The Mexican Attorney General’s Office has charged a number of accomplished of academics with organized crime and money laundering. Yes, you read that correctly and it is as crazy as it sounds. Just to be clear from the start, they are not accused of being involved with drug trafficking or pocketing money to buy mansions. The accusation relates to one academic program’s support for another academic program.

Organized crime and money laundering are real problems in Mexico. They are impediments to a more prosperous and equitable Mexico. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is known for his campaign against corruption. But what is happening here appears to be something else.

The López Obrador government alleges that one academic institution, CONACYT (the National Council for Science and Technology), used funds to inappropriately support another academic institution, the Foro Consultivo (the Scientific and Technological Consultative Forum). Even if true, it is not clear that a crime has even been committed since CONACYT’s governing documents reportedly mandated it to support the Foro Consultivo.

I don’t know the particulars of academic financing in Mexico and have no opinion about whether or not inappropriate academic financial transfers took place. But let’s look at the supposed crime – organized crime and money laundering – and the penalties they could incur. Does the accusation fit the alleged crime?

The UNODC defines organized crime as, “a continuing criminal enterprise that rationally works to profit from illicit activities…. (and) is maintained through corruption of public officials and the use of intimidation, threats or force to protect its operations.” Global Financial Integrity defines money laundering as, “the process of disguising the proceeds of crime and integrating it into the legitimate financial system.”

In this case, it is reported that CONACYT approved the budgets and expenses of the Foro and that the funds were externally audited. While something may have been inappropriate, it is hard to imagine how a misdeed of this type rises to the level of organized crime or money laundering.

In Mexico, simply being accused of these crimes can result in pretrial detention in a maximum-security prison. The Mexican Attorney General has twice sought arrest warrants for the academics. Twice judges have denied the request.

So what is happening here? Why these outsized charges for leading academics? Along with AMLO’s anti-corruption theme have been austerity measures that have hit public universities hard. The Foro did not just complain about the cuts, they sued the government over austerity related cuts.

Academia is based on challenging ideas. Their research should (and does) challenge the status quo. Threatening academics with a stint in a maximum-security prison is beyond the pale. Fear will keep them from performing their role in society.

The government’s allegations create real fear within the Mexican academic community. Maybe instigating fear is the intent. To silence and ensure compliance.

Unfortunately, this is not over. The Mexican Attorney General has said that he will seek another warrant for the academics. Scaring professors into not criticizing the government will not help Mexico. Organized crime and money laundering are the real problems.

*First published in Mexican newspaper La Reforma’s English language site MexicoToday.com 11/23/21.

It is ten months into the Biden Administration and time they started owning their approach to Trump era foreign policies that they haven’t changed – like Cuba policy. US policy toward Cuba is stuck in a Cold War time warp and held in place by domestic policy concerns that have nothing to do what makes sense for 2021.

The Obama Administration stepped back from the Cold War “regime change” approach to Cuba policy and instead focused on encouraging change through engagement. With justifiable fanfare – after half of century of relations based on the idea that economic and political isolation would force change – the Obama Administration re-established a US embassy, eased rules on travel that dramatically increased the number of US visitors and eliminated almost all restrictions on the delivery of remittances to Cuba. While Cuba is one of the rare cases in which the US Congress has codified economic sanctions, meaning the Obama Administration couldn’t lift the entire embargo without congressional action, they went a long way in changing the fundamentals of the policy and the relationship.

Under the Trump Administration the US/Cuba relationship reverted to the 1980s. Since President Biden took office little has changed. Technically the US embassy in Havana still exists, but it has few staff members. With almost no staff, they don’t have the capacity to provide visas to Cubans for refugee admissions, family reunification or other options. This lack of legal pathways for migrations is contributing to the large number of Cubans crossing through Mexico and attempting to cross undocumented into the US at the southern border. While travel to Cuba had expanded greatly by the end of the Obama Administration, now only a handful of direct flights from the US are allowed. As Covid-19 related economic disruptions hit Cuba hard, the Trump Administration all but ended the flow of remittances from the US to Cuban families, first limiting total remittances to US $4,000, then imposing sanctions that made it impossible for Western Union to transfer remittances through Cuban financial institutions. These left-over policies from the Trump Administration mean that now, under the Biden Administration US/Cuba policy is still based on isolation.

