On Tuesday, September 13, 2011, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs’ Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight held a hearing entitled “Has Mérida Evolved? Part One: The Evolution of Drug Cartels and the Threat to Mexico’s Governance.” The webcast is available online from the Committee’s website.

The witnesses called to testify at the hearing were Dr. Gary M. Shiffman, an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Peace and Security Studies, Dr. Andrew Selee, the Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, Dr. Robert J. Bunker, a Senior Fellow at Small Wars Journal El Centro, and Dr. Pamela Starr, an Associate Professor in Public Diplomacy and the School of International Relations at the University of Southern California, and the Director of the U.S.-Mexico Network.

The two subcommittees convened to discuss the viability of the Mérida Initiative, a State Department initiative aimed at providing equipment and training to support law enforcement operations and technical assistance to support reform in Mexico and Central America. In his opening statement, Representative Connie Mack (R-FL) stated repeatedly that the Mérida Initiative is not the way forward for the United States’s and Mexico’s mutual fight against organized crime. Mack instead proposed a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy, “to combat the evolution and resilience of Mexico’s transnational criminal organizations. The United States should support a targeted yet comprehensive strategy that works with Mexico to secure one key population center at a time in order to build and support vital infrastructure and social development for lasting results.”

After encountering a bit of trouble in the pronunciation of the Mérida Initiative, Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) focused his statement on the issue of border security. He was very vocal about the necessity for heightened security on both sides, stating that the Mexican government has shown little cooperation with U.S. border security policies and officials and claimed that Mexico wants to “keep the border open at all points.” Rep. Rohrabacher believes that more must be done at the border before we should attempt to reform Mexican law enforcement and the judiciary.

Both Representatives Eliot Engel (D-NY) and Russ Carnahan (D-MO) kept their opening statements fairly short, and expressed a concern about drug use being a driver. Rep. Engel especially emphasized the need to look at domestic policies that could be enacted to work on demand-side elimination of the drug trade, rather than continue focusing on supply-side eradication.

While the different Representatives present had varying ideas of where the real issue lies with Mexico, from the border to drug use among U.S. citizens, one tendency was noted throughout – that of referring to the cartel violence as an insurgency.

Witness Testimony

• Gary Shiffman agreed with Representative Mack’s usage of the word “insurgency” in defining the acute problems facing Mexico today. He reduced the seemingly complex violence in Mexico to a broad battle between state forces and illegal “outlaw” forces both competing for the hearts and minds of the population. In his opinion, once the conflict is understood through the insurgency framework, better and more successful policies could be enacted.
• Andrew Selee presented four ways in which we should shift the Mérida Initiative to improve the strategy. He called for a strategic intelligence sharing plan, better mapping of how these organizations operate in the United States and the need for the U.S. Department of Treasury to start tracking cartel money, the continued support of those persons who are trying to (re)build and reform law enforcement and the judiciary in Mexico, and finally, to work to reduce drug consumption at home.
• Robert Bunker was very blunt in declaring that the United States needs to reprioritize its national security and see that the cartels and “narcogangs” of Mexico and Central America are the number one strategic threat to the United States. He sees the cartels and gangs evolving towards war-making entities and criminal and “spiritual” insurgencies instigating societal warfare.
• Pamela Starr’s testimony gave a much-needed historical introduction to the problem that unfortunately came at the end of the round of witness’ opening statements. She sees the current strategy as transforming what was a national security problem into a law enforcement problem, which is positive, but has also revealed the weakness of law enforcement, and their inability to deal with the violence and local problems.

Follow-up Questions

• Representative Mack began by asking if Mexico’s governance and rule of law is threatened more so today than in 2007, when Mérida was signed. He also asked for a clarification of “insurgency.” Somewhat predictably, Dr. Shiffman responded by saying that due to the large amount of money that is at stake today, a new threat exists to Mexico’s government that did not exist in 2007. He explained the transformation of violence from cartel versus government (2007) to cartel versus cartel, which means the government is not relevant. Selee added to this by claiming that we are misdiagnosing the problem by focusing solely on the 6-7 large cartels, and instead need to target the smaller emerging criminal groups and networks.
• There was a lot of emphasis placed on the ATF’s “Fast and Furious” scandal-- with Representative Rohrabacher using it as a reason to not further institutionalize intelligence sharing with Mexico. The leaking of intelligence given to Pakistani sources was also referenced--raising the concern that the same could happen in Mexico.
• Representative Michael McCaul (R-TX) noted that he would like to see the Mérida Initiative be modeled much more after Plan Colombia, and also said that he would like to introduce a bill declaring the cartels as terrorists. Ms. Starr promptly responded with concerns of policy mishaps that could arise by mislabeling the Mexican crime syndicates.

