Border Externalization as Neocolonialism

Neocolonialism is defined as “the control of less-developed countries by developed countries through indirect means”.[1] Initially, the term was used in the post-World War II era to refer to European policies that maintained control of former colonies in foreign nations, particularly in Africa. One of the first recognized neocolonial acts occurred at the 1957 Paris Summit in which European heads of government, specifically Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, included their overseas territories within the European Economic Community.[2] This inclusion of colonial territories in trade arrangements represented a new form of economic domination that was less direct but just as controlling as prior forms of colonial control.

Neocolonialism has since expanded to include coordinated efforts by former colonial powers, other developed countries, and even corporations to produce and perpetuate colonial forms of exploitation.[3] This broadened definition is largely associated with Cold War era policies, notably the Truman Doctrine, in which the United States government extended its sphere of influence by offering governments sums of money to accept U.S. protection from communism. Other more threatening acts have also been used by the United States to extend neocolonialism, including overthrowing numerous Central American governments through secret military coup d’états in order to institute pro-American regimes.[4]

On a fundamental level, neocolonialism represents exploitation without redress and allows nations to ignore social and political issues by exporting social conflicts.[5] Though evident in many forms and instances, this is perhaps most apparent in immigration policy – specifically through border externalization, in which nations engage with third countries with the explicit aim of preventing and interdicting migrants by creating a buffer-zone through the engaged nation’s external borders. Essentially, border externalization seeks to prevent migrants from entering destination states or migrating entirely, and focuses on apprehending and returning migrants in transit or destination states, even those with a valid legal basis for international protection.[6]

While border externalization is usually discussed in the context of the European Union and African and Middle Eastern migrants, it is also occurring in North America in the United States with Central American migration. Through policies such as the Mérida Initiative and Programa Frontera Sur, the United States has exported its immigration responsibilities by working with Mexico to create an immigration policy that has militarized southern Mexico and the Mexico-Guatemala border in order to prevent Central American migrants from ever reaching the U.S.-Mexico border. Just as with historical forms of neocolonialism, such as supposed protection from communism, border externalization works under the guise of human rights. Although Programa Frontera Sur’s stated goal was “to overcome common challenges related to migration and the respect for human rights”, and “to establish a more modern, efficient, prosperous, and secure border”, the reality has only been a vast increase in deportations enacted by the Mexican government, and a dire effect on the human rights of migrants.[7]

Through neocolonial acts of border externalization, the United States has also negated Mexico’s control over territory, sovereignty, and jurisdiction. For the United States, border externalization has clearly expanded the virtual territory under U.S. control. As such, the United States has been able to increase its jurisdiction and sovereignty by using its power to increase the power it holds over Mexican government initiatives. Even though the United States has virtually no control over the enforcement of such initiatives, this provides its government with a justifiable reason as to why such initiatives fail. While Mexico has not experienced a change in the territory it maintains, the Mexican government has lost both jurisdiction and sovereignty, as by accepting border externalization it must now act in the best interest of the United States.

It is through this lens that border externalization’s true neocolonial form is evident – Programa Frontera Sur allows wealthy and powerful nations like the United States to hand immigration responsibilities to other nations. Not only does doing so provide nations with a political excuse for the failure of immigration control, but it also allows such nations to cultivate and maintain power over their neighbors through the practice of controlling migration. Through the externalization of borders and immigration control, states are able to establish a neocolonial extension of their power.

In a way, the use of neocolonial border externalization by the United States to curb Central American migration is ironic as it was neocolonialism that created the very conditions that such migrants seek to escape. By overthrowing numerous Central American governments, the United States and its secret military coup d’états have had terrible unintended consequences as entire populations have been submerged into grinding poverty and are vulnerable to dictatorship, military rule, and gang violence. Such conditions and experiences are only exacerbated by neocolonial externalization policies that seek to prevent migrants from pursuing a better life.

Recognizing border externalization as neocolonialism is important for two reasons – both to acknowledge the roles of nations in continuing the legacies of colonialism, and to discuss potential solutions. Writing about and discussing such complex and contentious topics is essential towards ending actions that have allowed wealthy and powerful nations to unjustly cultivate and maintain power over their neighbors.

Regarding solutions, rather than continuing border externalization, states must secure their legacies as important political players in the international community by focusing on migrant human rights and securing conditions in origin states. Until such actions are taken, neocolonial immigration policies of border externalization will perpetrate asymmetrical relationships between states that will destabilize nations and fail to protect the millions of migrants in most need of aid.

