The U.S. Embargo of Cuba

51 years later, a paradigm for how not to conduct foreign policy

By Edward V. Byrne for The Yucatan Times
October 26, 2011

View Edward V. Byrne's profile

Follow The Mexico Gulf Reporter here.

On the evening of December 31, 1958 the president of Cuba was a swaggering dictator named Fulgencio Batista.  An old friend of Washington and of the American mafia alike, Batista knew the end was near.  Cuban rebels, long his nemesis, were in the outskirts of Havana, and occasional gunfire could be heard in the distance. U.S. political support was quickly evaporating.  Eisenhower administration officials told Batista that it was time to pack his bags.  At a New Year's Eve party, over a champagne toast, he told his cabinet ministers that he was leaving the country in a few hours. At 3:00 a.m. on January 1, 1959, Batista boarded a plane with supporters and flew to the Dominican Republic, under the careful watch of U.S. officials.  With him, crammed into the cargo hold, went cash and art work estimated at $300-$700 million USD, all of it property of the Cuban state.

Back to the "Good Old Days" in Mexico

By Edward V. Byrne for The Yucatan Times
October 16, 2011

View Edward V. Byrne's profile


The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) ruled Mexico with an iron fist for 70 years, until the presidential election of 2000, when it lost to former president Vicente Fox.  PRI lost again in 2006, to Mexico's current PAN (National Action Party) president Felipe Calderón.  PRI is determined to recapture the presidency next year, and many political observers here agree: it has an excellent chance of doing so.

The centerpiece of PRI's 2012 campaign strategy is (or will be) its opposition to Calderón's five year old war against the drug cartels, which it says has been a dismal failure and a disastrous mistake.  Today a PRI senate leader, Carolos Jiménez Macías, upped the ante by accusing U.S. and Mexican authorities of having entirely fabricated an Iranian plot to kill one or more foreign ambassadors in Washington, D.C.  The plot was broken up by the FBI on September 29, with the arrest of one of the two Iranian ringleaders in New York, but the Justice Department did not disclose details until earlier this week.  One of those details was that the arrested Iranian had traveled several times to Mexico to deal with a drug cartel sicario (hit man), who was supposed to carry out the murder(s).  The hit man was actually a DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) undercover operative.  There is abundant evidence to back the claims, including a $100,000 USD wire transfer by the Iranian to the presumed Mexican assassin.

U.S. officials praised Mexico's cooperation and assistance in busting up the plot, and some Calderón officials took a bow earlier this week when the story broke.  DEA officials said recently that the Calderón anti-cartel offensive launched in 2006 has had a very measurable impact on disrupting the flow of drugs north into the United States.  President Obama called Calderón last week to thank him for Mexico’s cooperation and assistance, both in the Iranian matter and the drug war as well.  Those kinds of things seem to infuriate some politicians here – most of whom wave the tricolor of PRI.

"Let's see if over time it doesn't appear that the Americans (set up) the whole 'plot,'" said PRI political boss Jiménez Macías, who chairs the Mexican Senate's Asian-Pacific Foreign Affairs Committee. He claimed the entire episode was “another” U.S. attempt to intervene in Mexico's internal affairs.

Meanwhile, a group of rabid anti-Calderóns and anti-PANistas filed a criminal complaint against him this week, with the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.  For those of you not up on your Eastern European history, that’s the same tribunal which arrested and tried dozens of Slavic military and political leaders for rape and genocide committed during the Balkan Wars of the 1990s.  Those modern day Nazis were convicted of war crimes, and now some of Calderón’s opponents want him charged with exactly the same, for daring to take on the drug cartels.  Not all of the legal complainants  – referred to as “professors and intellectuals” in their media releases – are PRIstas, but many are, or are supporters sub silentio.

In a wide ranging interview with the New York Times published this weekend, president Calderón said that there are some in PRI who would prefer to return to the "old days," by "making a deal" with organized crime forces.  That's a very charitable understatement.  During decades of PRI control, nothing was done to curb the growing influence of drug traffickers.   Felipe Calderón is the first president in the history of Mexico to launch a full scale offensive against domestic criminals - the drug cartels – which now plainly represent a veritable international threat, on the same level or worse than many terrorist groups. 

The question is, will Calderón’s bold and courageous offensive go up in smoke when a new president takes office in December 2012?

© Edward V. Byrne 2011. This article may be cited or quoted with proper attribution to the author but otherwise not reproduced in whole or in part without express permission.

Just Another Afternoon in Juárez

By Edward V. Byrne for The Yucatan Times

View Edward V. Byrne's profile

Follow The Mexico Gulf Reporter Blog here.

Only feet from a neighborhood tech school

There are tons of websites and blogs inside and outside of Mexico which cover nothing but the ongoing drug war and the endless narco violence. Some are in Spanish, some in English, some both. I'm not one of them, nor will I ever be.

It's not my goal to furnish readers with a steady diet of violence. Of course, violence is very much a part of the reality of life in Mexico, and to ignore it altogether would be to lie. When 35 bodies are dumped on a main street at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon in full view of horrified motorists and passers-by, you can bet I'm going to write about it. As I said in a recent editorial in The Yucatan Times (click on it below), "It is important to faithfully record what really happens here every day, just as it is and not as it might be. To suppress the truth would be to inflict further violence on the innocents, on those who have already once been victimized. I will not do that."

This afternoon brings more "routine" stories of multiple drug related murders across Mexico. In Chihuahua, six young people were executed. The details are yet unclear. But a report from the border town of Ciudad Juárez caught my eye. I believe Juárez still holds the title of the world's most dangerous city, based upon its homicide rate in recent years. It's more dangerous than Baghdad, we're told.

At about 2:00 p.m., three undercover officers were working the streets in an unmarked car. They were part of a special anti-extortion unit in Juárez. That particular crime goes on everywhere in Mexico, and carries with it the power to destroy the country. Armed gunmen walked quickly up to the car, and immediately opened fire with machine guns. The officers were killed instantly. All of this happened just a few feet from a neighborhood technical high school where young people were working diligently, trying to prepare themselves for a future which, candidly, may never come. Reports say they were in terror after hearing the chilling, staccato gunfire so close to their school.

There are some in this country - "intellectuals" - who accuse president Felipe Calderón and his administration of committing war crimes by taking on the drug cartels. They want to indict him on the world stage, before the same international criminal court which is still busy trying mass executioners from the Balkan Wars of the 1990s. I wish I could deliver each and every one of those "intellectuals" a personal message. Sometimes, for me, Mexico is a very hard place to understand.

U.S. shows revolting double standard in René González case

How many times do you punish a man?

By Edward V. Byrne for The Yucatan Times
September 29, 2011

View Edward V. Byrne's profile

How many times do you get to punish a man?  How many times are you equitably entitled to whine about the injustices committed upon your own citizens when you inflict the same on others?  Somebody should ask those questions of President Barack Obama, who just this week said that he wants to see more political prisoners released from Cuba, and more evidence of a humanitarian attitude on the part of its leaders.  Somebody should ask the same questions of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who runs the Justice Department in Washington.

Anybody who reads my articles knows that when I write about Cuba, I tell it like it is.  The Castro brothers are thugs and their corrupt banana republic regime is a monument to 50 years of political and economic failure.  But that doesn’t mean the U.S. should get a free pass when it demonstrates a similar authoritarian heavy-handedness.   Especially when petty political pawns of both countries are the victims.

I have written extensively about the Alan Gross case and the Miami Five, and I won’t repeat myself here  I’ve also called for the obvious – and just – solution: a prisoner swap.  Gross in return for the Five.  Read my August 10 column on that subject.

René González is a 50 year old man born in the States in 1961.  He holds dual U.S.-Cuban citizenship.  René is one of the Miami Five.  He was convicted of various federal crimes in 2001.  He has been continuously in custody since his arrest in 1998.  Now is neither the time nor place for an extended discussion of the facts of the case, but suffice it to say that Renee was found guilty of being an agent and spy for the Castro regime in the late 1990s.  He was sentenced to 13 years – two consecutive sentences, actually – and he has served every day of them.  René’s federal prison record is described as “exemplary and spotless.”  He is scheduled for release October 7.  Therein lays the problem.