This blog was written by CIP Intern Jessica Lippman.

On Wednesday, September 7th, Representatives Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) sent a letter to four Obama Administration officials requesting a "comprehensive accounting of U.S. assistance to the Colombia government's Department of Administrative Security (DAS) during the period of August 7, 2002 to August 7, 2010." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and CIA Director David Petraeus were all addressed in the letter, which asks specifically for detailed information on all "funds, training, lethal and non-lethal equipment, intelligence- and information-sharing, technical assistance, facilities construction and any other aid provided to the DAS, its officials, its employees or any of its subcontractors during this period."

The letter comes after the Washington Post published an article asserting that U.S. aid may be implicated in the abuses of power by the DAS, currently under investigation and being prosecuted in Colombia. Representatives McGovern and Schakowsky also express concern that former President Álvaro Uribe has publicly called the reporters of these articles "terrorist sympathizers," and a "terrorist ally."

The full text of the letter is below. Or download it as a PDF.

For more information on Colombia's DAS scandal, read Lisa Haugaard's blog, "Colombia's DAS Intelligence Agency: A Case of U.S. Aid Gone Bad," and the 2010 report written by CIP, LAWGEF, USOC and WOLA, "Far Worse than Watergate."

Dear Secretary Clinton, Secretary Panetta, Attorney General Holder and Director Petraeus,

We write to request a comprehensive accounting of U.S. assistance to the Colombian government's Department of Administrative Security (PAS) during the period of August 7, 2002 to August 7, 2010. Specifically, we request a full accounting of all funds, training, lethal and non-lethal equipment, intelligence- and information-sharing, technical assistance, facilities construction and any other aid provided to the DAS, its officials, its employees or any of its contractors during this period, whether in Colombia, the U.S., or at other facilities. We further request the information indicate any such aid or information provided to the National and International Observations Group of the DAS.

As you know, the Colombian Attorney General's Office is undertaking an aggressive investigation and series of prosecutions of illegal activities carried out by the DAS during these years. Six former high-ranking intelligence officials have confessed to crimes and more than a dozen other agency operatives are on trial, and several more are under investigation by the Attorney General or by a special legislative commission of the Colombian Congress.

These investigations have revealed a vast illegal network of surveillance of nearly all sectors of civil society, including human rights defenders, political party leaders, journalists and members of the Colombian Supreme Court engaged in investigations of elected officials with alleged ties to paramilitary groups or who engaged in corrupt practices. These illegal operations were also connected to threats received by many of the individuals under surveillance, and in some cases the DAS shared information with paramilitary and other violent actors that resulted in the assassinations of trade unionists and other rights defenders.

Recent articles in the Washington Post (8/21/11) assert that U.S. aid may be implicated in these abuses of power. We are concerned that former President Alvaro Uribe has made public statements claiming the reporters who wrote these articles are terrorist sympathizers (simpatizantes del terrorismo), going so far as to characterize one reporter as a terrorist ally (ocultador del terrorismo), language that increases the level of threat under which journalists work in Colombia. We strongly urge you to make clear to the former president that such statements are unacceptable and ask that he retract them.

We believe it is important to set the record straight in a clear and transparent manner by providing Congress with a comprehensive report on all forms of U.S. assistance to the DAS. We also believe it is important to provide Congress with this information in as rapid a manner as possible, but assuredly prior to when Congress begins debate on the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

To the maximum extent possible, the information included in this comprehensive report should be provided in an unclassified format; if necessary, a classified annex should be made available for review by all Members of Congress. We further ask that you inquire and coordinate with your counterparts in other departments and agencies that might have been working with the DAS (e.g. Treasury/Internal Revenue Service) to ensure that the report is indeed comprehensive.

Thank you for your serious attention to this request. We look forward to your timely response
and the receipt of this comprehensive report regarding all forms of U.S. support for the DAS over the past decade.

Sincerely,

James P. McGovern & Janice D. Schakowsky

On March 15, the Latin America Working Group, Center for International Policy and Washington Office on Latin America, along with many other faith-based organizations, humanitarian agencies and nongovernmental organizations, sent a letter asking Congress "not to turn your backs on the most vulnerable people in Latin America nor abandon wise investments that create lasting peace and security for our hemisphere as you make difficult choices on the final FY2011 and the FY2012 budgets."