The question of what to do with countries that break the rules of democratic governance – like Cuba – has long been a diplomatic challenge. If military intervention is off the table – which I’m glad it is – economic sanctions are considered one of the primary tools available to convey objection to human rights violations or anti-democratic behavior.

In recent years a lot of questions have arisen about the impact of economic sanctions, not just toward Cuba, but around the world. General economic sanctions are considered to have serious unintended consequences for the most vulnerable people in the target country. It is not the rich or corrupt who suffer. It is those living on the edge, taking public transportation and using public health services.

With these critiques in mind, the US Treasury Department recently published a global review of sanctions policy. The review recommended changes in how sanctions should be structured rather than recommending changes to specific country sanctions. Nonetheless, it is relevant to Cuba as three of the key recommendations are that: 1) sanctions be linked to a clear policy goal – while Cuba sanctions are about regime change; 2) the cost of sanctions should fall on the intended target – while Cuba sanctions impede access to humanitarian goods and limit the ability of families to support their loved ones; and 3) there should be international support for sanctions – while the UN votes regularly to condemn US sanctions on Cuba.

Among the Treasury Department’s recommendations are this: “Going forward, Treasury will continue to review its existing authorities to consider the unintended consequences of current sanctions regimes on humanitarian activity necessary to support basic human needs, as well as potential changes to address them while continuing to deny support to malicious actors.” Applying this analysis to existing US/Cuba policy is something the Biden Administration needs to do now.

To be clear, the reconsideration of sanctions should not ignore the Cuban government’s authoritarian practices, violations of due process or human rights abuses. This summer, discontent over food shortages, power black outs, and the government’s failure to follow through on promised reforms led to an eruption of spontaneous protests in Cuba, the likes of which have not been seen in decades. It was exciting to watch the free expression of popular sentiment. Unfortunately, the government quickly shut it down. A follow up protest is scheduled for November 15th. There is no doubt that the Cuban government will go to great lengths to stop this protest before it starts. They have a long history of detaining protest leaders before protests even happen. The US and others can and should encourage the Cuban government to tolerate and listen to dissent. The international community shouldn’t be indifferent when popular protest gets stifled. But being critical of Cuba doesn’t mean sticking to a failed policy of isolation.

Restructuring Cuba policy isn’t easy, but just keeping the Trump era restrictions is not the answer. For political pragmatists in the Democratic camp, there is always a reason not to change Cuba policy. Right after Biden came into office it was because he had bigger fish to fry – the domestic economic and social policy agenda. Then, all of the foreign policy political capital was spent on the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Now the reason for inaction is the US mid-term congressional elections. It would incense some voters in south Florida and they think risk the Democrats ability to win congressional seats. After November of 2022 the rationale will be that Cuba policy change will risk the Democrats ability to hold the presidency. The excuses are endless.

It is time for the Biden Administration to own the policies they implement. They did this in a good way last week when they issued a new ruling to end Remain in Mexico, the Trump era policy that forces US asylum seekers to wait in Mexico pending the termination of their cases in the US. That wasn’t a politically easy change. Now they should own Cuba policy by refocusing on engagement, as Obama did, and implementing the sanctions recommendations made by the Treasury Department. Waiting won’t make it easier and certainly doesn’t make current policy any better.

* Originally published on 11/2/21 in Mexican newspaper La Reforma’s site MexicoToday.com

The Biden Administration has recently announced that it will reinstate the “Migrant Protection Program” (what a misnomer) also called “Remain in Mexico” (somewhat more honest). Established by the Trump Administration, it requires asylum seekers, who approach the US border from Mexico, to stay there while their cases are adjudicated.

If you thought that policy was still in place, you are excused. It is very hard to keep track of US policies to deter asylum seekers at the US/Mexico border. Just to refresh your memory, the other one is called “Title 42,” which sounds like an article of the Constitution or the chapter of a much too long book. Title 42 is shorthand for the health code that allows the government to turn back potential asylum seekers using a public health rationale. While it may have had justification early in the Covid-19 pandemic, it is now simply a specious legal argument that allows the Border Patrol to turn people away before they can apply for asylum.

