Over the past several months, there have been major advancements in Colombia’s peace process. But more work lies ahead if Colombia wants to achieve lasting peace and reconciliation–each actor in the conflict must be held accountable. In an attempt to ensure a comprehensive peace process, Colombia’s transitional justice system charged a group of multinational corporations (MNCs) with crimes against humanity. The move to charge corporate entities with crimes against humanity is rare and could set a precedent for corporate accountability moving forward.

Colombia’s Peace Process

Late last year, the Colombian government reached a peace agreement with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and has since begun talks with the National Liberation Army (ELN). Negotiations between the government and these two marxist insurgencies have dominated coverage of the country’s peace process. However, it is a mistake to treat the conflict as something exclusive to the government and these leftist insurgencies. The war in Colombia is complex. In order to achieve lasting peace, the process cannot ignore the plethora of groups and interests that have stoked the conflict over its many years. On February 2, the Colombian transitional justice system took a major step in ensuring a comprehensive peace and reconciliation process by charging a group of MNCs with crimes against humanity.

While FARC and the ELN often draw the attention of onlookers, a 2013 government report claimed right-wing paramilitary groups aligned with the Colombian government and/or corporations perpetrated most of the conflict’s targeted killings and a majority of its massacres. The collection of MNCs, which includes Dole, Del Monte, and Chiquita were accused of knowingly funding right-wing paramilitary groups in order to protect their interests. The fruit-producing MNCs are believed to have supported the infamously violent United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) which controlled swaths of Uraba and northern Colombia–the country’s main banana producing region.

Corporate Crimes?

Of course, corporations are regularly accused of violating human rights. There are no shortages of stories (many backed by conclusive evidence) in which corporations ruthlessly pursued their interests with a callous disregard for human life. Rich in natural resources, Latin America is home to some of the most harrowing examples of corporate incited conflicts. Notwithstanding the multitudes of corporate interests in the region, fruit companies have a particularly sordid history in Latin America. In the 1950’s, the United Fruit Company worked with the CIA to overthrow an overwhelmingly popular leftist government in Guatemala and install a far-right authoritarian government that was sympathetic to corporate business interests. This authoritarian coup led to a 36-year war and the genocide of an estimated 200,000, predominately indigenous, people. In the 1980’s, The United Fruit Company changed its name to Chiquita Brands International. Though stories past and present suggest that corporations consistently violate human rights, they act as though they are “too big to stand trial.”

MNCs are largely immune from legal accountability. By definition, MNCs are international entities. Their global reach often leads them to argue that a given court does not have jurisdiction over their actions. Therefore, finding a court that will hear a case and have the authority to enforce a ruling is a major challenge for a prospective plaintiff. Furthermore, many courts, including the International Criminal Court, fail to list corporations as judicial persons subject to investigation and prosecution. While courts could potentially punish executives instead of the entity as a whole, complex corporate structures make it difficult to pin liability on particular individuals. Even if a viable case is brought against a corporation, they generally have a distinct economic advantage over the plaintiff that allows them to employ superior counsel or settle the case out of court. On the rare occasion MNCs are found guilty in court, the punishments are often negligible. These factors perhaps explain why Colombia’s transitional justice system is among the first to charge MNCs with crimes against humanity.

Transitional Justice as a Model?

Transitional justice systems are established in the wake of a conflict and are a crucial component in peace and reconciliation processes. According the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), a non-profit that has been working with Colombia since 2005, transitional justice, among other things, works to make “access to justice a reality for the most vulnerable,” ensure “that women and marginalized groups play an effective role in the pursuit of a just society,” and  establish “a basis to address the underlying causeless of conflict and marginalization.” While one would hope and expect that every court system upheld these values, transitional justice systems are established with these particular humanitarian aims in mind. If the consortium of corporations actually did fund paramilitary groups, then it is imperative for peace that they are held accountable. An effective reconciliation process must necessarily give a voice to those most affected by the conflict and create a dialogue that addresses, deconstructs, and delegitimizes the conflicts motivating interests and actors. However, there is often a stark power imbalance between those driving conflict and those most affected by conflict. Unfortunately, these disparities in power translate into the traditional court room.