Based on that letter (PDF), Latin America Working Group's director Lisa Haugaard testified today before the House Foreign Operations Subcommittee with the following appeal:

We urge you not to turn your backs on the most vulnerable people in Latin America nor abandon wise investments that create lasting peace and security for our hemisphere as you make difficult budget choices.

In Latin America, U.S. aid programs protect those at risk from disasters, deadly disease, and conflict. Well-targeted aid programs such as development assistance for small farmers help impoverished people raise themselves to a better life. Multilateral Debt Relief reduces the debt burdens of some of the hemisphere’s poorest nations so that these countries can invest in poverty reduction. The Inter-American Foundation’s compact budget supports small-scale self-help.

U.S. assistance programs reduce the threats from drug trafficking and drug-related violence that directly affect the communities that you represent. USAID supports efforts by Andean farmers to abandon coca and grow food crops instead. USAID and the Justice Department help Mexico, Colombia, and Central American nations strengthen courts and prosecute drug trafficking mafias. The U.S. Institute for Peace encourages fresh approaches to ending conflicts. All of these programs in the long run are less costly and provide more sustainable solutions than emergency military programs to address drug-related violence that has spiraled out of control.

With the maze of funding categories, it can be hard to understand why cuts to a particular account fall so hard. For example, most members of Congress say they support assistance to Colombia. Yet to ensure that good programs for Colombia are not cut, you have to know that programs to support alternative development, aid Afro-Colombian communities, strengthen human rights and help people displaced by violence are under Economic Support Funds. Indeed, “Economic Support Funds,” which has a name even its own mother couldn’t love, is a catchall category that fails to convey the importance of the programs it funds in Latin America. In Mexico, ESF supports crime prevention in Ciudad Juarez and human rights training for police and prosecutors. If your goal is to effectively reduce illicit drug production and the power of drug cartels and strengthen the rule of law in Colombia and Mexico, we know you will find a way to support those programs.

The President’s budget cuts assistance to Latin America, reducing economic assistance by 5 percent and sensibly beginning to shift responsibilities, as long scheduled, for military aid and equipment maintenance to the Colombian government. There are programs in the President’s budget that merit further cuts. Aid that encourages militaries to carry out internal security is damaging, as is assistance to security force units that commit abuses with impunity. Military and police aid makes up at least one-third of aid to the region in the foreign ops budget, and is an even greater percentage if you factor in what is in the defense bill. If you cut humanitarian aid and do not cut military aid, the U.S. footprint in the region looks more like a bootprint, and that is not the image our nation should wish to convey.

The President’s budget fails to fund adequately Migration and Refugee Assistance for the Western Hemisphere, which helps Colombia and its neighbors grapple with the largest conflict-driven humanitarian crisis in the world. This has protected children from forced recruitment, helped refugee women who have survived sexual violence, and offered a lifeline of food aid and income generating opportunities for refugees living in perilous conditions.

Finally, we urge you to hold true to our commitment to help Haiti recover from the earthquake. While U.S. assistance has saved lives, rubble still has not been removed, hundreds of thousands of people remain in precarious conditions in camps, a cholera epidemic has had deadly impact, and many Haitians have not been able to rebuild their livelihoods and their lives. The U.S. government needs to listen harder to input from Haitian civil society about the best path toward recovery. But the United States should not cut funding or walk away. If you have visited Haiti, walked past the photos of Haiti in the Rayburn foyer or met with the Haitian civil society leaders here recently who are working so hard to help their communities, you know why we must commit to join with them to address this humanitarian crisis and strengthen the Haitian government’s capacity to meet the needs of its own people.

As the Congress considers tough choices, we urge you to preserve already very limited economic and institution-building programs for Latin America. Their impact on the U.S. budget is minimal, but their return, measured in increased goodwill, citizen security, alleviation of suffering and protection for human rights, is substantial. They benefit U.S. interests by building support from our neighbors in the hemisphere, showing that the United States can be a partner willing to lend a helping hand.

On December 7th, Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced the "Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission Act of 2010" (S.4011) in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. This piece of legislation is very similar to the House initiative sponsored by Congressman Elliot Engel (D-NY) and Connie Mack (R-FL) that was passed by the House of Representatives on December 8, 2009.

The purpose of the bipartisan bill is "to evaluate U.S. policies and programs aimed at reducing illicit drug supply and demand and recommend a multiyear counternarcotics strategy to address the escalating security crisis in the hemisphere fueled by the illicit narcotics trade." While the new piece of legislation in the Senate is very similar to the House's version, the second component, a recommendation for a multiyear interagency counternarcotics strategy for the Western Hemisphere, did not appear in the version passed by the House. This added component appears to come from S.3172, the "Counternarcotics and Citizen Security for the Americas Act of 2010" (PDF), which was introduced by Senators Menendez and John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) in March 2010.