When most prisoners are released from incarceration, they are not really free.  They must first serve a term of “supervised release,” or parole as it used to be called.  In René’s case that term is three years – until the end of 2014.  Earlier this year René’s attorney filed a motion with the federal court in Miami, asking that upon his release he be allowed to return immediately to Cuba (where he is adulated as a national hero).  On September 16 the judge tentatively denied the request, saying that it is premature (since René hasn’t actually walked out the prison door yet).  The U.S. Government opposes the motion vigorously, and I’m betting the federal judge will deny it again when it's refiled.  René will have to spend three more years in south Florida, alone and still separated from his family.

René González is married.  His wife and two daughters, who were residents of Florida for many years, live in Havana.  The girls were 14 and four when René was arrested.  He has scarcely seen them over the past decade.  René’s wife was deported from the United States on immigration charges in 2000, and he has not seen her once since then.  In 2008 U.S. immigration officials told her that she was permanently barred from returning, since apparently the government believes she is a Cuban agent too.  René’s parents, both 80, have been able to travel from Cuba once a year to visit him in prison, but they won’t be able to do that indefinitely.

René should be allowed to get on the first plane out of Miami when he is released on October 7.  But he probably won’t be.  And that will be a grave legal and moral injustice by the greatest power on the face of the earth.

U.S. judge allows Miami Five member René González to visit his dying brother

© Edward V. Byrne 2011. This article may be cited or quoted with proper attribution to the author but otherwise not reproduced in whole or in part without express permission.

The daily obscenities of Mexico

Ambushed school teachers and cadavers on a Veracruz street

By Edward V. Byrne for The Yucatan Times
September 24, 2011

Mexico is a place of glorious and brilliant sunshine, lapis blue skies dotted with cotton-white clouds, haunting Mayan ruins mysteriously abandoned long ago, endless miles of pristine, often solitary beaches, deep and dark rain forests, delicious cuisine and festive music, fiery tequila and mescal.  Mexico is a place of generous and kind people who love to laugh and are almost unfailingly hospitable.

Mexico is also a place of horror and death.  Mexico is a place where a great national agony is being played out on the public streets every day.  In full view for everyone to see.  All are forced to watch, from children too young to understand to the very old who have seen it so may times before.  By being forced to watch, all are compelled, in some shared sense, to participate.  No one is excused.  There is no mercy and there are no exemptions.

Last week, as a festive Mexico decked out in the national colors of red, white and green prepared to celebrate its 201^st birthday, I wrote a brief column entitled “Will you free yourselves?” Those were the words of Father Miguel Hidalgo when he summoned his congregation on the first day of the Revolution two centuries ago.  Not long after he stood before a firing squad and gave up his life.  I think his words still have meaning for this country.   It desperately needs that meaning, in a way that Hidalgo could neither have foreseen nor imagined.

A few days ago I watched live coverage of a graduation ceremony at one of Mexico’s prestigious national military academies.  In a booming, self-confident voice, speaking impeccable Spanish, a most impressive young female cadet delivered the formal address to her classmates and the assembled dignitaries.  “Mexico is more than just news of violence and crime!” she roared.  It sent shivers down my back. But while I agree with her words, it is important to faithfully record what really happens here every day, just as it is and not as it might be.   To suppress the truth would be to inflict further violence on the innocents, on those already once victimized.  I will not do that.

On Sunday morning, three young school teachers riding in a van were ambushed and executed in Guerrero state.  At 31, 30 and 20, all their dreams and plans lay just ahead.  They’re gone now, and the world has already forgotten their names.  In a brief burst of gunfire their unique human identities were converted into a case number and an investigative file on a prosecutor’s desktop.

The body of a Mexican federal representative was found this past week, along with that of his driver.  Both had vanished September 4 after the deputy attended a birthday celebration for a colleague.  The cynical, automatic conclusion will be that he must have had some connection to the drug cartels, or in some way offended them. We have no evidence of that, but even if we did, would it somehow diminish the event?

In neighboring Quintana Roo state – Mexico’s adored Gold Coast where so many come to play – a 28 year old man was chased down while driving.  He was shot, drug from his car, stabbed and mutilated, and then left to die alone in roadside brush.  His father is a prominent government official.

The ultimate horror was reserved for the city of Veracruz.  I will not mince words.  Veracruz does not belong to Mexico.  Veracruz belongs to the drug cartels.  They have converted its streets into a very public mortuary, and they have done so for no other reason than to say with a defiant sneer, “Do you see what we can do?”

It seems to me that things don’t have to be this way.  It seems to me that a solution is just within reach, if only people will seize it.  I won’t pretend to even marginally understand the dynamics of the Mexican mind – of what makes people here “tick.”  They suffer greatly, they cry and hold on to one another, they bury their dead and they light a candle, but at the end of the day so very little changes.  Perhaps it is an ingrained fear of authority, even the widespread corrupt authority which is often smartly dressed in a uniform.  Or perhaps it is simply a hopeless resignation that this is the way things always have been and always will be.  As if the Divine has so willed and has so ordained for Mexico.  Sometimes it seems to me that Mexicans hold the key in their collective hand, but they will not open the door.  That they are prisoners of their own device, of their own choosing, of their own will.  How much do people have to witness before finally they say, “Ya basta!” – Enough!

Javier Sicilia, a prominent Mexican peace activist whose son was murdered in March, said yesterday that to live in fear is not to live.  As this country begins its third century and renews its commitment to liberty, Father Hidalgo’s simple words are worthy of repeat: Mexico, will you free yourself?

© Edward V. Byrne 2011-2014 This article may be cited or quoted with proper attribution to the author but otherwise not reproduced in whole or in part without express permission.

Will You Free Yourselves?

201 years later, immortal words still carry a message for every Mexican.

By Edward V. Byrne for The Yucatan Times
September 15, 2011

View Edward V. Byrne's profile


Tonight Mexico will celebrate its freedom by reenacting El Grito de la Independencia, the infamous and historic Cry of Independence. The event marks the beginning of the Mexican War of Independence, and opens the most important national holiday in the country. The Grito was the official proclamation of the war by Miguel Hidalgo, a Roman Catholic priest. It occurred at Dolores, near Guanajuato, early on the morning of September 16, 1810, and is one of the most famous rallying cries in history.

Around 6:00 a.m. that day, Hidalgo ordered church bells rung and gathered his people. He addressed the humble, impoverished parishoners, encouraging them to revolt. The Battle of Guanajuato, the first major engagement of the insurgency, was fought four days later. But Mexico did not win its independence from Spain until much later, on September 27, 1821, after a decade of brutal war in which thousands sacrificed their lives.

The Grito has iconic if not mythical status. It is the quintessence of the Mexican spirit of independence. Mexicans begin their formal commemoration on the night of September 15, at 11:00 p.m., when the President rings the bell of independence from the balcony of the National Palace in Mexico City. He then repeats a cry of patriotism using the names of the heroes of the War of Independence, and ending with Viva Mexico! thrice repeated. A huge crowd is assembled in the Plaza de la Constitución, or Zócalo, one of the largest public plazas in the world. To their cheers and applause he rings the bell again and waves the Bandera (flag), after which the Himno Nacional Mexicano is sung. The event draws participants and spectators from all over Mexico and indeed, every corner of the world. A similar celebration occurs in cities and towns throughout the country, at the same hour.

Hidalgo's exact words to his brave but frightened congregation that misty morning so long ago are lost to history, but one source claims he simply said, "Will you free yourselves?"

There is nothing so powerful in all the world as an idea whose time has come –
Victor Hugo.

© Edward V. Byrne 2011.  This article may be briefly quoted but not reproduced in full without express permission of the author.

Life Sentence For Mexican Extortionists – First Time Ever

By Edward V. Byrne for The Yucatan Times
September 13, 2011

View Edward V. Byrne's profile

Mexican extortion victims often are “little guys,” such as small businesses

Extortion is a major problem in Mexico.  It’s also big business.  In some cases extortion is a direct spin-off of drug trafficking, and in other cases it’s an independent enterprise.  But usually there’s some nexus between the two.  Crime promotes crime.  Yesterday Mexican authorities proved they intend to start getting tough with extortion.

Extortion here is unlike that in wealthier societies.  In the United States an extortion victim typically is a person or business with obvious resources.  Here the crime is ubiquitous.  Anybody can be extorted anytime, no matter how rich or poor their visible circumstances might suggest.  The Casino Royale in Monterrey was the subject of extortion attempts.  When the owners failed to pay up after two “requests,” hit men from the Los Zetas drug cartel arrived in the middle of the afternoon, casually got out of their cars, walked in the main entrance and set it afire.  Fifty-two customers and employees were trapped inside and burned to death or died from smoke inhalation.  The Zetas (“Zs”) don’t commonly ask for anything a third time.