Far too often, corporate behemoths are able to marginalize the voices of those victimized by their interested pursuits. MNCs are able to bat away, or at least minimize, practically any legal challenge that comes their way. It is too early to argue that events in Colombia signify a turning point for corporate accountability. The charges against these MNCs were pressed by an impermanent court, under particular circumstances, have yet to be proven, and the implications of a guilty verdict remain to be seen. Multinational corporations continue to grow in size and influence, and corporate accountability is often demanded but rarely demonstrated. The fact that that a transitional justice system was among the first to explicitly charge MNCs with crimes against humanity is indicative of the way in which traditional justice systems generally preserve hegemonic interests rather than uphold justice.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colombia Charges Corporations with Crimes Against Humanity appeared first on Law Street.

On November 30, 2016, the Colombian Congress ratified a long awaited peace deal between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). After 52 years of fighting and months of negotiations in Havana, Cuba, FARC agreed to permanently put down arms and reinvent itself as a mainstream political party. America’s involvement in the conflict is longstanding. While President Barack Obama’s promises of aid were integral to the action plan for peace, policy shifts under President Donald Trump could jeopardize peace in Colombia.

The Alliance

Colombia is widely considered America’s strongest ally in Latin America. The alliance between the two states is built on Colombia’s entrenched and complex domestic conflict. Though first motivated by an ideological war with communism, the partnership would come to be defined by the U.S.’s war on drugs. President Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs in 1971. Rather than addressing domestic demand for drugs, the U.S. government chose to wage war against those producing and trafficking drugs. As a result, Colombia became a focal point for the U.S.’s anti-drug policies. For decades, the Colombian government has received American military and financial support.

Over the years, American interference has undoubtedly contributed to the escalation and complication of the conflict in Colombia. Less than a decade ago, the U.S. was engaging in covert operations against FARC leaders, often in violation of international law. However, in a rare move away from traditional security approaches, the Obama Administration began pushing for peace between the Colombian government and FARC as early as 2009.

In 2015, after a turbulent fews years, Colombian and FARC representatives hammered out the details of a deal which was ultimately defeated in a referendum. A slightly reworked deal was approved by the Colombian congress in late November. The U.S. took the backseat throughout the negotiation process, but a $450 million aid package from the Obama administration was crucial for peace.

A Shifting Stance?

Gimena Sanchez-Garzoli, Senior Associate for the Andes at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), said that the aid package was necessary for peace. The primary purpose of the package is to develop alternative livelihoods for coca growers. Under Trump, there is no guarantee that this aid package will arrive as promised, if at all. The Trump Administration has already placed all ongoing foreign aid under review. Trump has also taken direct action on specific aid packages. In his first week, Trump halted a $221 million aid package to the Palestinian Authority and reinstated the “Mexico City Policy,” which bans federal funding to international groups that work to endorse pro-choice policies or provide services related to abortion. There is no guarantee that the money promised under Obama will be delivered under Trump.

The Trump Administration clearly intends to impose conservative policies on foreign aid. Whether or not the Trump Administration will cut off aid to Colombia remains to be seen, and the White House has said little on the matter. However, when asked about the peace deal during his confirmation process, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson expressed his support for the long-standing militaristic policy known as Plan Colombia. He went on to say he “would review the details of Colombia’s recent peace agreement, and determine the extent to which the United States should continue to support it.” Tillerson’s expressed support for Plan Colombia and his ambiguous stance on the peace deal are cause for concern.

Tillerson’s reluctance to commit to peace in Colombia not only puts the deal with FARC in doubt but it could jeopardize future peace talks. While the agreement between FARC and the Colombian government is a major step on the road to peace, these two actors do not encapsulate the conflict. The conflict in Colombia involves a variety of right-wing paramilitary and leftist guerrilla groups. Though FARC has been the major and ever-present belligerent in the conflict, there are more hurdles to jump before Colombia can guarantee total peace. Preliminary peace talks with the National Liberation Army (ELN), another leftist revolutionary group, are already underway. Even if the Trump administration chooses not to obstruct the deal with FARC, the Colombian government may not be able to rely on the kind of support it received from the Obama Administration when looking ahead.

