The Miami Herald ha has
a new editorial, Central America's free-fire zone, calling for
stronger action against Honduras in light of escalating violence and
corruption.
The recent withdrawal of America’s Peace Corps volunteers from Honduras is one more sign that the security situation in that Central American country has deteriorated to crisis levels not seen since the civil wars of the 1980s. The country is quickly turning into a disaster zone.
After the tide of civil war receded, the armies went back to their barracks and the insurgents laid down their arms. But then narcotics traffickers flooded in, and the violence has spiked dramatically ever since. The DEA estimates that 25 tons of cocaine move through the country every month heading north.
In my opinion, the
editorial is poorly framed. First, why all this talk about civil wars, armies
returning to their barracks, and insurgents laying down their arms when, in the
case of Honduras, it didn't experience a civil war, the army returned to its
barracks but never relinquished power, and few insurgents ever posed a threat
to the survival of the regime.
Why not talk about the US-encouraged
militarization of the country during the 1970s and 1980s. How about the contras
operating on Honduran soil and launching illegal attacks across the border and
into Nicaragua? You could also write about US support and training for Honduran
troops involved in helping to massacre Salvadorans along its border during the
1980s.
They could also avoid
the 1980s Cold War rhetoric altogether since the war's been over for twenty
years. If there's been a "a 250-percent increase in half a dozen years," why not
look to the source of violence six years ago rather than twenty-five years ago?
They could write about some of the mano dura policies first
introduced in 2002 or the breakdown of the rule of law prior to, during, and
after the 2009 coup?
It's
also a terrible title because, while violent, I'm not exactly sure that anyone
would describe the situation as a "free-fire zone" and if it's an
editorial about the situation in Honduras, why not put "Honduras" in
the title rather than "Central America."
For a south Florida
newspaper with an international audience, they should be able to write about
Honduras' particular history rather than general regional patterns.
This time, however, there appears to be no effective U.S. strategy to combat the wave of crime and the gradual destruction of the country. To make matters worse in Honduras, there are indications that elements of the U.S.-backed government are complicit in the violence and criminality.
Way to beat around the
bush. How about the Honduran government receives millions of dollars each year
from the United States at the same time that members of the executive,
legislative and judicial branches are responsible for much of the country's
violence and criminality? The evidence that the Miami Herald lists after these
two statements is much stronger but they already undermined its effect with
indications, elements, and complicit framing.
Nudging Honduran leaders to do the right thing hasn’t worked. Time for Washington to get serious and put U.S. aid on the line, starting with an accounting of where U.S. dollars have ended up. The U.S. government helped fund a program to train Honduran prison guards, but has since lost track of where those guards wound up.
Historically, the United States has been the biggest bilateral donor of aid to Honduras, but where’s the accountability?
Congress should withdraw assistance if the Honduran government blocks reforms. This crisis requires more than tough talk.
Finally, I support an
effort to hold Honduran leaders accountable for the security situation and
corruption. However, the editorial also should have called on the US congress
and the executive branch to review their own actions. How have they contributed
to the situation in Honduras? How are they going to change the way that they
operate?
Does anyone in the US government have a clue?
(h/t to Boz for
a link to the article)
0 comments:
Post a Comment