But quite often Mexican extortion victims are the little guys.  The extortionist stops by for a friendly chat and demands the payment of a periodic (weekly or monthly) derecho de piso, loosely translated as “floor charge.”  The business owner must faithfully pay or risk the consequences.  It’s a regular event in Mexico.  There are tens of thousands of tienditas here – little stores where prepared food, groceries and everything else under the sun are sold.  Most of the people who run them are hard-working and honest, and often just getting by themselves.  So the derecho de piso hits them particularly hard.

Yesterday in Ciudad Juárez – the most dangerous city in the world according to some experts – two young men, 23 and 25, were sentenced to life in prison for extortion.  The victim was the female owner of such a tiendita.  She was handing over 1,000 pesos a week to the extortionists – about $80 USD, no doubt a lot of money to her.  She had the courage to testify against them.  It was the first time a life sentence had been given to extortionists in Mexico.

In a report yesterday (September 12), CNN Mexico said that federal authorities claim the drug cartels use extortion to finance their daily business operations.  In December 2010, Mexico authorized life imprisonment for kidnapping, multiple murders, extortion and the murder of a journalist.  There is no death penalty in Mexico, although some have called for its reinstatement in cases of extreme narco violence.

© Edward V. Byrne 2011.  This article may be briefly quoted but not reproduced in full without express permission of the author.

Mexico Should Proceed With Caution In “Twitter Terror” Cases

“Don’t kill the messenger”

By Edward V. Byrne for The Yucatan Times
September 12, 2011

View Edward V. Byrne's profile

Follow The Mexico Gulf Reporter Blog here.


Tweeting – or twittering if you prefer – can land you in jail in Mexico.

Take the recent case of María de la Luz “Maruchi” Bravo and Gilberto Martínez, residents of  Veracruz, a city (and state) rapidly moving to the top of the list of Mexico’s most dangerous places.  A few days ago these two learned, apparently independently, of an alleged impending attack against a local school.  (Another version of the story held that the school had already been attacked, resulting in the kidnapping of five children.)  Whatever the original claims may have been, they fortunately turned out to be baseless rumor.  But before the facts were known, Bravo (who is a journalist) and Martínez had already passed it along via social networks.  With a cell phone, computer or iPad, spreading anything these days via Facebook or Twitter is just a click away.  Once the pebble is tossed into the pond the ripples move on endlessly, beyond anybody’s control.

We’re told the news spread like wildfire through Veracruz, and that many working parents left their jobs and rushed to the school to pick up their children.  Everyone was relieved when it became clear that it was all a big mistake.  But that was not the end of the matter.

Veracruz state prosecutors promptly charged Bravo and Martínez with various crimes, including the transmission of terroristic communications and “sabotage.”  The latter charge was apparently included because the affected school was forced to shut down, and because some local businesses came to a virtual halt as workers left their jobs, rushing to get their kids.  The first offense carries up to 30 years in jail, and the second up to 20 years.

Mexican professor and columnist John Ackerman wrote a Spanish op-ed piece a few days ago in which he characterized the case as an “open challenge to free expression and the rule of law.”  He’s correct, since Article 6 of the Mexican Constitution specifically provides that “The free expression of ideas shall not be the subject of any judicial or administrative inquiry, trial or legal proceeding.”  Other legal experts say the charges violated not only Mexican constitutional guarantees, but various international law accords to which the country is a party.  Amnesty International has spoken out against the prosecutions.

María de la Luz “Maruchi” Bravo and Gilberto Martínez face 30 years behind bars for tweeting the wrong message.

A Mexican federal court has granted Bravo and Martínez an amparo hearing, to be held on September 23.  Amparo is a powerful legal tool which is somewhat equivalent to the American/British/Canadian habeas corpus.  Among other things, it tests the legality of someone’s detention and/or the validity of a criminal charge.

Mexico might well take a lesson from countries that have tried to balance free speech interests with the need for public security and good order.  When the United States was a very young nation, the framers of its great constitution wisely wrote into law some of the most powerful protections for free speech, assembly and freedom of the press the world has ever known.  They are embodied in the First Amendment.  The framers, for the most part, were well-educated Englishmen, and they had long suffered at the hands of British monarchs who were incessantly meddling with “the market place of ideas” – especially when the market place was suspected of peddling "novel" political theories designed to check absolute power.

The United States now has over two centuries of legal and cultural experience with free speech and the robust dissemination of ideas.  But they are not without well-recognized limitations.  A statement by a giant of the U.S. Supreme Court in an early 20^th century criminal case has passed into common parlance: “No one has the right to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.”  When Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes penned that phrase in 1919, he was of course talking about someone who deliberately spreads a falsehood in order to provoke alarm or terror.  So while the U.S. enjoys perhaps the greatest degree of free expression known to the modern world, it’s certainly not absolute.  We, too, have state and federal laws which penalize “terroristic communications.”  But in a prosecution for such it must be proven that the actor had the purpose of promoting fear for fear’s sake.  Such crimes always require evidence of “specific intent,” as it’s called in the criminal law, which places a very high burden of proof on the prosecutor.

Which brings us back to Mexico’s “terror twitters.”  In the Veracruz case, there is absolutely no evidence that Bravo and Martínez had mens rea – a guilty state of mind.  They “tweeted or re-tweeted,” as it’s called in the technology of the internet age, passing along unverified information which they themselves had received from others.  Such innocuous acts have no legitimate place in the criminal code of any nation truly committed to freedom of expression.  As Professor Ackerman noted in his editorial, authorities in Veracruz would be better served by focusing on the root causes of violence in this country than on prosecuting those who disseminate accounts of such, whether those accounts prove to be accurate or – as in this case – fortunately inaccurate.

© Edward V. Byrne 2011.  This article may be briefly quoted but not reproduced in full without express permission of the author.

Mexico's continuing agony

Sober Reflections On the Casino Attack and a Nightmare That Won’t End

By Edward V. Byrne for The Yucatan Times
August 27, 2011

This week’s brazen, broad-daylight attack on a gaming casino in the drug war battlefield city of Monterrey defies every superlative. Words like “the worst ever” are flat and empty and don’t even begin to do the events justice. How do you find the right adjectives to describe what happened to 52 ordinary Mexican citizens who left home Thursday afternoon to enjoy a few hours of fun – or to attend to their casino jobs – but never returned? What was their crime, that they deserved to be asphyxiated or incinerated by a group of men who set the two story building afire as quickly and as casually as if they were burning off autumn stubble in a farm field?

Monterrey, as everyone knows, is the capital of Nuevo Leon state, an area which has been wracked by narco violence as two rival organizations, Los Zetas and the Cartel Gulfo, struggle for control of drug routes heading north. North as in the U.S. border, about 100 miles away.

In a message Thursday evening Mexico’s President Felipe Calderón called the attack a “barbarous” act committed by criminals “without scruples.” He promised that those responsible would be hunted down and brought to justice. Alejandro Poiré, Mexico’s National Security spokesperson, said those who are behind the “unspeakable acts . . . will pay for their crimes.”

But that’s not all Calderón said. During a somber statement Friday morning in which he declared three days of national mourning, the President referred to the United States. “We are friends, we are neighbors, we are allies in this war. But we have responsibilities to one another.” Calderón talked again about his neighbor’s voracious drug habit – not the first time he’s done so. Last year he said that being next door to the U.S. is like living in an apartment building with an across-the-hall tenant who’s the “biggest narcotics addict in town.” The analogy has merit.

Every time someone in the United States buys, sells or uses drugs which have passed through this country, all the way down to the pettiest quantity of marijuana, he or she indirectly promotes the trade in Mexico and therefore becomes part of the problem. There is full moral culpability though the act goes undetected and evades legal accountability. It happens tens of thousands of times every day.

Calderón also mentioned the incessant flow of high-powered arms from the U.S., moving directly into the hands of the drug cartels. And who can deny it? The world knows all about “Operation Fast and Furious,” a Drug Enforcement Agency program that deliberately allowed thousands of military assault weapons to fall into the hands of organized crime here, so that their “use” could be tracked. At least one U.S. agent was murdered inside Mexico last year by one of those weapons. Three of the DEA officials who spearheaded the Operation were just promoted.

