Corporatism And The War On Drugs Created This Border Crisis
It’s a commonly used term, but the idea of a “Banana Republic” (penned by the writer O’Henry) actually stemmed from the governments formed in the tortured Northern Triangle of Central America: El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. The region is known for its banana crop and U.S. demand, satisfied by the centralized corporatization of fruit production, has created a crisis whose repercussions we are now seeing. These are desperately poor countries and the issue on our border should not be to deport these refugee children, As Emile Schepers says, “What is needed is for U.S. politicians to ponder why it is so dangerous for them to stay.”
Large U.S. multinational corporations are making a fortune in Central America, so much so , they’ve privatized their own “security forces” to keep their interests protected. Much like the democratically elected government of Iran in the 1950’s, the CIA conducted a similar operation to overthrow the popularly elected government of Guatemala, by unseating the democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz. During the Eisenhower administration, Secretary of State John Dulles was motivated to act in Guatemala because he had some interest in the holdings of a corporation known as United Fruit. The intervention was a personal matter to the Secretary of State.
And the Dulleses had their own personal sympathies for United Fruit: they had done legal work for the company, and counted executives there among their close friends.
Throughout the 1980’s we had a minor little scandal called Iran-Contra, where the U.S. sent arms to the Nicaraguan guerillas. When the U.S. passed the Boland Amendment in 1982, our real interference with Central American affairs helped truly make the region a volatile powder keg.
Let’s fast forward to the twenty-first century. Our need for bio-fuels like palm oil, has created a very volatile situation especially in Honduras. The impoverished nation also experienced a dire water crisis, where much of the resistance to flooding has been attributed to aggressive forest clearing by logging. The U.S., with the failed war on drugs, has also had a hand in the violence in the area, where we’ve essentially turned Central America into a war zone.
When President Barack Obama signed the annual list of countries with major drug trafficking or drug producing problems in September of 2010, five of six Central American countries made the cut.
Families risk a dangerous voyage north to the United States border to give their children a fighting chance at life. Contrary to Tea Party opinions, there is no such thing as an illegal human being, but rather millions of refugees who have been put in a terrible situation by no fault of their own. Thanks in part to corporate pillaging and a tremendous murder rate, these impoverished people need our help more than ever.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: VegasJessie
A resident of Las Vegas Nevada, a graduate of the University of Oklahoma as a Political Science major. Very motivated to get people to participate in the electoral process.
25 responses to Corporatism And The War On Drugs Created This Border Crisis
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Pistol-Packing July 10th, 2014 at 15:32
I have traveled through central america and south america pretty extensively for business. I have seen many of these places and the poverty with my own eyes. Some of it, does break your heart. But to get to the point I want to make.
The problems with the drugs have really been a direct result from 9/11. After that horrible day, the US, clamped down on all the ports and shipments coming from latin american countries. Most drugs traditionally had come in through the ports previously, but after the clamp down, new routes had to be created. So most of the drugs started getting shipped to Central America and Mexico. And with a stronger police presence on our southern border, many of the drugs were getting stuck in these countries. So not only were you creating new users who traditionally did not use them. You created gangs and cartels that sprang up to control the lucrative shipments.
Like it or not, but there is a simple fact that has contributed to so many of these killings. The everyday person is almost strictly forbidden from owning firearms. Mostly because governments have been afraid of armed revolt. And the way to keep the people in check, is to keep them powerless. You see this in Venezuela and Ecuador exclusively. Columbia has eased some of its restrictions, but also Columbia has gotten a taste of capitalism, and their imports are increasing year after year. And their economy has been growing exponentially.
Private security firms are needed, because kidnapping for ransom is a huge business in these countries. I personally know families who have been victimized by this, and they always dont end well. Even when ransoms are paid.
Even with all that being said. This has been going on for years, this is not a new phenomenon. So what has changed?? Who is funding this mass migration?? What do these families think will actually happen to their children they are sending?? I have my thoughts, but of course 98% of you will deny that it is happening for that reason.
TeapartyCrasher July 10th, 2014 at 19:10
What are your thoughts? I’d surely like your input
Pistol-Packing July 10th, 2014 at 15:32
I have traveled through central america and south america pretty extensively for business. I have seen many of these places and the poverty with my own eyes. Some of it, does break your heart. But to get to the point I want to make.
The problems with the drugs have really been a direct result from 9/11. After that horrible day, the US, clamped down on all the ports and shipments coming from latin american countries. Most drugs traditionally had come in through the ports previously, but after the clamp down, new routes had to be created. So most of the drugs started getting shipped to Central America and Mexico. And with a stronger police presence on our southern border, many of the drugs were getting stuck in these countries. So not only were you creating new users who traditionally did not use them. You created gangs and cartels that sprang up to control the lucrative shipments.