The Senate version of the bill also allows more time for the formation of the Commission (60 days vs. 30 days) and provides more time for the production of a report that would detail the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Commission (18 months vs. 12 months). Yet, the new bill appropriates far less resources to the Commission to carry out its duties ($250,000 vs. $2,000,000).

According to Senator Menendez, "we need a comprehensive and smart policy that looks at both the supply and demand side of the issue -- domestic prevention and treatment programs, as well as a long-term multiyear counternarcotics strategy -- and that ultimately succeeds in turning around this epidemic of drugs and crime that is destroying families, communities, and undermining the rule of law both at home and abroad." Senator Lugar noted, "I am especially interested in efforts to bolster the role of the U.S. military and the intelligence community to help combat cartels headquartered in Mexico with reach in Central American countries, Venezuela and throughout the Region. New approaches might include ways to jointly deploy aviation, surveillance and intelligence assets where necessary."

Below is a summary of the bill from the press release on Senator Menendez's website. You can read the full text of S.4011 here.

The bill creates an independent commission which will be charged with reviewing and evaluating U.S. policy regarding illicit drug supply reduction and interdiction in the Western Hemisphere, along with foreign and domestic demand reduction policies and programs. The commission is also charged with identifying policy and program options to improve existing international and domestic counternarcotics policy;

The Commission will recommend a multiyear interagency counternarcotics strategy for the Western Hemisphere that describes the assistance required to achieve regional counternarcotics goals and a methodology for countering shifts in production and transit routes by producers and traffickers due to pressure from counternarcotics efforts;

The commission will be composed of 10 members – 2 executive branch employees appointed by the President and 2 appointed by each of the following congressional leaders: the Senate Majority Leader, the Senate Minority Leader, the Speaker of the House, and the House Minority Leader.

• Last Tuesday's elections resulted in significant changes to the make-up of the U.S. Congress. Republicans gained a majority in the House of Representatives and the Democrats narrowly maintained a slim majority in the Senate. What does this mean for U.S. policy to Latin America? Many Latin Americanists worked on answering that question throughout the week. Some good reads:
  • Adam Isacson explains what a Republican majority in the House means for Latin America, and provides background information on the new House committee chairs;
  • New America Foundation's Anya Landau sees little change, positive or negative, on Cuba policy in the new U.S. Congress;
  • Josh Rogin "introduces" us to the new House Foreign Affairs Chairwoman, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; and
  • Andres Oppenheimer suggest that "there will be a huge pressure to cut foreign aid, which could include anti-drug programs such as Plan Merida for Mexico and Central America, Plan Colombia and aid to earthquake-devasted Haiti."
• Tuesday's elections also resulted in the defeat of Proposition 19 in California, which would have allowed for the regulation of marijuana in the state. In the lead-up to the election, the implications of Proposition 19 for Latin America, and the "drug war" in the region, was the topic of many debates. Regardless of the results of the vote on Proposition 19, WOLA's Coletta Youngers wrote that "the genie has been let out of the bottle" and "Prop 19 has furthered an international debate on alternatives for regulating cannabis that will no doubt continue and even expand after the polls close on November 2."
• Last Sunday, Brazil elected a new president: Dilma Rousseff of the ruling Workers' Party won a 55-to-44-percent victory in the country's second-round vote. She will take office - succeeding her close ally, popular two-term president Luis Inacio Lula da Silva - and become the first woman to serve as president of Brazil on January 1, 2011.

  Many analysts took the opportunity to speculate about the implications of Dilma Rousseff's victory for the future of Brazil. Definitely not an exhaustive list, but some of the analyses include those by Adam Isacson, Jeffrey Rubin, Julia Sweig, Peter Hakim, and David Rothkopf.