Democrats cried foul when the Trump Administration created Remain in Mexico, and a sad looking encampment of asylum seekers formed in Matamoros, within sight of the Brownsville border crossing. When President Biden was elected, they reversed the Remain in Mexico policy and dismantled the camp, but kept Title 42. It was a handy rationale to keep asylum seekers at bay.

Now, US courts have instructed the Biden Administration to reinstate Remain in Mexico. But before we allow “the judge made me do it” excuse to settle in, note that this decision was made because the Trump era program was determined to have been improperly terminated. The Biden Administration could simply decide to end it in a way that is acceptable to the court.

Let’s be clear. Instead of deciding to properly end the Trump era program, which violated international asylum commitments, the Biden Administration will own Remain in Mexico. This stain is on them.

Where does all of this leave asylum seekers? Dumped back on the Mexican side of the border, without support. There are currently camps of potential US asylum seekers sitting in plazas in Reynosa and Tijuana. They are disturbing scenes of humanity, filth and people being preyed upon by criminals.

Neither country wants to encourage asylum seekers and seem to think that misery is the best deterrent. Where are the international humanitarian assistance organizations that we all know and love – the big institutions like the UN High Commission for Refugees or the big international NGOs? Not in the most dangerous Mexican border cities. They all consider them too dangerous to have a continuous presence. The US State Department lists Tamaulipas as a “Do Not Travel” state, and seriously restricts the travel of US employees.

But this is where we will send migrants to wait while their US asylum claims are considered. To be clear, people requesting asylum do so because of a fear of persecution in their home countries. Our response is to make them wait in places where international organizations are too afraid to work, and US government employees are prohibited from moving about. US citizens are rightly outraged when children’s rights are not respected in US immigration facilities, or when Haitian migrants are chased on horseback at the border. But if we push these same people across the line back into Mexico, those so outraged fall silent. Pushing the asylum crisis into Mexico, into places US citizens will not venture, may help those on this side of the border sleep better at night, because they don’t see the problem. But Remain in Mexico creates a nightmare for asylum seekers and if President Biden reinstates it, he will shoulder the blame.

*Originally published in the Mexican newspaper La Reforma’s site MexicoToday.com – 10/19/20.

This past week Mexico and the US restarted high level economic talks. This is good; as this kind of diplomatic engagement was dismantled under the Trump Administration. Central American migration was on the agenda. That’s good too, but both countries need to start displaying a sense of urgency to address the causes of migration.

Granted, high level diplomatic dialogues are not detail laden affairs. These are meetings of “the principals–” cabinet secretaries — and in this case Vice President Harris. They are designed to build the participants trust and facilitate problem solving, laudable goals. But this meeting reminded me of how much talk there is about addressing the “root causes” of migration and how little substance I see.

The presidents of both countries inherited dysfunctional migration systems from their predecessors, but both have also been in office long enough to own the policies that they execute. Neither country’s rhetoric aligns with what people in Central America experience.

The US talks about a US $4 billion investment in the Northern Triangle. But US economic aid is the slow boat to China (or in this case, Central America). It generally takes years from the moment that spending is announced, for it to be approved by Congress, contracted out and then implemented. To someone desperate for change in their immediate future, what could happen in two years means nothing.

Vice President Harris is also encouraging businesses to invest in Central America, but the US is not playing diplomatic hardball with fundamentally corrupt and undemocratic governments, and economic and political elites. If the US wants more investment in the region then their anti-corruption policies need to be more than tough tweeting.

Then there is Mexico, which professes to offer hope by announcing the expansion to Guatemala of Sembrando Vida, an employment generation/tree planting program; accompanying this announcement was an appeal to the US to provide temporary work visas for those who participate. Let’s take that apart. The provision of large numbers of temporary work visas to Central Americans could be an important part of a legitimate response to the outflow of people from the region and something that could give people immediate hope. But linking Sembrando Vida to a US visa, is a political gimmick. Few people will throw stones at a tree planting program, but Guatemalans aren’t going to stop leaving home because they got temporary work planting trees. The tree program is about Mexico looking like it is responding to a migration crisis without actually doing much. The US needs to provide serious numbers of work visas to Central America, and Mexico should push them to do it.