It’s no wonder why many Mexicans view U.S. attitudes towards drugs and the ongoing drug violence in this country as schizophrenic. Americans look on with horror and amazement as grisly scenes from places like Monterrey pour across their television scenes daily, and speak with disgust of the obvious corruption of so many police officers here (especially at the local level). But at the same time many Americans expect convenient access to “recreational” drugs, without regard to the source or point of origin of those drugs – and all the while ignoring those who died along the route of commerce. The Congress rants and raves about border intrusions and spends tens of millions of dollars on a security wall at the Sonoran frontier, but insists on making military grade weaponry available to anyone with cash in hand, fully aware that many of those arms are ultimately destined for “Latin export.” The vicious cycle thus continues: drugs move north so that the “addict in the apartment building” can get his fix, while C-Notes and machine guns are carried south.

As if those contradictions were not enough, some states like California have essentially “opted out” of federal drug laws by maintaining that their citizens have the constitutional right to use marijuana for medical purposes, and by licensing dealers. America’s own hypocrisy and indecision about drugs hurts Mexican officials as they try to rally public support for a war that seems far from over, far from won.

These days President Calderón’s aggressive offensive against the drug cartels is being increasingly debated and criticized by political opponents who have urged alternatives ranging from direct negotiations with organized crime to the outright legalization of drugs. Former Mexican President Vicente Fox urges legalization, as if that would nicely tidy up all the problems. But who can seriously advocate that legalizing drugs and thus promoting the drug industry in a country of 112 million people, where the median age is 26, is the right thing for Mexico as it enters the 21st century? A few months ago the Spanish language newspaper Vanguardia featured a compelling article about the latent temptation facing many young and impoverished Mexicans today: whether to sign up with the drug dealers. It was entitled, Prefiero morir joven y rico que viejo y pobre – “I’d rather die young and rich than old and poor.”

Others apparently envision some form of amicable peace talks with the drug lords, although the mechanics of how that might actually unfold are unclear. Let’s hope the selected venue is not a casino or night club, or that the cartel bosses don’t suggest a game or two of Black Jack before getting down to business. How do you negotiate with, how do you begin to trust, sicarios who have left the streets of their own country awash in the blood of over 40,000 fellow citizens?

Some nay-sayers opposed to President Calderón’s all-out offensive against the cartels and their murderous hit men just talk political gobbledygook, as did Merida’s mayor Angelica Araujo Lara during a recent interview with the U.S. network Fox News, published August 25. According to Fox, Angelica “opposes the militarization strategy employed by Calderón and instead favors allocating more resources to crime prevention and improving people's quality of life and access to education and health.” Just what does that choice talking point mean? Is not going after the heads of the snakes wherever they’re found the best “crime prevention” tool available? And how do you promote “access to education and health” when decapitated bodies are oh-so-casually dumped on street corners, and people burn or choke to death in public casinos in mid-day? The mayor would be wise to confine her leadership skills to planning Merida’s next free concert.

Mexico’s agony will continue. Everyone, everywhere knows so. But there is blame enough to share as we reflect on the reasons why it has to be this way.

© Edward V. Byrne 2011.  This article may be briefly quoted but not reproduced in full without express permission of the author.

Spanish Translation 
 

Sobria reflexión sobre el ataque al casino y una pesadilla que no termina.

Por Lic. Edward V. Byrne 
Traducido por Ing. Raul Ponce de León Curmina

En esta semana,  un descarado ataque a un casino a plena luz del día en el campo de batalla de las drogas en la cuidad de Monterrey desafía cualquier superlativo.  Palabras como “el peor de la historia” son planos y vacios, los cuales ni siquiera comenzaran a darle justicia a los eventos. ¿Cómo encontrar el adjetivo(s) correcto para describir lo que le paso a 53 mexicanos ordinarios que salieron de casa el Jueves por la tarde para disfrutar de unas horas de diversión – o para ir a sus trabajos en el casino – y no regresaron a casa?. ¿Cual fue el crimen para merecer ser asfixiados o incinerados por un grupo de hombres que incendiaron un edificio de dos pisos tan rápido y tan casual como si quemaran los rastrojos otoñales del campo?
Monterrey, como todos saben, es la capital de Nuevo León, un área que ha sido deteriorada por la violencia del narcotráfico donde dos organizaciones rivales, Los Zetas y el Cartel del Golfo, luchan por el control de las rutas hacia el norte, a la frontera con los Estados Unidos a solo  180 kilómetros.
En un mensaje por la mañana del jueves el Presidente de México Felipe Calderón califico el ataque cometido  por los criminales como un acto de “barbarismo”, “sin escrúpulos”. Prometió que los responsables serian cazados y presentados ante la justicia. Alejandro Poire, Vocero Nacional de Seguridad dijo que los que están de tras  de estos “actos abominables…  pagaran por sus crímenes.”
Pero eso no fue todo lo que Calderón dijo. Durante una declaración solemne el viernes por la mañana en la cual se declaro tres días de luto nacional, el Presidente se refirió a los Estados Unidos. “somos amigos, somos vecinos, somos aliados en esta guerra y tenemos responsabilidades el uno con el otro.” Calderón hablo de nuevo acerca de los voraces hábitos del país vecino por las drogas – no es la primera vez que lo hace. El año pasado dijo que el ser el vecino de a lado de los Estaos Unidos es como vivir en un edificio de departamentos donde “el mas grande drogadicto de la cuidad”  vive en la puerta de enfrente. Esta analogía tiene su merito.
Cada vez que alguien en los Estados Unidos compra, vende o usa drogas que han pasado por este país, desde la mas pequeña cantidad de marihuana, el o ella indirectamente promueve el narcotráfico en México y por lo tanto forma parte del problema. Hay una completa culpabilidad moral aun que el acto pasa por desapercibido y evade cargos legales. Esto sucede mil y una veces cada día.
Calderón también menciono el incesante flujo de almas de alto poder proveniente de los Estados Unidos,  que llegan directamente a las manos de los carteles de la droga. ¿Quien puede negarlo? Todo el mundo lo sabe “Operación Rápido y Furioso”, un programa de una agencia anti drogas (DEA) que deliberadamente permitió que miles de armas de asalto militar cayeran en manos del crimen organizado en México, para que por medio de su uso se pudieran localizar. Al menos un agente de los Estados Unidos fue asesinado en México por una de esas armas. Tres oficiales de la DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency en Ingles) que encabezaron esta operación fueron promovidos.
No es de extrañar el porque muchos mexicanos ven las actitudes de los E.U. hacia las drogas y la violencia generada por estas como esquizofrénica. Los estadounidenses ven con horror y asombro las espeluznantes escenas como las  de Monterrey una y otra vez diariamente en sus televisores, y hablan con asco  de la obvia corrupción de muchos oficiales de policía mexicanos (especialmente a nivel local). Pero al mismo tiempo muchos estadounidenses esperan tener acceso conveniente a las llamadas “drogas recreacionales”  sin importarles la fuente o el origen de ellas –y todo el tiempo ignoran cuantos han muerto a lo largo de la ruta para su comercialización. El Congreso de E.U. se da rienda suelta acerca de las intrusiones y gasta millones de dólares en un  muro de seguridad en la frontera con Sonora, pero insiste en poner a disposición armas de uso militar a cualquier persona con dinero en mano, completamente consientes que muchas de ellas son finalmente destinadas para “exportación”  a países latinos. Así continúa el círculo vicioso; las drogas se mueven al norte para que “el drogadicto del edificio” pueda tener su dosis, mientras dólares y ametralladoras se mueven al sur.
Por si esto no fuera suficientemente contradictorio, algunos estados como California, esencialmente han optado por la Ley Federal de Drogas para mantener el derecho constitucional que tienen sus ciudadanos de poder usar marihuana para usos médicos por medio de distribuidores autorizados. La propia hipocresía de los estadounidenses y su indecisión de que las drogas lastiman a los funcionarios mexicanos que tratan de convocar el apoyo de los ciudadanos por una guerra que esta lejos de terminar y lejos de ganar.
En estos días la agresiva ofensiva del Presidente Calderón en contra de los carteles esta siendo debatida y criticada cada vez más por sus oponentes políticos, los cuales han instado alternativas que van desde una negociación directa con el crimen organizado a la total legalización de las drogas. Vicente Fox impele por la legalización, como si eso pusiera orden al problema. ¿Pero quien puede defender seriamente que la legalización de las drogas y por lo tanto la promoción de esa industria en un país de 110 millones de habitantes, donde la edad media es de 25 años, es  lo correcto para México de entrada al siglo 21? Hace algunos meses el periódico Vanguardia publico un persuasivo artículo acerca de la latente tentación que muchos jóvenes en condiciones de pobreza encaran hoy en día, la de enlistarse en las filas de los carteles de la droga. El titulo del artículo era, Prefiero morir joven y rico que viejo y pobre.
Otros políticos aparentemente imaginan alguna forma de platica pacifica y amigable con los señores  de la droga, sin embargo el mecanismo de como esto pude ser llevado acabo no esta claro. Esperemos que el lugar seleccionado no sea un casino o un centro nocturno, o que los jefes de la droga sugieran una mano o dos de Black Jack antes de entrar en negocios. ¿Cómo negociar con ellos?, ¿Cómo confiar en sicarios los cuales han dejado las calles y su propio país bañadas por la sangre de 40,000 compatriotas mexicanos?
Algunos “contreras” que se oponen a la ofensiva del Presidente Calderón en contra de los carteles y sus brutales asesinos a sueldo, solo hablan tonterías como lo hizo la Alcaldesa de Mérida Angélica Araujo Lara durante una reciente entrevista con la cadena de noticias Fox News de E.U.  publicada el 25 de Agosto. De acuerdo con Fox News, Angélica “se opone a la estrategia de militarización empleada por el Partido Acción Nacional de Calderón, en su lugar favorece la asignación de mas recursos para la prevención del crimen,  mejorar el nivel de vida y el acceso a la educación y la salud.” ¿Que tiene que ver esto con el asunto? ¿No es ir tras la(s) cabeza(s) de la serpiente(s) donde quiera que se encuentre la mejor herramienta disponible para la “prevención del crimen”? y "¿Cómo promover el acceso a la educación y la salud" cuando cuerpos decapitados son  tirados como si nada en las esquinas, cuando personas son quemadas y ahogadas hasta la muerte en un casino público al medio día? Lo mas sabio seria limitar el liderazgo de la Alcaldesa en planear el próximo concierto gratis en Mérida.
La agonía de México continuara. Todos lo saben. Pero hay suficiente culpa para compartir mientras reflexionamos sobre las razones de porque tiene que ser de esta forma.