Like it or not, but there is a simple fact that has contributed to so many of these killings. The everyday person is almost strictly forbidden from owning firearms. Mostly because governments have been afraid of armed revolt. And the way to keep the people in check, is to keep them powerless. You see this in Venezuela and Ecuador exclusively. Columbia has eased some of its restrictions, but also Columbia has gotten a taste of capitalism, and their imports are increasing year after year. And their economy has been growing exponentially.
Private security firms are needed, because kidnapping for ransom is a huge business in these countries. I personally know families who have been victimized by this, and they always dont end well. Even when ransoms are paid.
Even with all that being said. This has been going on for years, this is not a new phenomenon. So what has changed?? Who is funding this mass migration?? What do these families think will actually happen to their children they are sending?? I have my thoughts, but of course 98% of you will deny that it is happening for that reason.
TeapartyCrasher July 10th, 2014 at 19:10
What are your thoughts? I’d surely like your input
ChrisVosburg July 10th, 2014 at 17:23
Large U.S. multinational corporations are making a fortune in Central America, so much so , they’ve privatized their own “security forces” to keep their interests protected.
This sentence contains a link to a AS/COA site which discusses steps the private sector can take to reduce violence in the Central American Northern Triangle countries, and reads much as any such “good neighbor” policy statement would– indeed it’s the same policy recommendations for any business anywhere to maintain good relations with the community it’s in.
Discussed are such boilerplate community outreach projects as facilitating the reinsertion of at risk youth (read: gang members) into society, and working together with local officials, etc., lots of boilerplate like “Private-sector violence prevention programs must be recognized both for their value in improving local communities as well the potential benefits they can bring to corporate bottom lines.”
I think you’ve played dirty pool here in characterizing it as being support for your line about “privatizing their own security forces.” Indeed you make it sound like they’re building their own armies.
But that’s exactly what you meant for us to infer, isn’t it?
TeapartyCrasher July 10th, 2014 at 19:13
I think it’s much like Xe or Blackwater formerly, subcontracted security in a country whose security is dysfunctional due to events we set in motion a long time ago with an extra walloping of natural disasters that have devastated the countries. I don’t think the corporations are building armies, just supplementing for a corrupt police force. The fact these companies can open for business in the region AND finance security detail shows just how wealthy and powerful they are. So much so they can buy and sell a country right out from under the poor natives.
burqa July 10th, 2014 at 23:46
How does calling these proposals “boilerplate” make them undesirable? If those same ideas were new and untried, would that make them work better or something?
Is there something wrong with “reinsertion of at risk youth into society,” even if they are gang members?
Are you trying to say that areas with more violence are fertile ground for industry to thrive and efforts to reduce violence will harm those companies?
Sure looks like it.
ChrisVosburg July 11th, 2014 at 10:51
Again, my objection is not to the proposals, but rather to VegasJessie’s characterizing them as “privatizing their own security forces.”
Sorry I didn’t make that more clear, although it’s difficult to see how I could have.
ChrisVosburg July 10th, 2014 at 17:23
Large U.S. multinational corporations are making a fortune in Central America, so much so , they’ve privatized their own “security forces” to keep their interests protected.
This sentence contains a link to a AS/COA site which discusses steps the private sector can take to reduce violence in the Central American Northern Triangle countries, and reads much as any such “good neighbor” policy statement would– indeed it’s the same policy recommendations for any business anywhere to maintain good relations with the community it’s in.
Discussed are such boilerplate community outreach projects as facilitating the reinsertion of at risk youth (read: gang members) into society, and working together with local officials, etc., lots of boilerplate like “Private-sector violence prevention programs must be recognized both for their value in improving local communities as well the potential benefits they can bring to corporate bottom lines.”
I think you’ve played dirty pool here in characterizing it as being support for your line about “privatizing their own security forces.” Indeed you make it sound like they’re building their own armies.
But that’s exactly what you meant for us to infer, isn’t it?
TeapartyCrasher July 10th, 2014 at 19:13
I think it’s much like Xe or Blackwater formerly, subcontracted security in a country whose security is dysfunctional due to events we set in motion a long time ago with an extra walloping of natural disasters that have devastated the countries. I don’t think the corporations are building armies, just supplementing for a corrupt police force. The fact these companies can open for business in the region AND finance security detail shows just how wealthy and powerful they are. So much so they can buy and sell a country right out from under the poor natives.
burqa July 10th, 2014 at 23:46
How does calling these proposals “boilerplate” make them undesirable? If those same ideas were new and untried, would that make them work better or something?