• October was the bloodiest month so far in 2010 in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, with a total of 350 murders registered. The violence continues into November, and this weekend at least 20 individuals were killed in the Mexican border city, putting local death toll estimates for the year at more than 2,600.
• A mass demonstration in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, brought somewhere between 500 and 1,000 people to the streets to demand the demilitarization of their city, after a student was shot by two police officers at a protest last week.
• Also demanding demilitarization of the drug war in Mexico via a halt to U.S. military and police aid to Mexico under the Mérida Initiative, are dozens of U.S. and Mexican organizations. The organizations are circulating a sign-on letter right now that insists that the U.S. government focuses instead "on attacking the causes and structures of organized crime within the United States' drug addiction and the demand for black-market drugs, international financial transactions and transborder corruption, arms trafficking--and aid Mexico in eliminating the roots causes of the spread of crime such as poverty, inequality, unemployment and the lack of opportunities for youth." You can read, and sign-on to, the letter here.
• The United Nations Development Program released a new report on inequality last week, in which it ranks 10 Latin American and Caribbean countries among the 15 worst in terms on inequality. These countries include Haiti, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Colombia, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay and Chile. The report also ranks Uruguay as the region's most equal country.
• A dispute over the Costa Rican and Nicaraguan border emerged after Costa Rican officials alleged that Nicaraguan troops crossed into Costa Rican territory. Costa Rica took the dispute to the Organization of American States last week, however, Google also became an unintentional third party after Costa Rica claimed that the border line on Google Maps were incorrect. On Friday, Google changed the border line in Google Maps, granting the disputed territory to Costa Rica, after consulting data supplied from the U.S. Department of State. The blog on the Google Earth and Maps team's "Lat Long Blog" explaining the dispute and the boundary line move gives a brief history lesson, too, explaining that the dispute in the area goes back to at least the mid-19th century.
• Uruguay's Supreme Court ruled that amnesty was unconstitutional in a number of cases involving human rights violations committed during the country's 12-year dictatorship.

This is cross-posted from the Latin America Working Group's blog, the LAWG Blog. It was written by Jennifer Johnson.

They did it again. Despite the fact that not a single soldier responsible for human rights violations has been held accountable by civilian authorities in the years since the onset of the Merida Initiative, the State Department released its second report on September 2nd affirming that the Mexican government has met the Merida Initiative’s human rights requirements. This report not only recommends the release of roughly $36 million in Merida funds that had been previously withheld from the 2009 and 2010 budgets, but also sends the wrong message to Mexico on human rights.

For over a year, LAWG and its partner US and Mexican NGOs have been persistent in reminding Secretary of State Clinton and other officials that long-lasting improvements to public security in Mexico cannot be accomplished without ensuring advances in human rights. However, State’s latest assessment runs contrary to what our organizations, as well as the State Department’s own reports, have clearly demonstrated. In response, LAWG joined with Human Rights Watch, Washington Office on Latin America, Amnesty International and five Mexican human rights organizations to send the message to Congress that it is in the best interest of both countries to provide a candid assessment of Mexico’s progress towards improving accountability and transparency and withhold funds pending real progress.

While we underscore our grave concerns regarding ongoing human rights violations, particularly impunity for abuses committed by the military and use of torture, we do want to note one step—albeit small—in the right direction. In the September 2nd report, the State Department identified its intention to withhold a portion of FY10 supplemental funds (roughly $26 million) until two events took place, one of which is the introduction (but not the passage or implementation) of a proposal to reform the Military Code of Justice. The impact or effectiveness of such a proposal cannot be evaluated as it has yet to be made public, but the understanding is that this reform would limit the crimes that can be tried in military courts. The State Department’s effort to press for a reform to military jurisdiction is positive in that it points to the urgency of such a reform; however, mere legislation does not alone ensure fulfillment of the human rights requirements detailed in the Merida Initiative which “measure not only changes in law, but in practice”.

You can find below the full statement issued jointly by LAWGEF, Tlachinollan Human Rights Center, Washington Office on Latin America, Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Human Rights Center, Amnesty International USA, Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos Human Rights Watch, Fundar, and the Monitor Civil de la Policía en Guerrero.

If you’d like to read the report in english click here o para leerlo en español, haga clic aquí.

On May 18, 2010, Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), the Republican minority-party leader of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a detailed report evaluating U.S. aid to Mexico since the 2007 launch of the Mérida Initiative (download the PDF). This report included a very detailed table of aid that has been delivered, or is pending delivery, through the State Department's International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) program.

We have added the information in these tables to the Just the Facts database (see equipment details for 2009 here and training details for 2009 and 2010 here). Below is a summary of some of the information provided in the report's tables.