Finally, it is important to note why the first draft of the peace deal with FARC was narrowly defeated in the referendum. Though less affected by the war than those living in rural conflict zones, urban Colombians voted down a deal that they believed to be far too lenient on the guerrillas. Were Trump to oppose the current peace deal, he may well find support from a sizable portion of Colombians who feel their government should not be negotiating with FARC or any other rebel group. This move would not be unthinkable considering Trump’s rhetoric concerning terrorist groups has been unapologetically aggressive, and both FARC and the ELN remain on the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

If Trump is unwilling to continue Obama’s move away from traditional security policies in Colombia, the peace process in Colombia could stall. Even if Trump upholds existing deals and promises between the U.S., Colombia, and FARC, the Colombian government may have to conduct future peace negotiations without American financial or diplomatic support.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does Trump Mean for Peace in Colombia? appeared first on Law Street.

After 52 years of armed conflict, the Colombian congress approved a peace deal with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) on Wednesday night. The previous version of the peace agreement fell through in October after a narrow referendum, leaving observers in shock. Even though all Colombians wanted to see an end to the hostilities, many were dissatisfied with that particular deal, as critics said it was too lenient toward the rebels after decades of kidnappings and killings.

Ironically, only days after voters rejected the initial deal, President Juan Manuel Santos was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to end the war, which was the longest-running armed conflict in the region. He has made it his main goal to achieve peace with the FARC and the Nobel Committee said in its announcement that it hoped the prize would give Santos the strength to keep working toward lasting peace. The committee also noted that the voters didn’t reject peace itself, but only the details of that specific agreement.

#Colombia‘s Congress has ratified a revised peace agreement with the FARC. Here’s what you need to know: https://t.co/RvSYyi5NKy pic.twitter.com/W3hF3ELBu7

— WOLA (@WOLA_org) December 1, 2016

This time around, the agreement had been revised and was passed by the congress, not by popular referendum. The deal was approved in a 130 to 0 vote after 11 hours of debate. One of the main objections that those who opposed the previous version had was that rebels guilty or war crimes would be allowed back into society as civilians with no real punishment or prison time. Now, the agreement contains more details on how rebels accused of crimes will be sent to a special court, but they will still not face prison sentences. The government argued that otherwise, FARC members would have walked away from the deal. Former rebels will also be allowed to participate in politics, but cannot run for office in new political districts drawn in former conflict areas.

Congrats to the people of Colombia and @JuanManSantos on your Congress approving the peace accord. Excited to be there with you all tonight.

— Vice President Biden (@VP) December 1, 2016

There is some criticism of the revised peace deal, mainly that the recent changes are only superficial and that other illegal groups are already starting to fill up the vacuum left as the FARC starts to dissolve. Todd Howland from the United Nations told CNN that his team has met FARC soldiers who are being offered work from criminal groups and that it’s unclear what will happen to all the former rebels. He also expressed his concerns about the land that the rebels used to control. He said:

These empty lots left by the FARC are supposedly to be filled by the State, working to transform the illicit economy to licit. This is not happening right now. Instead, other illegal groups are entering into these areas.

The rebels now have 150 days to put down their weapons. They will leave their camps and relocate to different parts of the country, supervised by inspectors from the United Nations. On Thursday, Vice President Joe Biden will be in Colombia to discuss what role the U.S. will play in the peace, and in December, President Santos will receive his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway. Hopefully, the transition to peace will go smoothly.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colombia Reaches Historic Peace Agreement With the FARC appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trevor Noah vs. Tomi Lahren

In a divided nation it’s important to try to communicate with people who have different viewpoints. Last night Trevor Noah gave it a try on “The Daily Show” by inviting very conservative TV host Tomi Lahren to be his guest.