At the edge of the precipice

When the social contract is broken, anything is possible

By Edward V. Byrne for The Yucatan Times
August 23, 2011

Social contract: a theory holding that individuals voluntarily unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and laws and to accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other forms of community harm.

On a recent weekend I had the pleasure of spending a few social hours with two colleagues and their acquaintances, the latter being a married couple from the United States who have lived in Mexico for several years. I found myself becoming quick friends with the male half of the couple, though it was our first meeting. He and I were focused on exactly the same topic that evening – the horrible economic news arriving daily from the States. It seemed to be almost endless.

The Congress had arrived at an 11th hour deal earlier in the week to raise the national debt ceiling – a deal which nobody inside or outside the Washington Beltway liked. But despite the last minute debt accord, U.S. investments had just been downgraded from a pristine AAA to a slightly less than perfect AA+. It was the first time in American financial history that U.S. bonds and securities had been given less than the highest possible rating. Maybe the downgrade meant little, apart from bruised feelings and economic ego-deflation. But the lower financial rating plainly rattled investors around the world. Global markets nosedived within hours, and the New York Stock Exchange lost about $1 trillion dollars by August 8. Since then markets worldwide have been in turmoil, changing direction daily. Nobody knows when or where things will bottom out, and when (or if) a sense of investment stability will return.

My new friend and I agreed on many things during our convivial evening, made more convivial by his purchase of several rounds of drinks for everybody at the table. Maybe we agreed more than we disagreed because we are close in age (or so I suspect, although I didn’t ask him outright since he was keeping me well-lubricated on his tab). We agreed that taxes in the United States must be raised – period. Nobody wants to hear that, but as a nation the U.S. has already done a great job of running up its credit card bill, and now the friendly but firm customer service agent is on the phone wanting to know just when we will be sending in that next payment. We also agreed that unemployment in the U.S. is far higher than the officially reported 9.1%. – probably much closer to 15%+ nationally, and higher yet in some regions. Many people quit looking for work a long time ago. Other well educated or highly trained persons labor on menial jobs, trying desperately to hang on to whatever little they have left. We agreed, too, that a primary agenda of some is to remove America’s first black president from the White House at any cost – even if it means more economic woes for the country in the interim. The beliefs this gentleman and I shared were many. I didn’t protest when he spontaneously began calling me by a nickname I’ve been trying to shed since I was 12.

But on one point we didn’t agree. I ventured that the U.S. might experience, sooner or later, the same type of urban street violence brought on by economic woes which has rocked Europe several times this year. I mentioned those disturbing scenes in Athens – the world’s cradle of democratic thought – which occurred in June. I referred to the helicopter landings last spring in front of Madrid’s legislative palace – made necessary so that Spanish ministers could avoid protesters blocking the streets and arrive for their daily work. And the ugly riots which hit London two weeks ago? Whatever may be their official explanation, gross economic and social disparities in Britain, and high unemployment among the young, are factors. So why couldn’t it happen in Chicago or New York or Los Angeles? But my new friend would have none of my argument: “Not in the U.S. Impossible. Couldn’t happen.”

I hope he’s right, but I think he’s wrong. If the American sovereign debt ceiling hadn’t been raised by August 2, the U.S. would have been – to use the cold clinical language of bankruptcy law – “insolvent.” That’s right, broke, busted or whatever one wishes to call it when you can’t pay your bills as they come due. The government wouldn’t have been able to pay its ordinary obligations. It’s legally able to pay those bills now only by borrowing enormous sums of cash every month – 40 cents of each dollar it spends. Yes, the U.S. government continuously raises about 40% of all that it needs to fund current obligations by selling bonds and other debt instruments. It’s like juggling monthly bills of $5,000 on a monthly income of $3,000. You are forced to borrow the other $2,000 every 30 days from a line of credit. But suddenly the lender changes the rules – you’ve hit your limit and there’s no more cash. That’s what happened to the U.S. in the days before August 2. Only the Congress can raise the debt ceiling – the total amount the government is allowed to owe to everybody, including itself – and it did so at the very last minute, much to the relief of everyone.

Immediate financial Armageddon (followed by a economic tsunami which would have raced around the world with devastating consequences, according to some experts) was narrowly avoided by the deal. Problem solved? Hardly. Here are the troublesome details.

The national debt to GDP (Gross Domestic Product) ratio of the United States is now well over 90%, and headed straight up. You don’t have to hold a degree in economics to understand this key concept. GDP is a measure of the size and output of a nation’s economy – the total value of goods produced and services delivered in a year. Every country has a GDP (in Mexico it’s called PIB, or Producto Interno Bruto). The U.S. is a $15.2 trillion dollar economy – that’s our GDP. But our national debt is over $14.3 trillion and growing, so we’re closing in fast on the 100% ratio mark. These are not just idle stats intended for classroom discussion. Not too long ago, a couple of U.S. economics professors, both Ph.D.s and highly respected in their fields, carefully studied the economies of many nations over an eight century period – including failed and collapsed states. Their 2009 published results clearly demonstrate that once a nation‘s debt is at or above 90% of GDP, economic growth slows noticeably. When the ratio reaches 100%, the sluggishness becomes more pronounced. As it crosses the 100% “red alert” threshold, things keep getting worse until eventually the entire economic engine seizes up and most growth stops. By way of comparison, at the beginning of 2010 Mexico had a respectable debt to GDP ratio of 37%, Greece (where people rioted recently) had 143%, with Zimbabwe topping off the charts at 235%. Are you ready to invest in Greek bonds? How much confidence do you have in the Zimbabwean dollar?

It should be no surprise to anyone paying the slightest attention that the U.S. is on a direct collision course with an economic iceberg because of its enormous debt relative to GDP, and the consequent negative impact on growth. The objective symptoms of the underlying illness are overwhelming. On Monday, August 1 the U.S. government had about $15 billion in cash on hand. But the next day, Tuesday, August 2, it had to fund Social Security benefits to millions of seniors totaling about $23 billion. And that was only a fraction of the August bills awaiting payment. The government is so chronically cash-strapped that Apple Inc. had more than double the liquidity of the United States the same day – about $38 billion. The printing of money – literally – together with so-called currency supply modification techniques are being used by the Federal Reserve to keep things afloat and in theory, to “prime the economic pump.” These procedures bring risks such as inflation, and may easily backfire. Flooding a sick economy with newly printed money may also accomplish indirectly what otherwise would send people into the streets: a de facto currency devaluation. Just last week a Republican presidential candidate accused the Fed Chairman of “treasonous” activity for his monetary policies.