Top Ten Most Expensive Equipment to be Delivered to Mexico between 2009 and 2014

• $150,000,000 for 3 CASA Aircraft to assist the Mexican Navy in maritime interdiction efforts (due to be delivered in Summer 2012)
• $110,000,000 for 3 UH-60 Helicopters to assist the Mexican Navy in coastal operations (due to be delivered in 2014)
• $76,500,000 for 3 UH-60 Helicopters for the Secretariat of Public Security (SSP) - Federal Police (due to be delivered in 2010)
• $66,000,000 for 5 Bell 412 Helicopters for the Mexican Army (delivered in 2009)
• $50,000,000 for 1 CASA Aircraft to assist the Mexican Navy in maritime interdiction efforts (due to be delivered in Winter 2011)
• $39,000,000 for 2 Bell 412 Helicopters for Mexican Army troop movement in support of counternarcotics operations (due to be delivered in 2010, estimated date of signed contract is August 2010)
• $28,000,000 for Constanza Software for the Procuraduría General de Justicia (delivered in 2010)
• $20,000,000 for Mobile Gamma Radiation Trucks. 18 are for the Secretariat of Public Security - Federal Police and 1 for the Mexican Army (due to be delivered in 2010)
• $15,500,000 ISR Aircraft for the Secretariat of Public Security - Federal Police (due to be delivered in 2011)
• $10,400,000 for 3 installed X-ray Portal Units for the Customs Agency

Total Dollar Amounts of Pending and Delivered Equipment as of May 2010

• Equipment

• Total dollar amount of equipment pending delivery in 2010: $230,985,322
• Total dollar amount of equipment due to be delivered from 2011-2014: $330,500,000

This table appears in the Committee's report

Total Equipment Pending and Delivered, by Recipient Unit:

• $261,200,000 - Mexican Navy
• $129,044,396 - Secretariat of Public Security - Federal Police
• $106,575,711 - Mexican Army
• $39,600,000 - National Migration Institute
• $36,140,271 - Procuraduría General de Justicia
• $26,101,277 - Customs Agency
• $16,100,000 - National Security and Investigations Center
• $6,238,744 - Secretariat of Communications

U.S. Narcotics Affairs Section Capacity Building Events - Top recipient units, 2009 and 2010 combined

• Secretariat of Public Security - Federal Police: 4,957 trainees (corrections, investigations, and policy & procedure courses)
• State officials: 75 trainees (anti-kidnapping courses)
• Customs Agency: 44 trainees (canine courses)

Twenty-seven members of the U.S. House of Representatives signed and sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a letter (PDF) expressing their concern regarding the human rights violations and violations to the democratic order in Honduras that continue one year after the June 28, 2009 coup ousted President Manuel Zelaya.

The letter asks Secretary Clinton to send Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Michael Posner to Honduras "to make a prompt assessment of what is occurring there with regard to human and political rights" in order to justify continuing U.S. support for Honduras without "significant restrictions."

Below is the full-text of the letter. You can download the PDF here.

Dear Secretary Clinton:

Next Monday, June 28th , marks the first anniversary of the coup in Honduras. We write to express our continuing concern regarding the grievous violations of human rights and the democratic order which commenced with the coup and continue to this day. We recognize the challenges facing President Lobo and welcome efforts to reconcile the country and strengthen the rule of law that are consistent with international human rights and humanitarian law.

It is our belief that the State Department should rise to this occasion and assign Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Michael Posner to visit Honduras and make a prompt assessment of what is occurring there with regards to human and political rights. Without an early and accurate report, we would be reluctant to see U.S. support for Honduras continue without significant restrictions.

During your recent visit to Latin America, you asserted that Honduras has made progress since President Lobo took office in January 2010. However, it is our view that political violence continues to wrack Honduras, and insecurity grips much of the population. Reports indicate that many Hondurans fear for their safety, lack confidence in the rule of law, and remain subject to the whims of those in power, including architects and holdovers from last year's coup that are protected by a climate of impunity.

In this year alone, nine journalists in Honduras have been murdered, and several more have been tortured, kidnapped and suffered death threats, including threats against their families. Also, there are cases of reporters who have been forced to leave the country due to these threats, some of them looking for asylum here in the U.S. and Canada. Members of social movements who oppose or criticize the government have been victims of violence and subject to ongoing intimidation. Several judges have been summarily dismissed for raising principled questions about the legality of the coup. Against this backdrop, a number of Army officials suspected of being involved in the coup have been appointed to executive positions in the Lobo government. Most notably, General Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces at the time of the coup, is now the head of Hondutel, the national telecommunications company. The appointment of Velásquez, a primary actor in the coup, is troubling because in his new position he controls the country's telephone, Internet and fax lines at a time when human rights advocates and political opposition leaders fear they are being persecuted for their activism.

President Lobo is eager, in his words, to bury the past. But these violations of human rights and democratic order persist in Honduras on his watch. At the same time, Honduras has failed to live up to its commitments regarding the Truth Commission and establishing a government of national unity, which the U.S. last year deemed as prerequisites for Honduras being treated again with the legitimacy of a democratic government.