When both countries want to move fast to address a problem, they can. Just look at the US response to the Afghani refugees, or how fast the Mexican National Guard was brought in to stop migrants at Mexico’s southern border. When there is a sense of immediacy, and when a crisis does not involve our borders, both nations spring into action. But when the desperate people are your neighbors, it’s a different story.

The politicians are talking a good game about the root causes of migration in Central America, but the talk is miles ahead of action. Instead of giving people hope that things will change, all this talk is feeding cynicism. Only actions that are concrete and have some immediate component will provide a thread of hope to would be migrants. Both governments feel political urgency when it comes to migrants and refugees crossing our borders. Let’s see some urgency in addressing the root causes of migration.

*Originally published in the Mexican newspaper La Reforma’s site, MexicoToday.com 9/15/21.

Venezuela is mired in crisis, but a new round of negotiations, that started in Mexico on August 13th, provide new hope, albeit distant, for something better. Both Mexico and the US have potentially constructive roles to play in this process.

Two years ago, after elections on a dramatically slanted playing field gave Nicolás Maduro a second six-year term as president, 60 countries chose instead to recognize the head of the National Assembly, Juan Guaidó as president. As international support turned to Guaidó, and Maduro’s government became more isolated internationally, both sides turned to Norway to facilitate a process of negotiations.

That round of negotiations, known as the Barbados talks, ended by the fall of 2019, without positive conclusion. Hard-liners and skeptics on both sides willed it to fail, and too many outsiders, including the US, did not actively support the negotiations. Complicating matters even more, Venezuela had become a place where the US’, China’s, and Russia’s geopolitics were playing out.

The biggest losers in all of this are the people of Venezuela. Over 5 million people left Venezuela as a result of the economic and political crisis that started well before 2019. The economy is in shambles. There is hyper-inflation. While not creating the economic crisis, US sanctions have hobbled any possible economic recovery, but not achieved its desired outcome, pushing Maduro to relinquish power. The healthcare system was in collapse, then came Covid-19.

The new round of negotiations is somewhat surprising. Power dynamics and possible outcomes as in any negotiation are constantly shifting; some argue that Maduro is stronger than the opposition political parties. That said, neither side goes into these negotiations with much support from the people they are supposed to serve. A recent Datanalisis poll showed that 75% of Venezuelans consider themselves “independents” and very few trust either the government or political parties.

Venezuelan civil society organizations, working together, are stepping into the credibility gap and developing concrete proposals to solve the problems of daily life. Even if civil society organizations don’t have a seat at the negotiating table, their proposals should be taken into consideration. Working together around these proposals, the government and the opposition could solve concrete problems and build confidence with each other and with the public.

Negotiations observers should not view this as a quick way to reinstate the opposition, as many did the last round. The only way out of this complex crisis is to start walking a path of conflict resolution and problem solving. Hopefully these negotiations begin by creating agreements that ease the lives of Venezuelans and provide greater humanitarian assistance. And, lay the groundwork for local and regional elections in October that encourage participation by all parties.

Only Venezuelans will resolve the deep-seated, multilevel crisis that is Venezuela today. Nonetheless, the international community can play a role in its success or failure. Mexico is choosing to play a constructive role by hosting this process. It is showing that non-intervention doesn’t have to mean non-engagement.

The US is already engaged concerning Venezuela. The EU, the US and Canada recently released a joint statement saying that they were willing to start lifting sanctions if negotiated agreements can be reached. That’s a positive start.

The hardest part of the negotiations process could be to get all parties at the table, and for those supporting it, to keep their eyes on the prize – results that actually benefit the people of Venezuela.

*Originally published in Mexican newspaper La Reforma’s publication, MexicoToday.com, 8/16/21.

Half a ton, 500 kilograms, over a thousand pounds of human remains in the form of ash and bone fragments have been found in La Bartolina, near Matamoros, Mexico. That’s what has been found to date in an effort to uncover what happened in this notorious place, just 12 kilometers from Brownsville, TX.

