexican military to take upon cartels' to impede their malicious actions and killings of not only drug traffickers but innocent people. The "narco-cultura" has transcended into the US bordering cities and to nation creating a sense of fear. Furthermore, the Homeland Security and Border Patrol have created and enforced policies to maintain order/safety in the US/Mexico border.
Because of the "Narco Cultura" the crossing border has become impossible and a dangerous act. Through history, Border patrol have targeted immigrants as threats to the US. Now with the uprising drug-trafficking culture innocent immigrants who hope to achieve the American Dream are at a disadvantage.
-Martin
Both of the articles shed light on the fact that increasing the size of the military, in an attempt to reduce the amount of drug-related violence, has failed. As stressed in the reading, and countless times as words of advice, the point is made that fighting violence with violence results in an endless battle.
So many people meddled in the vast network of drug-trafficking, including drug cultivators, politicians, police officers, and drug lords, are harassed and killed on a daily basis. Yet, the most devastating aspect of this story is that helpless civilians become deeply involved in this dangerous world, merely because of their nation of residence. They are helpless in the sense that they do not posess the strong weapons that soldiers and smugglers do, and in the fact that citizens can not rely on the judicial sytem to resolve/punish a crime that has been comitted.
Furthermore, the complete culture, involving gangs, music, symbols, and religious-like cults, only foster the criminal activity and serve as a recruiting agent for cartels, especially directed towards urban teenagers. The harm that it has caused individuals and whole cmmunities, is visible in the countless news reports of murders, rapes, and the complete abandonment of Tijuana as a tourist spot.
I feel that the most important investment in this problem is to address the cause of the problems, instead of trying to calm the outcome. For one, we must take into great consideration that drugs thrive because of the DEMAND for them; thus more drug prevention, counseling, and rehabilitation programs should be initiated. Finally, because of the level of governmental corruption, a system of checks and balances, and a merit-based method of staffing officials, should also begin to take shape.
I know these solutions are easier said than done, but small steps towards these goals, I believe, will have long-term effects in comparison to the "help" brought by militarization.
The truth of the matter is, we depend on lines and borders, otherwise we wouldn't have states or countries. In addition, we need laws and rules because otherwise humans would be able to do whatever they pleased. Nevertheless, the true question is, whether the approach that the U.S. government is taking at the border is right. Reading the NYTimes article made me question the U.S. government; the beginning of the article talks about how President Obama wants to ask local communities how they feel about the walls. However, reading further into the article, we find out that the walls aren't being put up where the most violence and drug cartels occur.
Therefore, as Professor Dear talked about during class, this "Great Wall" is merely a political statement...it's intent is not to cure the violence and drugs and excessive flow of illegal immigrants. It is not to impose welfare for Mexican, American, and Mexican-American citizens. Instead, it is a symbol of division between two countries, two types of people. A symbol costing the U.S. tax papers millions (I'm not sure if Professor Dear said million or billions) of dollars that serves not true purpose for the good of all people.
"Treating a terrible health issue as if it were a war, and not a problem of injustice and societal disjunction, eventually leads to real war." To me, this statement epitomizes the current situation in Mexico. In her article, Denise Dresser illustrates that Mexico's current problems are tied to a failed system of government--one where highly ranked officials and administrators are easily bribed, police authorities are no longer protecting and looking out for the safety of the citizens they are assigned to, leaving millions of helpless individuals voiceless and uncared for--and Felipe Calderon's increased reliance on militarization to combat the drug war in Mexico is only remedying surface problems, and not addressing the deeply rooted political, economic, and social implications that have arisen due to the failed systemic issue.
The drug war in Mexico and the United States must first be recognized as a multidimensional problem, affecting every segment of the community. This "narcocultura" is so deeply embedded into the lives of Mexicans, through music, the media, and in some instances, religious affiliations, that attacking this problem head on, through brute force, as is the case through Calderon's new initiative, will have no impact on the core problems that have penetrated the mainstream culture. As one of the articles mentioned, the drug war can be compared to as a balloon, when one area of the balloon is squeezed, the rest of the balloon compensates from the increased pressure placed on the initial point of contact. Similar to the drug war, when enforcement is increased in one area of the community, the drugs migrate to other areas of less resistance. This has been the strategy used by the United States in helping Latin American countries fight the rise of drug, but as research has shown, this form of drug control is not effective.