The human toll of our malfunctioning economy is incalculable. Only 58 of every 100 Americans over the age of 16 has a job. Twenty-six percent of returning U.S. vets – we’re talking about highly trained men and women, many with technical backgrounds – are unable to find work. Government stats released last week say that one out of every five children in the United States now officially lives in poverty (defined as an annual income of $23,500 or less for a family of four). When 20% of the kids of the world’s arguably greatest power are living below the poverty line, it’s obvious something is not working right. On any given day, 650,000 Americans are homeless against their will. No, they’re not bums or drunks or drug addicts. In Las Vegas, which has been decimated by the loss of jobs across all sectors, thousands who enjoyed middle class security only months ago are now bivouacked in cheap motel rooms. Meanwhile, U.S. corporations bailed out by the government in 2009 are sitting on an estimated $2 trillion in cash, unwilling to spend, invest or hire.

A fatal downward spiral is more than evident. On August 22, 6.3 million homeowners were reported delinquent on their mortgage payments, and as many as a million U.S. residences may face foreclosure in the next 24-36 months. The housing market is worse this year than it was in the last two. It will be five to 10 years before home values even begin to approach their pre-crash levels, and it’s quite possible they never will. U.S. manufacturing is at virtual dead stop; in the second quarter ending June 30, growth was less than half that expected in a rebounding economy. Bank of America stock has lost about 50% of its value this year – an omen of dwindling confidence in one of the nation’s most powerful financial institutions. The major stock exchanges lost all of their 2011 gains this month, and the NYSE has lost 11% in just the last three weeks. If you had $10,000 parked in your mutual fund on August 1, today you’ve got under $9,000. Even Wal-Mart U.S.A., “America’s retailer,” reported last week that it had experienced a ninth consecutive quarter of declining sales – a new record.

There is an ubiquitous Mexican proverb which begins with these words: con dinero, baila el perro. “With money, a dog will dance.” A better translation would be, “with money, anything is possible.” But the second half of the proverb is more sinister: sin dinero, tu bailas como el pero – “without money, you’ll dance as if you were the dog.” The United States stands at the edge of a fearsome economic and social precipice. Comfortable, established lifestyles have disappeared overnight. Confidence has been severely shaken in long venerated institutions and in the old order of things. Some may say, “we’ll pull through this mess just fine,” but recent surveys indicate little sense of real security. The great American middle class – the engine of the U.S. 20th century economy – is being rapidly devoured by forces in the 21st century which no one seems to be able to comprehend, much less rein in. Insatiable greed on the part of a few is perceived as responsible for the hardship and suffering experienced by many. When beliefs boil over, anything can happen.

The social contract may already have been fractured in the United States, and perhaps irreversibly so. Like a decaying, antiquated bridge which sooner or later will send unsuspecting motorists hurtling into the river below, the only question is at just what moment the silent forces of stress will snap the steel. It’s happened throughout human history. It happened in other countries – in modern, “civilized” European capitals – just this summer. Greece, Spain, England. No one anywhere is immune when the man on the street finally decides that all bets are off.

View Edward V. Byrne's profile

© Edward V. Byrne 2011.  This article may be briefly quoted but not reproduced in full without express permission of the author.

Mexico`s cancer: domestic violence, a virtual license to kill

Local cases illustrate continuing problem of violence against women in Mexico

By Eduardo Cabrera Ruiz
Translated by Edward V. Byrne for The Yucatan Times

August 16, 2011

Mérida, Yucatán -- The traditional macho male has neither died out nor disappeared from this country, nor even gone on break.  And nowadays he no longer has to go it alone.  Nowadays someone helps him abuse.  The failure of authorities to deal seriously with domestic violence places Mexican women in grave danger and indeed enables their assailants, often giving the abuser a virtual license to kill without fear of  legal consequences.

Today communities throughout the Yucatan, like Kanasín, Ciudad Caucel and San José Tzal, are experiencing a significant increase in violence against women, and gender-based crimes are on the rise. Frequently they go unpunished.

Organizations which have tried to promote gender equality in the Yucatan have proved ineffective against domestic violence, due to bureaucratic ineptness and the fact that most people are unaware of their existence or purpose.  Despite their best efforts they’ve been unable to change Mexican cultural and social attitudes about male-female relationships.

Like a cancer, the problem has spread throughout the country: the National Institute of Statistics and Information reports that 67% of Mexican women have experienced some incident of violence committed by a family member, spouse or other person well-known to the victim in the home, workplace or school.



















Over the past decade many international human rights organizations have urged Mexico to confront and eradicate a culture of discrimination against women.  Gender inequality (de facto or otherwise) in all of its varieties is the continuing symptom and the major challenge, but domestic violence to and including femicides remains.

Female victims of abuse in Mexico are of all ages – from young girls to adult women – and are found across the entire social strata.  No female is immune from the possibility of domestic violence, including murder.  The common denominator in all such cases is that before the ultimate event occurs, there is always a documented history of abuse, threats and mistreatment.

Jalisco, Tabasco, Chihuahua, Morelos, Sonora, the Federal District and Guerrero are the states with the highest number of reported cases of violence against women according to the Gender-Based Violence Report of 2010, published by the National Commission for the Prevention and Eradication of Violence Against Women, a division of Mexico’s Department of Government.

The National Survey of Violence Against Women undertaken by the Department of Health in 2004 indicates that one of every three Mexican women has suffered some form of violence during her life, and one of every five has been abused by her current spouse, boyfriend or significant other.  Based upon available data, the rate of homicide per 100,000 women grew more than 40% between 2005-2009, from 2.45 to 3.52.  The states with the highest rate of female homicide (per 100,000) are Chihuahua (13), Baja California (10), Guerrero (10), Durango (7), Sinaloa (6), Sonora (5), Tamaulipas (4.5), Oaxaca (3.8), Michoacán (3.8) and Nayarit (3.7).  Between January 2009 and June 2010, there were 1,728 femicides across 18 Mexican states.

The Yucatan press has popularized the case of Grettel Rodríguez Almeida, who was brutally attacked with a knife by her ex-boyfriend in her own home.  The case received even more attention when a local judge reduced the charges against Grettel’s assailant from attempted murder to assault, which resulted in him serving a sentence of just under 21 months.  Despite efforts on her behalf by some authorities, apparent threats and harassment by Grettel’s assailant have continued since the attack, leaving her in constant fear and forcing her to move repeatedly.

In her desperation Grettel reached out to an international agency, the High Commission of the United Nations.  In a letter she told U.N. officials that she believes Germán Alyn Ortega (the attacker) is responsible for several intimidating e-mail and text messages which she has received since November 2010.  In one Ortega supposedly wrote, “Grettel, I have so many things to talk about with you,” and “each time you think you’re getting away from me, I’m actually [getting] closer [to you].”  In another message he allegedly told her, “you’re going to be so happy to see me,” and in yet another, “it was daring of me just to try to communicate with you, but I managed to find you, and here I am sending you greetings.”  Even though the messages came from an unknown e-mail account, Grettel is convinced they originated with her attacker – a thought which terrifies her despite the fact that he is still locked up.

Grettel eventually left the Yucatan and went to Mexico City, both to escape the area and to deal with the perceived threats.  On June 20 of this year she filed a formal complaint with the office of the Federal District’s Special Prosecutor for Crimes of Violence Against Women, seeking their assistance.  She also solicited help from the Federal District Commission on Human Rights.  On June 21 the latter office promulgated procedures designed to protect her, which were then forwarded to the Yucatan’s chief prosecutor, where she plans eventually to return.  Legislators have written to Yucatan authorities, particularly to Governor Ivonne Ortega Pacheco, asking her to guarantee Grettel’s safety and security.  They’ve received no official response.  Grettel’s advocates have also called for an investigation to determine why Ortega Hernández was dealt with so lightly in court.

Grettel says that “despite our repeated requests for protection, as well as calls by the federal Human Rights Commission and legislators for action on my behalf, Yucatan authorities have done nothing to help me.  Their lack of action has put me in a situation of extreme vulnerability, with the risk of another attack.”