This “clandestine cremation site” or a “place of extermination,” once reportedly used by the Gulf Cartel, was identified in 2016, but not much about it has been reported officially until now. Karla Quintana head of Mexico’s National Search Commission in her semi-annual report revealed that this site has been being processed for the past five years, the last two by her office.

1,000 pounds. Let the weight of that sink in. How many people could that possibly have been? No one knows. What went on in La Bartolina was an extended atrocity. Some say that the cartel used the area from 2009-2016. How could something so horrible go on for that long and on this scale?

There are two things that might answer this question: the normalization of disappearance; and a fear-based abandonment of the region.

While families of the disappeared are working in remarkable ways to find their loved ones, often doing complex investigations themselves, disappearance in Mexico has also become normalized. Kidnappings happen a lot and we have gotten much too used to hearing about them.

The Mexican government’s registry of the disappeared contains about 88,000 names and covers the period of 2006 to the present. 21,000 of those on the list have disappeared during the AMLO administration. Kidnappings, disappearances and the findings of remains are all linked. While the Bartolina findings are historic in nature (they happened in the past), this year alone 71 people have disappeared on the road between Nuevo Laredo and Monterrey.

The AMLO administration should be given credit for acknowledging the problem and assigning serious people to run the National Search Commission. But we have all gotten too accustomed to talking about disappeared people. This is not normal or at least it shouldn’t be.

Then there is the rational fear-based avoidance of places like Tamaulipas. This state feels like the land everyone gave up on. Criminal organizations decide the parameters of what gets reported by the media and can shut down cities at will with outbursts of violence. No one wants responsibility for what happens there, so national authorities keep their distance. Searching the US State Department’s travel advisory page for Tamaulipas shows this message, “Do Not Travel due to crime and kidnapping.”

At both the national and international level organizations seem to have decided that Tamaulipas is too dangerous to even try doing anything about – best to just steer clear. When I ask humanitarian organizations why they don’t work in Tamaulipas, the answer is almost always because their security protocols – designed to keep their own workers safe – don’t allow it.

So that leaves us what we have now, an area where locals and migrants passing through, are in serious danger and few from the outside are even willing to witness their plight.

I am not cavalier about the risk. It is real. But we know what you get when no one from the outside is watching. You get 1,000 pounds of ash and bone.

*First published in the Mexican paper La Reforma’s English language site, MexicoToday.com 8/2/21

The Nicaraguan government, led by Daniel Ortega since 2007, has been clearing the opposition political field in recent weeks, seemingly in preparation for November presidential election. This spree has resulted in the detention of five presidential candidates and numerous community leaders critical of the government, including members of the business community.

On June 15 the Organization of American States (OAS) passed a resolution, supported by 26 countries, condemning Nicaragua for the, “arrest, harassment and arbitrary restrictions placed on presidential candidates, political parties and independent media and … call[ed] for the immediate release of presidential candidates and all political prisoners.”

The governments of Mexico and Argentina abstained from this vote and issued a joint statement, “express[ing] their concern over the recent events in Nicaragua, especially for the arrest of political opponents, a review of which would contribute to the Nicaraguan electoral process receiving appropriate international accompaniment and recognition.”

Mexico and Argentina have set themselves apart, staking out a common critical position on Nicaragua, while embracing non-intervention as a foundational foreign policy principle. Both countries have been highly criticized for this vote. However, their abstention does not appear to be a rubber stamp in favor of President Ortega. Since the OAS vote, and because of the rampant violation of rights Nicaragua, both countries have recalled their ambassadors for further consultation.

Non-intervention doesn’t have to mean non-engagement. There are important moments in recent Mexican and Argentine history where different types of foreign engagement played important roles. For example, Mexico had a respected part in the process leading up to the signing of the Chapultepec Peace Accords ending the Salvadoran civil war in 1992.

Argentina, on the other hand, was on the receiving end of international solidarity encouraging the return of democracy and respect for human rights during the years of military dictatorship. This foreign intervention has been heralded by Argentine governments since the restoration of democracy. The Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), one of those providing solidarity to those suffering through the Dirty War, was given the Emilio F. Mignone International Prize in 2009 by the government for having played that role. I received that award on WOLA’s behalf.