Trevor and @TomiLahren discuss Black Lives Matter, the KKK, and Colin Kaepernick’s national anthem protest. https://t.co/3ZXncZSVdm pic.twitter.com/8YrybRYRBX

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) December 1, 2016

What was impressive: how both of them could keep cool despite having such different views.

What was less impressive: how Lahren tried to walk back her own opinions. She said her statement that Black Lives Matter is the new KKK is not based in racism at all, since she doesn’t “see color.” But then, regarding her loud criticism of Colin Kaepernick for kneeling during the national anthem, she said: “So because I don’t agree with what he did, I should shut up because I’m white? I should shut up? I shouldn’t be able to talk about black issues because I’m white?” Noah’s clever reply: “No one brought up white at all […] I don’t see color.”

Tomi Lahren: “what did the kkk do?”

All black people in North America: pic.twitter.com/SZpwGBwe9i

— Lil jesse (@smokingdick) December 1, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 1, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Vladimir Putin Dubbed Peacemaker by Surprise Banner

A banner lauding Putin as a “Peacemaker” appeared on NYC’s Manhattan bridge Thursday. It immediately stirred up a lot of buzz. It was removed in a couple of hours, but not before Twitter users grabbed some pics.

We spotted this Putin banner being unfurled on north side of the Manhattan Bridge at 1:47 p.m. https://t.co/DStAoerBz9 pic.twitter.com/kL2uUh9Vhe

— Gothamist (@Gothamist) October 6, 2016

Some observers were amused, but others not so much.

This Vladimir Putin banner dangling on Manhattan Bridge is equally as disturbing as the numerous clowns that are showing up in random places

— Call me James (@nyjones7) October 6, 2016

The thing that makes me madder than this banner is the fact that someone had to piss off a whole lot of bikers going uphill to put it there. https://t.co/qLAp9t09ie

— Scott Steinhardt (@ScottFromNY) October 6, 2016

Police are checking surveillance cameras to see who the person is behind this obvious statement.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 7, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Colombia is in shock after voters rejected by a small margin a peace deal that would have put an end to the 52-year-long conflict between the government and the FARC guerillas. Negotiations had gone on for four years and President Juan Manuel Santos finally signed a peace agreement with FARC leader Timoleon Jimenez last week. The deal was widely expected to pass, and the president had said beforehand that there was no Plan B in case it didn’t.

The result is now, like Britain’s Brexit vote, widespread confusion. The vote was decided by only 0.5 percentage points, with 49.8 percent voting in favor and 50.2 percent voting against. The conflict is the longest running guerilla war in Latin America and has killed more than 260,000 people.

Colombia: 98.45% of referendum votes counted
NO 50.22%
YES 49.75%
Peace deal dead? #Colombia #ColombiaDecide pic.twitter.com/mITgtx3V37

— Derek Gatopoulos (@dgatopoulos) October 2, 2016

For President Santos this is seen as a big setback considering he spent his six years in office trying to accomplish peace with the FARC. The peace deal that he signed last week was a historic step in the right direction, but many people in Colombia think the deal was too lenient on the rebels. Even guerrilla members found guilty of massacres and kidnappings could keep their freedom and be welcomed back into in the society if they were to admit to their crimes in front of a special tribunal. The FARC would also be granted 10 seats in the Colombian congress.

According to the government this deal was the only way to get the rebels to put down their weapons. But the FARC, which started out in 1964 as a group of Marxist fighters wanting more equality and control over their land, has over the years become so involved in drug trafficking, killings, extortion, and kidnappings that people want to see real punishments. But still, almost half of the voters wanted the peace deal in order to finally start healing the country and the result was a shock to many.

Now that Colombian voters rejected the peace deal with FARC, what is next? https://t.co/efrVaoOtep pic.twitter.com/fCBXcd2eh7

— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) October 3, 2016

In a televised speech on Sunday, President Santos assured everyone that the ceasefire signed by both sides would remain in effect. “I will listen to those who said ‘no’ and to those who said ‘yes.’ Finding common ground and unity is more important now than ever,” he said.