~ ~ ~

[1] Sandra Halperin. “Neocolonialism.” Encyclopædia Britannica. March 23, 2016.

[2] “NATO Update – 1957.” North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). November 6, 2001.

[3] Halperin, “Neocolonialism.”

[4] Stephen Kinzer. Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. New York, NY: Times Books, 2006.

[5] Nkrumah, Kwame. Neo-colonialism: the last stage of imperialism. London: Panaf, 2004.

[6] Jennifer Podkul and Ian Kysel. “Interdiction, Border Externalization, and the Protection of the Human Rights of Migrants.” The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, October 22, 2015.

[7] Presidencia de la República. “Pone En Marcha el Presidente Enrique Peña Nieto el Programa Frontera Sur.” Gob.mx. June 7, 2014.

Private Prison Usage in Mexico

The use of private prisons in the U.S. is perhaps one of the most well-known present day controversies in American politics. Although the first for-profit prison was established in 1852, the most recent resurgence of private prisons occurred during the 1980s; as prison populations increased rapidly with the advent of the “war on drugs”, prison privatization offered an efficient solution to overcrowding and rising costs.[1] In 2015, per Bureau of Justice statistics, for-profit companies were responsible for approximately 7% of state prisoners and 18% of federal prisoners.[2] The use of private prisons in the U.S. even extends beyond citizens – in 2016, per U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, almost 75% of federal immigration detainees were held in private prisons.[3]

Other countries have also begun experimenting with private prisons, including Mexico. On 2010, Mexican President Felipe Calderón introduced a plan to build “ten new high security prisons…by the private sector and some companies”, specifically ICA, Tradeco, GIA, Homex, Prodemex, and Arendal.[4] The first of these prisons was inaugurated on February 10, 2012, in Hermosillo, Sonora and involve an investment of 4.2 billion pesos ($325 million) to allow for state-of-the-art equipment including custom entrances with automated locks and a hospital with laboratories.[5] The use of private prisons has continued with President Enrique Peña Nieto, who has committed to building seven prisons through the Contrato de Prestación de Servicios (CPS) in which private companies build prisons and take care of subsequent maintenance, food, and cleaning.[6] As of 2016, the monthly Cuaderno Nacional de Información Estadística Penitenciaria referred to six Centros Federales de Readaptación Social, which altogether hold 15,128 prisoners with occupancy rates of about 85%.[7]

One of the benefits of privately held prisons is a lower expense for the state, an argument that both presidents Calderón and Peña Nieto have used to advocate privately run prisons. However, this has not been the case in Mexico due to private contracts that force the government to pay for full capacity. Per the Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos, the Mexican government pays about 1,500 pesos per prisoner in a private prison, instead of the 390 pesos of an inmate in a state prison.[8] Similar comparisons also show vastly higher rates paid to private companies for food and cleaning services. Because the government pays for full prisons regardless of actual capacity, relocations have moved hundreds of inmates from state prisons to private prisons. Out of the 24,430 people in federal prisons, the six CPS centers in Sonora, Guanajuato, Oaxaca, Durango, Chiapas, and Morelos account for 53% of inmates.

The Mexican government has also turned to an end to corruption and overcapacity as part of the reason to build private prisons. However, private prisons have also failed to solve these problems. In 2012, Mexican prisons were operating at an average of 25% overcapacity; this has resulted in disastrous events including a riot at a prison with 150% overcapacity.[9] While it is true that building more prisons will help reduce overcapacity, companies do not have any incentive to decrease the inmate population – in fact, companies may be interested in driving up profits by increasing the number of prisoners. The Mexican government also has an interest in raising the number of inmates, because as discussed earlier, the state pays for a private prison’s full capacity. Additionally, although built and maintained by private companies, privatized prisons in Mexico are still run by Mexican state actors, thus negating the argument of reduced corruption. Many inmates in private prisons are abused by guards. Individuals have recounted stories of visiting individuals in prisons who are chained and forced to spend twenty-three hours per day in their cell, with only one hour to spend outside.[10]