Maybe it’s time to update the concept of non-intervention keeping in mind these examples. In today’s parlance, non-intervention sounds like “you-be-you.” When young people say “you-be-you” they are endorsing the freedom to act as we choose at an individual level, but with limits. You can take any path you choose, but not at the expense of the rights of others. This generation staunchly defends the rights of oppressed minorities.

Mexico and Argentina’s abstention on the Nicaragua vote, could be an old-school narrow definition of non-intervention in which each country minds its own business. Or, it could be a form of a more modern “you-be-you” foreign policy in which condemnation is done in a way that attempts to create opportunity for constructive engagement

I may be criticized for wishful thinking, but by abstaining from the OAS vote, and doing it alongside Argentina, Mexico may have created a space to play a different role. Using this “you-be-you” foreign policy construct, these two countries could choose to engage with President Ortega to encourage freedom for political prisoners and free and fair elections. Let’s hope they use the space they have created wisely.

*Published in Mexican newspaper La Reforma’s, MexicoToday.com 6/21/21.

US Vice President Kamala Harris is making an attempt at values-based foreign policy in her current visit to Mexico and Central America. These values include democracy, human rights and justice. Attempting values based foreign policy is no small feat. While I wish her well, history has shown that immediate political realities often out weight values in US foreign policy.

This is Harris’s first foreign trip as Vice President. She has been assigned the unenviable role of addressing the root causes of migration from Central America. The White House is careful to explain that she is not responsible to what happens with migration at the US/Mexico border. That would be throwing her political future under the proverbial bus. President Biden, when he was vice president, was given a similar role.

Since the Cold War, a values-based US focus on Central America has meant foreign assistance to support economic development, public heath, governance and citizen security. I will make the case any day that economic and humanitarian assistance are better things to do with US money than the military aid of Cold War era. The metric for success is different than that era. Aid used to be given to keep communism from establishing a foothold in Central America. Now the metric is migration. Can the US keep people from wanting to leave Central America? While billions of US dollars in economic aid have gone to Central America, citizens from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras continue to flee the region for the US in huge numbers, escaping violence, lack of work and increasingly, the impact of climate change.

VP Harris often talks about hope, that the US wants Central Americans to see a future for themselves at home. This is on the mark. Migrants don’t risk everything, including their lives, for the fun of it. They take the risky overland journey out of desperation.

Anti-corruption is a new focus in the administration’s approach to values based foreign policy. While this theme isn’t specific to Central America, or foreign policy, it certainly applies to this trip. Central America has stayed poor because it is in the interest of local elites. Successful, innovative efforts to address state corruption have been systematically dismantled.

US administrations constantly struggle where professed values intersecting with political reality. At present that is manifest in Republicans using increased crossings at the US southern border to paint the Biden administration as weak. They want that paint to stick to VP Harris because she has a longer-term political future.

This is the context for the Vice President’s trip: the intersection of democratic values, anti-corruption and economic development in Central America, with the political desire for a visible reduction of migrants crossing the border. The countries with the levers to stem the flow of migration are the two she will be visiting, Mexico and Guatemala. During the Trump Administration, controlling the migration flow was the US’s number one priority with Mexico. My question for Harris’s trip is, “how will she balance aspirational values and the short-term goal of controlling migration?”

Corruption in Central America is a huge problem. It undermines justice and economic development and erodes people’s hope for a better future. Too often messages from US administrations prioritize deterring migrants over emphasizing the values US policy professes to embrace.

After spending a career accompanying human rights defenders in Latin America, I will continue to make the case for values-based foreign policy. The hope that inspires people to see a future in their homeland won’t come from the US. It will come from courageous individuals living out the values of justice, democracy and human rights. These people and processes need and deserve US support. While my experience tells me that short-term political considerations often trump ideals, when it comes to VP Harris’s visit to Mexico and Central America, I’m rooting for aspirational values.

*First published in the Mexican newspaper La Reforma’s English language MexicoToday.com 6/6/21.