FARC Leader, Rodrigo Londoño, also said he was tired of fighting. He has spent the last four years negotiating in Cuba. He said in a statement:

The FARC reiterates its disposition to use only words as a weapon to build toward the future. With today’s result, we know that our challenge as a political party is even greater and requires more effort to build a stable and lasting peace.

Among the people happy about the result of the vote was former President Álvaro Uribe who concurred with the idea that the deal was too lenient on the rebels. But for President Santos as well as the FARC rebels who looked forward to hanging up their weapons and rejoining society, this is a defeat. The next step is to take up negotiations again and hopefully find a solution that a majority of Colombians can agree on.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colombia’s Voters Reject Peace Deal Between Government and the FARC appeared first on Law Street.

It started as an agricultural commune, keen on equality, in the northwest jungles of Colombia. Government forces broke up the commune, and an armed struggle between Marxist guerrillas and government forces began. Fifty-two years later, the bloody, contentious, and disruptive conflict between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Colombian government will effectively come to an end on Monday, when leaders from both sides sign a peace agreement.

On Monday evening, Juan Manuel Santos, Colombia’s 65-year-old president, and Rodrigo Londoño, the top commander of the FARC, will sign off on the deal that emerged after four years of negotiations. A pen fashioned out of a recycled shell casing will be used to sign the 297-page deal, “to illustrate the transition of bullets into education and future,” according to Santos.

Two thousand five hundred guests will be present at the signing ceremony in the seaside city of Cartagena. Witnesses to the signing include presidents from 15 Latin American nations, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. Ban called the peace accord a “new destiny for the nation.”

For decades, Colombia’s destiny was impenetrably bleak. Before the FARC went from a communist peasant revolt to a gun-toting armed guerrilla force, Colombia was a place with rampant inequality fueled by a landowning elite and a power struggle for its prized cocaine fields. In 1964, that inequality sparked a resistance of poor farmers and land workers, who, inspired by the Cuban revolution in the 1950s, set up a farming commune that became known as the Marquetalia Republic. After run-ins with government forces, who felt threatened by the communist fervor bubbling within the Republic, the peaceful struggle turned violent, and the FARC was born.

Since the conflict began in 1964, 220,000 people have been killed, with eight million more displaced from their homes. Human rights groups accuse the FARC of extreme abuses: forcibly recruiting poor farmers and children, extortion, and kidnapping for ransom. Men and women of all ages, including children, comprise the FARC’s ranks, which at its peak in 2002 included 20,000 fighters. A decade-long, U.S.-backed government assault relinquished many of the top rebel commanders and pushed the group to the peripheries of the jungles where they base their operations. The FARC fighting force has dwindled to about 7,000.

Beginning with Monday’s signing ceremony, the country of 49 million people, with Latin America’s fourth largest economy, will likely choose a path toward peace. On October 2, Colombian citizens will vote in a referendum on whether to embrace or reject the accord. Early projections indicate it will easily pass.

The terms of the deal include:

• FARC fighters who submit their weapons and confess to their crimes will avoid jail-time. They will instead be sent to hard hit areas for development work.
• The rebels will be sent to 28 designated zones to turn in their weapons over a six-month period, overseen by U.N. observers.
• The FARC will transition from armed rebel force to a political party.

When the accord was formally reached in late August, both sides expressed hope for a brighter future for their country. “With this accord we will stop being viewed as a dangerous country, and more investment, more tourism, and more employment will come,” said President Santos at the formal announcement of the peace accord.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post After a 52 Year Struggle, Colombia May Finally Find Peace appeared first on Law Street.

Early in the morning on January 8, the notorious cartel leader Joaquin Guzman, also known as El Chapo, was captured, yet again, by Mexican authorities following a heated gun battle at his hideout. While Guzman’s story has a number of interesting subplots, including his multiple previous escapes and an interview with Sean Penn, it also points to something: the ongoing war on drugs taking place with its epicenter in Mexico. However, this has not always been the state of things, as South America, particularly Colombia, was once home to the heart of drug trafficking and its most infamous leader Pablo Escobar. But the recent arrest highlights how that center has moved north and, not coincidently, much closer to the U.S. border. Read on to see how the heart of the drug trade has shifted in recent years, what impact that has had in Mexico, the role of the United States, and if capturing El Chapo really makes any difference in the larger war on drugs.