We strongly believe U.S. policymakers need an accurate assessment of the current human rights situation in Honduras in order to formulate policies that can support the Lobo administration's efforts to strengthen the rule of law and return the democratic order to the country. We strongly and respectfully recommend that you direct Assistant Secretary Posner to visit Honduras for the purpose of collecting the facts on the current human and political rights situation and reporting back to you and to us as promptly as possible, including but not limited to, the following issues:

1. The murders, assaults, threats and exiling of journalists.
2. The murders, assaults, threats and exiling of members of the Resistance Movement, labor unions and the Afro, Indigenous and LGBT communities.
3. The dismissal by the Supreme Court of judges who opposed the coup.
4. The resources and mandate available to Ana Pineda, special advisor to President Lobo on human rights, to carry out her work.
5. The potential for the Truth Commission to lead to justice and reconciliation.

The Congress needs a clear and candid assessment by the U.S. Department of State concerning conditions on the ground in Honduras as they are - not as we might wish or imagine them to be. Our country cannot claim to uphold the democratic values at stake in Honduras or the region more broadly, and we in Congress cannot countenance additional support for the government of Honduras, without a reliable report about the status of political and human rights as they prevail under President Lobo and a plan for addressing these conditions effectively.

This post was written by CIP's Cuba program intern Meghan Vail

On May 27th, two House of Representatives committees held a joint hearing on U.S.-Mexico security cooperation. The Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism of the Committee on Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the Committee on Foreign Affairs were specifically interested in the next steps for the Mérida Initiative, the $1.4 billion U.S. counternarcotics and security program for Mexico.

A webcast of the hearing is available here.

While members of the committees voiced their individual concerns regarding current implementation of the Mérida Initiative and the funds committed to this program, several common concerns emerged in the course of the hearing, which occurred within weeks of the passage of the Arizona state immigration law (SB 1070) and within days of President Obama’s authorization of 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to assist border patrol and local law enforcement. Accordingly, many of the questions addressed to the panel dealt not only with the delayed utilization of obligated Mérida funds, but also the significance of the National Guard deployment, the specified roles of governmental and non-governmental agencies in border protection and security, and the suitability of Arizona as a national model for securing the border.

Below is a summary of House members’ opening remarks and the testimonies and Q&A period of the first panel. You can watch the entire hearing here.

Opening Remarks
The hearing began with opening statements from House members Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Candice Miller (R-MI), Eliot Engel (D-NY), Connie Mack (R-FL) and Bennie Thompson (D-MS).

Chairman Cuellar expressed the committees’ desire to see an increase in the pace at which the funds obligated for the Mérida Initiative since 2007 are put to use. He expressed interest in the panelists’ perspectives on previous and future implementation of Mérida, as well as the significance of the Obama Administration’s deployment of the National Guard to the U.S.-Mexico border earlier this week.

Rep. Miller expressed her desire to see an even greater presence of the National Guard at the U.S.-Mexico border than has currently been ordered. She claimed that Mexican gangs are the greatest threat to U.S. security. Despite the bipartisan support for the Mérida Initiative, implementation has been inexplicably delayed. From her perspective, Congressional legislation is necessary to confirm that U.S. agencies are carrying out their responsibilities regarding Mérida. Rep. Miller cautioned that the actions taken by the Mexican government to stem the violence must also be recognized.

Chairman Engel posed several questions about the nature and length of the National Guard deployment. How long will the troops be deployed there? Are measures being taken to ensure that the National Guard will not undermine existing security efforts? He said that while he respects President Obama’s decision to send the troops and felt that President Obama had to do it, he warns that the National Guard is not police or law enforcement and is “temporary at best.” He argued that the Guard deployment cannot be seen as a campaign against immigrants.

According to Chairman Engel, a plan to strengthen key U.S. agencies and their Mexican counterparts is necessary. It is the relationship with government that will make Mérida successful, and the behavior of all agencies must be transparent. There are three things with regard to the Mérida Initiative that Rep. Engel would like to see:

• Expedited assistance - only 2% of obligated funds had been spent by September 2009.
• Acceptance of the Senate’s proposal of $175 million in funding for the new judicial system to be created by 2016.
• President Obama’s reinstatement of the existing ban on military weapons, a decision that would require no legislation. Security systems are not enough, he argues, when Americans are the consumers and the providers of arms for cartels.

