The Miami Herald ha hasa new editorial, Central America's free-fire zone, calling forstronger action against Honduras in light of escalating violence andcorruption.
The recent withdrawal of America’s Peace Corps volunteersfrom Honduras is one more sign that the security situation in that CentralAmerican country has deteriorated to crisis levels not seen since the civilwars of the 1980s. The country is quickly turning into a disaster zone.
After the tide of civil war receded, the armies went back totheir barracks and the insurgents laid down their arms. But then narcoticstraffickers flooded in, and the violence has spiked dramatically ever since.The DEA estimates that 25 tons of cocaine move through the country every monthheading north.
In my opinion, theeditorial is poorly framed. First, why all this talk about civil wars, armiesreturning to their barracks, and insurgents laying down their arms when, in thecase of Honduras, it didn't experience a civil war, the army returned to itsbarracks but never relinquished power, and few insurgents ever posed a threatto the survival of the regime.
Why not talk about the US-encouragedmilitarization of the country during the 1970s and 1980s. How about the contrasoperating on Honduran soil and launching illegal attacks across the border andinto Nicaragua? You could also write about US support and training for Hondurantroops involved in helping to massacre Salvadorans along its border during the1980s.
They could also avoidthe 1980s Cold War rhetoric altogether since the war's been over for twentyyears. If there's been a "a 250-percent increase in half a dozen years," why notlook to the source of violence six years ago rather than twenty-five years ago?They could write about some of the mano dura policies firstintroduced in 2002 or the breakdown of the rule of law prior to, during, andafter the 2009 coup?
It'salso a terrible title because, while violent, I'm not exactly sure that anyonewould describe the situation as a "free-fire zone" and if it's aneditorial about the situation in Honduras, why not put "Honduras" inthe title rather than "Central America."
For a south Floridanewspaper with an international audience, they should be able to write aboutHonduras' particular history rather than general regional patterns.
This time, however, thereappears to be no effective U.S. strategy to combat the wave of crime and thegradual destruction of the country. To make matters worse in Honduras, thereare indications that elements of theU.S.-backed government are complicit in the violence andcriminality.
Way to beat around thebush. How about the Honduran government receives millions of dollars each yearfrom the United States at the same time that members of the executive,legislative and judicial branches are responsible for much of the country'sviolence and criminality? The evidence that the Miami Herald lists after thesetwo statements is much stronger but they already undermined its effect withindications, elements, and complicit framing.
Nudging Honduran leaders to do the right thing hasn’tworked. Time for Washington to get serious and put U.S. aid on the line,starting with an accounting of where U.S. dollars have ended up. The U.S.government helped fund a program to train Honduran prison guards, but has sincelost track of where those guards wound up.
Historically, the United States has been the biggestbilateral donor of aid to Honduras, but where’s the accountability?
Congress should withdraw assistance if the Hondurangovernment blocks reforms. This crisis requires more than tough talk.
Finally, I support aneffort to hold Honduran leaders accountable for the security situation andcorruption. However, the editorial also should have called on the US congressand the executive branch to review their own actions. How have they contributedto the situation in Honduras? How are they going to change the way that theyoperate?
Does anyone in the US government have a clue?
(h/t to Boz fora link to the article)