For anyone who has followed the usage of private prisons in the U.S., these results should not come as a surprise; for decades, numerous studies have noted the deleterious effect of privately run prisons on both prisoners. Additionally, on August 18, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) released a report that compared fourteen private and fourteen state run prison facilities, noting that “contract prisons incurred more safety and security incidents per capita than comparable BOP [U.S. Bureau of Prison] institutions”.[11] Additionally, the report stated that private prisons had more incidents per capita including “higher rates of assaults”, that private prisons were more frequently cited for “one or more safety and security deficiencies, including administrative infractions such as improper storage of use-of-force video footage, as well as more serious or systemic deficiencies”, and that some private prisons were improperly housing new inmates.[12] In its conclusion, the DOJ indicated that the BOP should either decline to renew contracts with private prison contractors or reduce the scope of private corporations in handling prisoners.[13]

The DOJ’s report should act as a warning to Mexico, who should also consider stopping the use of privately run prisons. This is particularly true considering the fact that four of Mexico’s private prisons are only partially built or are still not open despite the billions of pesos poured into them.[14] Rather, the Mexican government should focus on working towards a more effective judicial system in order to reduce the number of individuals in prison. By addressing issues such as the fact that more than one third of all prisoners in Mexican prisons have yet to be sentenced, some of whom spend years waiting trial, Mexico can remedy its judicial system and accordingly, eradicate the need for privately run prisons.[15]

~~~

[1] “Private Jails in the United States.” FindLaw.

[2] Ibid.

[3] “Private Prisons.” American Civil Liberties Union.

[4] Lajous, Andrés. “La privatización del sistema carcelario en México.” Nexos. April 9, 2012.

[5] “Calderón inaugurates high-tech federal prison for 2,500 inmates.” Hidrocalidodigital.com. February 10, 2012.

[6] Hernánadez, Juan Luis García. “Las cárceles privada nos cuestan 4.5 veces más, pero el Gobierno planeo otras siete.” Sinembargo. September 11, 2016.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] O’Neill McCleskey, Claire. “Mexico to Build 2 Private Prisons by Year-End.” InSight Crime. August 8, 2012.

[10] Weinstein, David. “Privatization of Prisons in Mexico and the Rights of Person Deprived of Liberty.” Human Rights Brief. April 10, 2016.

[11] Office of the Inspector General. “Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Monitoring of Contract Prisons.” U.S. Department of Justice. August 2016.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Murray, Christine and Joanna Zuckerman Bernstein. “After Drug War Contracting Boom, Mexican Prisons Stand Idle.” U.S. News. February 17, 2017.

[15] Ibid.

A War on Two Fronts: The Indigenous Fight against Paramilitarism and Cartels

Mexico has one of the largest indigenous populations in the Americans, with one in ten Mexicans speaking one of 56 federally recognized languages.[1] Geographically, most of Mexico’s indigenous population is located in about one-third of Mexico’s states and more than half live in four states: Oaxaca, Veracruz, Chiapas, and Puebla.[2] Out of the estimated 15 million indigenous Mexicans, around 72% are considered impoverished and despite the 2003 passage of the Ley Federal Para Prevenir y Eliminar La Discriminación, indigenous Mexicans continue to experience a large amount of marginalization.[3] Much of the direct and indirect discrimination and violence faced by indigenous Mexicans comes not only from the lack of legislative harmony, but also from government-supported paramilitary groups and cartels. In this sense, indigenous Mexicans face a complex and difficult situation in which they are terrorized by cartels and gangs yet cannot turn to the government that is also threatening them.

Paramilitary groups have a long history of operation in Mexico, with the government delegating funds, equipment, and training for the enactment of missions and tasks that regular armed forces are unable to openly implement. Through this technique, the Mexican government has supported and implemented forms of state violence that are not legally recognized as such. Because the state-sanctioned actions of paramilitary groups are disguised, these indirect state actors often go unpunished.[4] One of the most notable paramilitary groups is that of the Brigada Blanca, which was established in June 1976 to investigate La Liga Comunista 23 de Septiembre.[5] The Brigada Blanca consisted of 240 police, Dirección Federal de Seguridad personnel, and members of the Policía Judicial Federal who regardless of military status, were given a monthly compensation of three thousand pesos by the Mexican government. In addition, the Brigada Blanca maintained office space and trained at a military field, and received 55 vehicles, 253 guns, and several helicopters as needed.[6] With such strong ties between the Brigada Blanca and the Mexican government, it is evident that the lines between legitimate policing and paramilitarism can often be extremely tenuous.

Many of the targets of paramilitary violence have been Zapatistas, indigenous Mexicans who through the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN) fight for “work, land, housing, food, health, education, independent, liberty, democracy, justice, and peace”.[7] Between 1995 and 2000, the Paz y Justicia paramilitary group has been responsible for the death or forcible disappearance of 122 indigenous people, as well as for the displacement of 4,000 Ch’ol and Tzeltal residents in Chiapas.[8] Paz y Justicia reappeared in 2015, and indigenous activists accused Edgar Gomez, the president of the Tila municipality, as well as other Tila municipal officers, of supporting the paramilitary group as a means to control indigenous residents.[9] Such claims are extremely plausible not only because of historical precedent, but also because of the valuable natural resources the Mexican government has been stealing from indigenous Mexicans for years.[10]

In addition to paramilitary groups, indigenous Mexicans are also threatened by drug cartels, such as Los Zetas in Michoacan. The presence of cartels has led to an increase in indigenous youth consuming drugs, and individuals from indigenous communities being used and exploited as drug smugglers.[11] Additionally, cartels have taken over farmland traditionally used by indigenous peoples to grow poppies, and hitmen are a common occurrence. This past May, Miguel Vásquez and his brother Agustín, two prominent activists, were killed by gunmen believed to be part of the Jalisco New Generation cartel.[12] Rather than risking death, many indigenous Mexicans have moved and become displaced by the spread of organized crime; entire towns have even moved to escape the violence.[13] All too often, though, cartels and the local police collude. In the case of the Vásquez brothers, municipal police had arrested the suspected murders that day yet released them right before the shootings took place.[14] Additionally, the current fight against drug cartels has given paramilitary groups a seemingly legitimate excuse to continue terrorizing and violating the human rights of indigenous Mexicans.[15]

The dual pressures of paramilitary groups and drug cartels have put indigenous Mexicans in a unique situation, in which they are being terrorized by external groups but are also unable to receive assistance from a government that is funding some of the very groups that are enacting violence. Although resources such as the Indigenous Council of Government (CIG) exist, they are often only a pretense that cover the continuation of state violence against indigenous communities. Recently, after the appointment of a new CIG spokesperson, indigenous communities across the country experienced increased repression.[16] Rather than segregating and marginalizing indigenous peoples, the Mexican government should work with communities to recognize their sovereignty, address their needs, and protect their fundamental rights as laid out in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, of which Mexico is a signatory. Integral to this process would be ending the use of paramilitary groups to enact state violence and rectifying the vulnerability of indigenous populations to drug cartels. Until such actions occur, indigenous peoples will continue to be viewed and treated as second-class citizens by their own government.