Rep. Mack began his opening statement by identifying what in his perspective was a “red flag” – Mexican President Calderon’s proposal that the U.S. create new guns laws. He argued that the existing laws should be enforced and that the situation of violence at the border should not be used to enforce a ban agenda. He was similarly troubled by the fact that less than 2% of the obligated funds had been implemented, and argued that taxpayers couldn’t be told that security was being provided under these circumstances. He asked, why is there no time sensitive, targeted assistance?

Rep. Mack argued that the Mérida parties need to create a comprehensive regional drug strategy and promote strong commercial ties. On these grounds, he advocates for passage of the free-trade agreements with Colombia and Panama. As for implementation of the Mérida Initiative in the past, his perspective is that little implementation appears comprehensive in nature. He argued that the existing security resources should be improved and that the Arizona law is not a solution.

Rep. Thompson concluded the opening statements by remarking that efficiency in implementation must be accompanied by accountability. As for future implementation, he argues strongly in favor of seeking feedback and involvement from people at the border, cautioning that their perspective is much better than the D.C. perspective.

First Panel
The first panel of witnesses at the hearing was comprised of Obama administration officials from various departments: Roberta Jacobson of the State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs; Mariko Silver, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Office of International Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security; Alonzo Peña of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security; and Allen Gina of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

After all panelists had spoken, Roberta Jacobson responded to the first question addressed to the panelists from Chairman Cuellar, who inquired if the State Department had established a plan to expedite the allocation of funds obligated to implement the Mérida Initiative. Jacobson responded that the Department had improved its processes given that it had a lot of structures to put in place. She spoke of a 275% “increased presence in Mexico” and the establishment of a bilateral implementation working group that meets monthly. She estimated an implementation of approximately $600 million of Mérida-allocated funds by the end of this fiscal year.

Chairman Engel indicated that the Committees sought assurances that the pace of implementation of funds would be increased, noting that funding may be cut if the funds were not put to use. He inquired about the use of performance measures and argued that the government could not ignore the flow of weapons across the border. He questioned the panel as to why President Obama was not moving more “forcefully” on this issue.

Chairman Cuellar questioned the federal government’s overall strategy to secure the border and the specific collaborative roles of the federal, state, and local governments. He argued that each governmental agency’s role should be established in writing.

As to where the agencies were in the process of securing the border, Mr. Peña responded that he didn’t know if there was an overall strategy for federal, state and local governments. He commented that the implementation of a plan had begun in Arizona and was being expanded to incorporate Texas. Chairman Cuellar responded that Mr. Peña’s comments indicated that no model was in fact in place. Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) asserted that if Arizona was to become the national model for a secure border, Arizona’s input must be considered.

In response to a question from a committee member regarding whether or not a directive had been issued that immigrants picked up under Arizona’s law would be processed and deported, Mr. Peña responded that no such directive existed. He commented that resource priorities are criminal aliens who affect national security and that officers have to exercise prosecutorial discretion.

The panel was also questioned as to what the National Guard was accomplishing at the border that agencies could not, and Ms. Silver and Mr. Peña responded that the Guard was providing counterintelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Chairman Engel questioned if U.S. citizens were now being targeted at the border, and Ms. Silver responded that an investigation into Chairman Engel’s question was forthcoming. The results of this investigation would be produced to the subcommittees.

Rep. Mack further stressed the issue of delayed Mérida implementation, to which Ms. Silver responded that the border at present is staffed better than at any other point in history. She asserted that the measures taken at the border are not merely a reaction to the Arizona law and that some existing measures were already in place.

Rep. Thompson commented on the President’s proposal for more representation from Customs and Border Protection at the border, not Immigration and Customs Enforcement. After questioning the purpose of the surge of troops, Congressman Thompson pointed out that agencies had not formerly requested more personnel from Congress.

Representative Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) commented that Congress was working hard to combat the violence at the border by approving the increase in border patrol officers from 4,000 to 20,000 nationwide.

Congresswoman Giffords sought to clarify the statement of what it means to place troops on the border and advocated for a placement of troops directly on the border. She insisted that the placement of troops was critical to stemming the violence. If the border patrol is deployed far away, she argued, the border is not, in fact, being watched. Consequently, apprehension is difficult.

She proceeded to ask about the placement of the National Guard and whether or not they have the knowledge and skills to protect and defend themselves. She questioned if they were aware of the rules of engagement. Ms. Silver responded that the Guard would be staffed and protected as needed, but that their placement was intended to free up personnel to be on the border. Chairman Cuellar replied that the National Guard should not be freeing up the Customs and Border Patrol to do their jobs. If the CBP needs assistance, he argued, clerks or assistants should be hired.