Is there something wrong with “reinsertion of at risk youth into society,” even if they are gang members?
Are you trying to say that areas with more violence are fertile ground for industry to thrive and efforts to reduce violence will harm those companies?
Sure looks like it.
ChrisVosburg July 11th, 2014 at 10:51
Again, my objection is not to the proposals, but rather to VegasJessie’s characterizing them as “privatizing their own security forces.”
Sorry I didn’t make that more clear, although it’s difficult to see how I could have.
fahvel July 11th, 2014 at 03:34
forget the wordage – the corps go there for fkn money and don’t give a shit about the people – and you know it!
ChrisVosburg July 10th, 2014 at 17:25
the idea of a “Banana Republic” (penned by the writer O’Henry)
Perhaps you mean to refer to the writer we know as “O. Henry.”
fahvel July 11th, 2014 at 03:33
neither – it’s, Oh, Henry! and a slap on the cheek.
ChrisVosburg July 10th, 2014 at 17:25
the idea of a “Banana Republic” (penned by the writer O’Henry)
Perhaps you mean to refer to the writer we know as “O. Henry.”
fahvel July 11th, 2014 at 03:33
neither – it’s, Oh, Henry! and a slap on the cheek.
burqa July 10th, 2014 at 23:38
I do not see this as a “crisis.” To me, it is an opportunity.
First, it is a chance to get back to the sane immigration policy our Founding Fathers had which was to become a U.S. citizen, all you had to do was establish residency here for 5 years.
Restricting immigration is right there in the Declaration of Independence as one of the reasons we were separating from Great Britain.
Second, this is a chance to burnish our image and to do some good in the world by understanding that the reason they want so badly to come here is because we have what they don’t. They will continue to try every means to get in the U.S. until their homelands provide a similar level of freedom and opportunity. So we need to get cracking on bringing that about.
In the meantime, we can take advantage of this opportunity to help ease the strain of the Baby Boomers on Social Security by granting amnesty and helping those here become citizens quickly and simplify the process for others wanting to get in also. The tax revenue from millions of people who now work under the table will not only help with Social Security for the baby Boomers, but can help pay down the deficit or fund other things. We can sell it to the righties by telling them there will be hundreds of billions of dollars we can give to the rich in tax cuts.
fahvel July 11th, 2014 at 03:31
Oh B, how can you express such kindness and understanding in the face of these micro invading hordes who are ready to eat everything like locust??
kidding – what a fine thing to say – with you all the way – well almost. All may include stuff we don’t like but this one is all good.
burqa July 11th, 2014 at 22:35
Thanks, fahvel, you had me going for a second there….
burqa July 10th, 2014 at 23:38
I do not see this as a “crisis.” To me, it is an opportunity.
First, it is a chance to get back to the sane immigration policy our Founding Fathers had which was to become a U.S. citizen, all you had to do was establish residency here for 5 years.
Restricting immigration is right there in the Declaration of Independence as one of the reasons we were separating from Great Britain.
Second, this is a chance to burnish our image and to do some good in the world by understanding that the reason they want so badly to come here is because we have what they don’t. They will continue to try every means to get in the U.S. until their homelands provide a similar level of freedom and opportunity. So we need to get cracking on bringing that about.
In the meantime, we can take advantage of this opportunity to help ease the strain of the Baby Boomers on Social Security by granting amnesty and helping those here become citizens quickly and simplify the process for others wanting to get in also. The tax revenue from millions of people who now work under the table will not only help with Social Security for the baby Boomers, but can help pay down the deficit or fund other things. We can sell it to the righties by telling them there will be hundreds of billions of dollars we can give to the rich in tax cuts.
fahvel July 11th, 2014 at 03:31
Oh B, how can you express such kindness and understanding in the face of these micro invading hordes who are ready to eat everything like locust??
kidding – what a fine thing to say – with you all the way – well almost. All may include stuff we don’t like but this one is all good.
burqa July 11th, 2014 at 22:35
Thanks, fahvel, you had me going for a second there….
Edward C July 14th, 2014 at 01:27
wait. You left out the paragraph about rare Earth metals being harvested in China for products being demanded in the West. Without that – clearly this doesn’t all fit together.
Edward C July 14th, 2014 at 01:27
wait. You left out the paragraph about rare Earth metals being harvested in China for products being demanded in the West. Without that – clearly this doesn’t all fit together.