~~~

[1] Fox, Jonathan. “Mexico’s Indigenous Population.” Cultural Survival. March 1999.

[2] Ibid.

[3] “72% of the Indigenous Population in Mexico live in Extreme Poverty Conditions.” The Yucatan Times. August 16, 2014.

[4] López y Rivas, Gilberto. “Paramilitarismo y contrainsurgencia en México, una historia necesaria.” TeleSUR. August 25, 2015.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Castillo García, Gustavo. “El gobierno creó en 1976 brigada especial para “aplastar” a guerrilleros en el valle de México.” La Jornada.

[7] International Service for Peace [SIPAZ] ( January 2002) Chiapas Peace Process, War Process.

[8] “Mexican Paramilitary Group that Killed 120 Indigenous Reappears.” TeleSUR. December 28, 2015.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Alvarado Álvarez, Ignacio. “Bishop: Natural resources are being snatched from indigenous Mexicans.” Aljazeera America, April 4, 2015.

Tresierra, Julio. “Rights of Indigenous Groups Over Natural Resources in Tropical Forests.” Inter-American Development Bank, May 1999.

[11] Sokan, Kenny. “Mexico’s indigenous Raramuri have been suffering at the hands of narcos for decades.” Public Radio International. June 30, 2016.

[12] Tucker, Duncan. “An indigenous Mexican people are battling cartels and peyote tourism.” VICE News. June 16, 2017.

[13] Balderas, Oscar. “Some Mexicans Have Been Living in Limbo for Years After Fleeing Cartel Violence.” VICE News. March 15, 2016.

[14] Tucker, Duncan. “An indigenous Mexican people are battling cartels and peyote tourism.” VICE News. June 16, 2017.

[15] Rushing, John. “Mexico Drug War Violence Used As Pretext For Indigenous Community Repression.” The Huffington Post. June 23, 2011.

[16] Gutiérrez, Oscar. “Congreso Nacional Indígena denuncia represiones.” El Universal. November 6, 2017.