Grettel’s case illustrates the sad reality of how ignored domestic violence can often have fatal consequences.  On August 1, Hermenegildo Isaías Chim Zupo shot and killed his wife and young children and then committed suicide in the family home in Mérida`s San José Tzal neighborhood.  Neighbors reported that the man was drunk and began quarreling with his wife, whom he apparently suspected of infidelity.  Other acquaintances reported that his behavior was often bizarre and abusive, that the children rarely were permitted to leave the home to play on the street and that cries and yells from the house were common events.  No one called police until gunshots were heard, along with the desperate screams of a 13 year old girl who, although shot twice, managed to survive.  By then it was too late for the others.

But for victims like Grettel, the nightmare continues.  She asks when – if ever – will it end?

Oct. 31, 2012 - Mexican Supreme Court hands legal victory to woman almost killed by boyfriend

View Edward V. Byrne's profile

Alan Gross y Los Cinco de Miami

Es tiempo para un intercambio de reos

Por Lic. Edward V. Byrne
The Yucatan Times
August 10, 2011

Alan Gross, estadounidense de 62 anos, oriundo de Bethesda, Maryland, hoy en día se sienta solo en una celda cubana.  ¿Es Gross un espía internacional, que pretendía plantar la semilla de una resistencia política contra el gobierno cubano entre la comunidad judía de La Habana?  Según el régimen Castrista, sí lo es. ¿O es inocente de haber cometido algún delito, como afirma el gobierno de los EE.UU?  Cualquiera que sean los hechos verdaderos, Sr. Gross ha llegado a ser un peón diplomático en la etapa final de una guerra fría que ha durado más de la mitad de un siglo entre la pequeña isla y su poderoso vecino justo 90 millas al norte.

Gross hizo varios viajes a Cuba a partir del 2008, llevando consigo una visa de turista.  Según Philip Giraldi, ex agente de la CIAque ha investigado el caso y escrito sobre él, antes de su primera visita Gross recibió $500,000 USD de la Agencia de Desarrollo Internacional del Departamento de Estado de los EE.UU., para perseguir una misión para “promover la democracia” en el país.  Llegó a la isla sin ninguna experiencia en asuntos políticos, no era “jugador político,” ni era capaz de hablar y entender español.  A su llegada, Gross empezó a repartir computadoras laptop, celulares y teléfonos satelitales a la comunidad de aproximadamente 1,000 judíos que viven en la isla, para que de esta manera pudieran tener acceso a internet y poder comunicarse mutuamente así como con el exterior.  Se desconoce si Gross conocía acerca de las leyes cubanas que estrictamente prohíbe la introducción y/o distribución de tales aparatos sin el permisión de las autoridades, pero probablemente bien sabía que lo que estaba haciendo durante sus varias visitas a la isla caribeña no era legal.  No había duda de que Gross no era solamente otro turista.  En todo caso, en diciembre del 2009, mientras se preparaba para abordar su vuelo con rumbo a Miami, Gross fue detenido en el aeropuerto José Martí en La Habana.  Dieciocho meses después, él sigue allí.  Si Gross de hecho planeó desestabilizar el régimen, o incitar a la comunidad judía en contra de las autoridades cubanas, fue todo un fracaso.

Hace algunos meses, durante un juicio obviamente con un resultado ya determinado, Gross fue condenado en un juzgado cubano a 15 años por el delito de espionaje.  El viernes 5 de agosto, el más alto tribunal del país -- la llamada “Sala de Delitos contra la Seguridad del Estado del Tribunal Supremo Popular” -- aprobó y ratificó la sentencia. El fallo de las autoridades judiciales cubanas no sorprendió a nadie. Son mozos del sistema – un buen ejemplo de la justicia “estilo cubano.”  Hasta ahora, nadie ha podido hacer algo para liberar al Sr. Gross.  El ex presidente de los EE.UU., Jimmy Carter, buen amigo de Fidel Castro desde hace años, fue a La Habana en marzo pasado por dos días (acompañado por su esposa Rosalynn Carter), donde sostuvo reuniones informales con los hermanos Castro, supuestamente con una agenda de una plática entre viejos amigos.  (En Washington el Departamento de Estado destacó que la visita de Carter era de carácter personal, y no oficial por parte del gobierno de Barack Obama).  Carter tampoco pudo lograr nada – solo le dio a la prensa cubana una buena oportunidad de tomar fotos “promocionales” de los ya viejos hermanos Castro juntos con los Carter, sonriendo y vestidos de la tradicional guayabera blanca, mientras se daban la mano uno a otro en la pista de José Martí.  Todo eso con el propósito de “mejorar las relaciones” entre países que aún están tan distanciados en muchos asuntos.

El Sr. Gross, según reportes, padece varias enfermedades, y se alega que ha perdido más de 40 kilos desde su arresto.  Su hija de 26 años que vive en los EE.UU. sufre de cáncer, y su madre de 89 también padece de una seria enfermedad.  “Alan y toda la familia Gross han pagado un precio personal enorme y a largo plazo en la contienda política entre Cuba y Estados Unidos,” comentó el abogado defensor de Gross el viernes pasado.  Judy Gross, la esposa de Alan, ha pedido a Raúl Castro, de manera pública, su liberación por razones humanitarias.  La portavoz del Centro para la Democracia en las Américas, en Washington D.C., señaló que “pedimos al gobierno de Cuba un gesto humanitario de libertad en consideración al sufrimiento de la familia Gross y porque su cautiverio congela el progreso de las relaciones entre Estados Unidos y Cuba.”  Pero, a menos que Castro decida liberar al Sr. Gross por compasión, no habrá una salida legal para el condenado.

Mientras tanto, a solo media hora de vuelo hacia el norte, en Florida Los Cinco de Miami también están sentados en sus celdas federales.  Aunque el caso de ellos tiene una larga historia, no es muy conocido por la gente en los EE.UU., pero en Cuba, Los Cinco son famosos -- héroes nacionales desde hace una década o más.  No hay ninguna duda que ellos fueron agentes cubanos que entraron a los EE.UU de manera ilegal (armados con pasaportes y documentos falsos, entre otras cosas) a finales de los 1990s.  Claramente tuvieron propósitos subversivos.  Todos fueron integrantes de la llamada “Red Avispa,” un grupo de inteligencia militar que el gobierno cubano mandó a Florida para que se infiltraran entre la comunidad anti-Castrista que era muy activa en Miami en aquel entonces.  Desde el principio Los Cinco admitieron que sí trabajaron de parte de Cuba, pero siempre negaron que tuvieran algún otro plan más que el de vigilar y observar las actividades de los anti-Castristas.  Estos últimos fueron activistas políticos que, de manera regular en esos días, planeaban varias excursiones militares a Cuba con la esperanza y miras de recuperar la isla de las manos de los Castros.

Los Cinco fueron detenidos en 1998 y sometidos a juicios penales en el 2000 por fiscales federales, mismos que duraron más de siete meses.  Un jurado en Miami emitió su veredicto en menos de seis horas.  Todos fueron encontrados culpables.  Al final, el juez federal los condenó a varias sentencias hasta llegar a la cadena perpetua.  En el 2005, un juzgado de apelación federal anuló el veredicto y la sentencia de la corte bajo después de determinar que la atmósfera pública en la cual se manejó el juicio en el 2000 era hostil y por lo tanto prejudicial, por consecuencia Los Cinco no recibieron un proceso jurídico en conformidad a las exigencias de la ley, como se le es garantizado a todos los acusados en los EE.UU.  El fallo judicial se basó principalmente en los sentimientos endurecidos de mucha gente – cubanos, por supuesto -- que aún prevalecen fuertemente en el sur de Florida en contra del régimen de Castro.  Sin embargo, unos años después otra corte de apelación anuló el segundo fallo y determinó que de hecho, el juicio original fue de conformidad con la ley.  En el 2009, la Suprema Corte de los Estados Unidos se rehusó a reconsiderar o revisar el caso de nueva cuenta, siguiendo las recomendaciones legales de la administración de presidente Barack Obama.

Hay reportes persistentes de maltratamiento hacia Los Cinco.  Tras su arresto, cada uno de ellos pasó 17 meses en celdas aisladas.  En el 2011, el respetable medio de comunicación estadounidense NPR (Radio Pública Nacional) dio a conocer que hasta el día de hoy Los Cinco están encarcelados en una unidad especial, usualmente reservada al uso exclusivo de reos que presentan continuamente problemas de disciplina.  El Departamento de Estado ha negado en varias ocasiones visas a las esposas de los condenados, aseverando que algunas de ellas son agentes cubanas.  Además, en el 2010 había aseveraciones (en la prensa estadounidense) de que antes y durante el juicio de Los Cinco en el 2000, algunos periodistas y corresponsales fueron comprados por oficiales del gobierno, de manera furtiva, para que escribieran artículos negativos (en español y ingles) en contra de los acusados, con el propósito de envenenar las actitudes de los jurados.  Actualmente hay una campaña mundial, encabezada por Amnistía Internacional, para asegurar la libertad de Los Cinco.  Entre los partidarios más fuertes de Los Cinco se cuentan ocho ganadores del Premio Nobel.