I believe that until we are capable of realizing that drugs are not the essential components in solving the drug war are we able to make gains in our effort to end drug trafficking and the problems connected to the drug trade.
The militarization of the border has produced negative repercussions that affect the “low-intensity warfare against immigrants” due to a conflation of anti-immigrant rhetoric and border security established for drug-related violence. It is critical that a clear distinction be made when discussing policy regarding wall building and the militaristic strategy to combat the drug issue. I think that this distinction is not clearly made, and essentially the technology and the measures that are created to combat the drug issue end up being utilized violently against immigrants that are attempting to cross mostly for economic reasons (NAFTA). As Denise Dresser states the militaristic approach to solving this issue ignores the “economic structure that thwarts growth and social mobility, forcing people across the border or into the drug trade in record numbers” (3). Furthermore, I think that militaristic policies like Operation Gatekeeper are not successful when NAFTA calls for free and open trade across borders and these operations attempt to close the borders simultaneously. In conclusion, “the war on drugs is not only a failed policy, it is a failed policy that generated terrible and lasting damage” (Guillermoprieto 9) that has extended to the limits of immigrants’ human rights.
I believe that the militarization of the border compounded with the narocultura is just another way in which minorities are oppressed and condemned for acts that would not carry the same weight if committed by affluent whites. For example, different forms of cocaine in the United States lead to different jail times because it is assumed that certain racial populations use a particular type of this substance.
Drugs are often only a symptom of a larger structural problem in society. They are used by people who view substance abuse as an escape from the daily struggles they must face. Thus the United States and Mexican government must not only work to stop the war on drugs but implement policies to ensure people do not need them to make a living or to feel like life is worth living.
So I did a little research into border politics, and how it relates to this issue.
I started with our buddy Steve King from the youtube video. Remember his wall idea? Here's a direct quote from his webpage:
"I recently testified before the Homeland Security Committee and Government Reform Subcommittee about a concrete border wall proposal that I personally designed. I have 35 years of experience in the earth-moving, drainage, and concrete construction business which gives me the background to design an effective wall."
Turns out the King Construction Company, founded by King after he dropped out of college, is the company he was referring to in the video. This seems like a conflict of interests, given the following fact...
Steve King is the ranking member (leader of the minority) in the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.
He is also a vocal proponent and leader of the hard-line view on immigration. His list of sponsored bills shows he has a passion for proposing amendments that ensure undocumented people are excluded from the bill's benefits. For Example, H.AMDT.636 Amendment prohibits housing assistance under the bill for unauthorized aliens.
He is one of the most powerful republicans on the immigration front because of his subcommittee position. It is disheartening to know that his personal opinion of undocumented people, from an op-ed he wrote in 2006, is as follows:
"What would that May 1st look like without illegal immigration? There would be no one to smuggle across our southern border the heroin, marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamines that plague the United States, reducing the U.S. supply of meth that day by 80%. The lives of 12 U.S. citizens would be saved who otherwise die a violent death at the hands of murderous illegal aliens each day. Another 13 Americans would survive who are otherwise killed each day by uninsured drunk driving illegals. Our hospital emergency rooms would not be flooded with everything from gunshot wounds, to anchor babies, to imported diseases to hangnails, giving American citizens the day off from standing in line behind illegals. Eight American children would not suffer the horror as a victim of a sex crime."
I think that quote speaks for itself about the kind of people in power, and there understanding of these issues.
Now, to tie it all back to corn, King is a from a district in Iowa, one of the largest corn producing states. [Not corn to eat, corn for processing, i.e. 'high fructose corn syrup' and livestock feed] He got $160,000 (opensecrets.org) from Agribusiness during the last election cycle, which includes donations from Monsanto and National Corn Growers Assn. He works in 4 subcommittees in Agriculture, and sponsored bills that benefit the modern farmer...like government subsidies on corn production. These are the same subsidies which allow the U.S. to produce corn and corn based products much cheaper then Mexico.
To tie it all together:
When Mr. King voted to pass NAFTA, his corn producing state and the Agribusinesses who donate to him were able to dominate the Mexican market and put rural farmers out of production and workers out jobs. These people then come to America illegally in search of work. So Mr. King decides to advocate for a wall and the militarization of the border to keep these people from taking American jobs. By sheer coincidence, he started a construction company capable of building this wall.
Post a Comment