Se debe reiterar que no hay duda alguna de la culpabilidad de Los Cinco.  Obviamente, ellos ni eran ni son amigos de los Estados Unidos, pero, ¿Sus crimines merecen los castigos que todavía se ejercen?, ¿Hicieron ellos algo peor o diferente  de lo que hizo Alan Gross?  ¿No es la mejor solución el poner a Los Cinco en el próximo avión con rumbo a La Habana?

Al mismo tiempo que nosotros como estadounidenses pedimos a los hermanos Castro que hagan lo justo y lo correcto, y que demuestren “compasión” para el Sr. Gross y su familia al otorgarle la libertad incondicional de una sentencia supuestamente “basada en nada, y en ningún delito”,  ¿no sería justo hacer lo mismo con respecto de Los Cinco de Miami que están condenados y encarcelados en Florida desde hace más de una década?.  Ellos ya han pasado por muchos años de encarcelamiento en varias prisiones federales, aun más que el Sr. Gross, en una condición de presos sin esperanza.  Ellos – y sus familiares cubanos – sufren también, día a día.  ¿O acaso las vidas de Los Cinco, y las de aquellos que aún los esperan en Cuba, valen menos?

Un aparente estandarte de doble justicia es empleado frecuentemente y caracteriza la política exterior de los EE.UU. – una de compasión para nosotros (EE.UU.), pero otra de venganza para todos los demás.  Ha llegado una muy buena oportunidad de demostrar al mundo justamente lo contrario.  Es tiempo de regresarle a Alan Gross a su familia y a Los Cinco a los suyos.

View Edward V. Byrne's profile

© Edward V. Byrne 2011.  This article may be briefly quoted but not reproduced in full without express permission of the author.

Yucatán's Public Debt: Mortgaging Future Generations?

Article by Eduardo José Cabrera Ruiz
["La deuda pública de Yucatán: ¿Nueva tienda de Raya?"]

Translated by Edward V. Byrne for The Yucatan Times
August 2, 2011

[Translator’s note: This article has been translated with minor editing for clarity. The Spanish title of the author’s piece presents a unique challenge. Tienda de Raya is an historical term which literally means, “a store where customers make (their) marks.” The name refers to company stores – ubiquitous in 19th century Mexico, including on the Yucatán’s many private henequen plantations – where workers were compelled to purchase virtually all basic provisions, such as food, fuel and clothing. Most laborers of the time were uneducated and functionally illiterate. Their purchases were invariably made on credit, and since they could not sign their names they placed a personal mark on the stores’ books of account to verify their financial obligation. Such enforced shopping led to a lifetime of impoverishment for many workers and their descendants. This theme is employed by the author to describe and discuss the State of Yucatán’s growing public debt. For a discussion of the curious Mexican institution known as the Tienda de Raya, see http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tienda_de_raya (available in Spanish text only)].

Coin used in the Tienda de Raya

During the two administrations of Porfirio Diaz [President of Mexico, 1877-1880 and 1884-1911], the Yucatán was filled with so-called “credit stores,” where a variety of basic provisions were sold to impoverished workers who labored on the henequen plantations. (No one could or did pay in cash, since prices greatly exceeded normal incomes). The stores were owned and operated by the hacendados, or plantation magnates. Prices were exorbitant and the merchandise was of poor quality.

In his book “Barbarous Mexico,” John Kenneth Thurner recounts that pants sold to the workers were stiff, scratched the skin (they were made of henequen fiber) and usually lasted less than a month before falling apart. The stores sold beans, corn, poultry, eggs and other foodstuffs, at prices which greatly exceeded what a worker earned.

Thus, if a worker earned one peso a day, and pants cost him five, he would remain perpetually indebted. And if he died with the balance yet unpaid, the indebtedness passed to his children and grandchildren.

Yucatecans today confront a similar economic scenario. The real story behind Governor Ivonne Ortega Pacheco’s recent “Fourth Message to the Citizenry” is the State Senate’s heated debate about the startling manner in which the Yucatán’s sovereign debt has grown, to such an extent that it will have to be paid for by the next three generations.

Since the year 2000, the 31 independent states which comprise the federal union of Mexico have shown a markedly increased tendency to turn to public indebtedness – i.e., borrowed funds – to satisfy their ordinary budget needs, rather than by relying upon traditional, stable sources of revenue. And in the majority of cases, the states have secured their sovereign debt by pledging federal revenue sharing funds to which they are entitled annually from the Mexican national government.

During the administration of [former Governor] Patricio Patrón Laviada, the Yucatán’s public debt (as of July 31, 2007) was $299 million pesos [about $25 million USD], or some 155 pesos per person. The majority of that, $279 million pesos, had been used to deal with extensive damage caused by Hurricane Isidore in 2002. Today the Ortega administration has run up a debt of $5.44 billion pesos [$450 million USD], or 1,500 pesos per person – a pro rata debt increase of 1,000% compared to just four years ago.

In the face of this alarming situation, a legislative commission has demanded that Mexico’s federal audit department, together with the 31 state budgetary departments, conduct internal reviews to determine just how much debt the latter have taken on.

Between 1995 and 2000, Mexican states increased their aggregate public debt 6.8%, or an average of 1.1% annually. But between 2000 and 2011, public debt increased 98% (when adjusted for inflation and other factors), or an average of 6.4% each year.

According to a report issued by the Third Commission (a panel organized to study Mexican public debt issues), between 1993 and 2011 the real rate of aggregate debt growth due to state borrowing was 202.6%. Moreover, 14 Mexican states managed to exceed even that significant rate during the last 18 years – and to a staggering extent. Michoacán had an aggregate debt growth of 2,226.5%; Hidalgo 2,200%; Puebla 1,409%, Veracruz 1,002.5%; and the Federal District of Mexico 855.3%.

The State of Nayarit showed an increase of 513.2%; Coahiula, 488.7%; Nuevo León, 377.7%; Oaxaca, 345.6%; Quintana Roo, 312.1%; and Tamaulipas, 283.3%.

The Yucatán is no exception. Although more than 60% of its federal revenue sharing is already pledged to cover outstanding indebtedness, the State government claims the amount is less than most states have put on the line – and is thus a sign of strength. But the financial indicators suggest otherwise The Ortega Pacheco government has racked up many other types of obligations – for example, $27.54 billion pesos [about $23 million USD] to the Child Rehabilitation Center Telethon sponsored by Televisa, recently approved by the State Congress.

Published sources indicate that the State of Yucatán’s total debt includes the following line items: $130 billion pesos [$108 million USD] in bank notes due; $260 billion pesos [$216 million USD] recently borrowed from BID (International Development Bank); $286 billion pesos [$238 million USD] committed to the construction of the Mayan Cultural Museum in Merida, to be built by an affiliate of the controversial developer Hank Rhon; and $100 billion pesos [about $83 million USD] borrowed from ISSSTEY (the Yucatan State Workers Social Security Institute fund).

Based upon this and other recent information, it’s estimated that the Yucatan today owes $5.44 billion pesos [$450 million USD], and has authorized the borrowing of another $3.67 billion pesos [$300 million USD]. The grand total of State sovereign debt, actual or imminent, is thus over $9 billion pesos – about $750 million USD.

As can be seen, the Yucatán has fallen into the alarming practice of many other states of the Mexican Republic by resorting to indiscriminate borrowing, which places at risk its economic viability and limits possibilities for social and business development in its communities. There will be fewer resources to fight endemic poverty within the State, since federal funds that would have otherwise been available to the next three generations have already been pledged as security for long term public indebtedness.

It may be the 21st century, but in some respects the Yucatán has returned to the same type of permanent institutional indebtedness which burdened impoverished hacienda workers 150 years ago. Ironically, it was General Salvador Alvarado, the Mexican revolutionary hero most admired by Governor Ortega, who ultimately abolished the culture of the Tienda de Raya and its oppressive treatment of hopelessly indebted laborers.

Like their ancestors of another era, Yucatecans today may have been “marked" anew with a collective financial burden which, realistically, is forever beyond their means.