It Started in South America Now it’s Here

To understand the importance of capturing someone like El Chapo, or even the Mexican drug trafficking industry in general, it is necessary to travel one step backward to Colombia. The Colombian drug trade really took off in the 1970s when marijuana traffickers began trading in cocaine because of increased American demand for the drug. Trafficking cocaine was considerably more profitable than marijuana and the growth in profits caused a dramatic increase in the scale of smuggling.

The amount of money in this industry led to the formation of two incredibly powerful competing cartels, the Medellin and the Cali Cartels. The Medellin Cartel, known for its ruthlessness and use of violence, was epitomized by its leader, the notorious Pablo Escobar. The Cali cartel, on the other hand, was much more inconspicuous, reinvesting profits in legitimate businesses and using bribery instead of violence to get its way. The competition between these two groups turned violent, eventually involving the Colombian government and even the United States.

In the 1990s, these two groups were finally undone by concerted efforts between the local Colombian government and U.S. advisors that led to their leaders being either imprisoned or killed. Since their peak, these empires have fragmented, as smaller groups took control over various parts of the cocaine-producing process. While the violence in Colombia has decreased, though not disappeared altogether, the dominant player in the drug trafficking world has shifted to Mexico.

Going North

Mexico had originally been the final corridor through which Colombian cocaine passed before entering the United States. Before Mexico, cocaine had been smuggled through the Caribbean to cities like Miami. Ultimately, though, those routes were shut down by the United States. During the peak years of operation in Colombia, Mexico was little more than a path into the United States. However, this began to change with the demise of the Cali and Medellin cartels, coupled with continued American pressure and aid packages to help the Colombian government fight the local drug trade. Due to fragmentation and weakening Colombian cartels, the center of the drug trade shifted north in Mexico. Mexico served as a natural hub due to its earlier involvement in distributing the drugs produced in Colombia.

While the Mexican cartels came to dominate the illegal drug trade, their rise preceded the actual demise of their Colombian brethren. Much of the history of modern cartels in Mexico can be traced back to one man, Miguel Angel Felix Gallardo. Gallardo was responsible for creating and maintaining the smuggling routes between Mexico and the United States. When he was arrested, his network splintered into several parts, laying the groundwork for many of the cartel divisions that exist today. The first major successor was the AFO or Tijuana/Arellano Felix organization. However, its status was usurped by the Sinaloa Cartel under El Chapo’s control.

The Sinaloa Cartel is believed to control between 40 and 60 percent of the drug trade in Mexico with that translating into annual profits of up to $3 billion, but it is only one of nine that currently dominate Mexico. The activities of these cartels have also expanded as they are now involved in other criminal activities such as kidnapping, extortion, theft, human trafficking, as well as smuggling new drugs to the United States.

The rise of the Mexican cartels can be attributed to other factors aside from the demise of the Colombian groups. One such factor was the role of the Mexican government. During the important period of their ascendancy, the cartels were largely left alone by the Mexican government, which was controlled by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) for 71 years. When the PRI’s grip on power finally loosened, the alliance with the cartels also shredded.

The growth of the Mexican cartels may also have been the result of economic problems in the United States. Stagflation in the United States led to higher interest rates on loans, which Mexico could not pay. In order to avert an economic crisis, several international institutions stepped in to bail Mexico out, which shifted the government’s focus from its economy to repaying debt. As a result of aggressive policies directed toward Mexican workers and because of the deleterious effects of the NAFTA treaty, there was a dramatic loss of jobs and a shift to a more urban population.

In this new setting, there were few opportunities available, making positions with drug cartels one of the few lucrative options along with growing the crops like poppy, which is used to create the drugs themselves. According to farmers interviewed by the Guardian, growing poppy is the only way for them to guarantee a “cash income.” An increase in the availability of firearms and other weapons smuggled south from the United States only added to the violence and chaos. The video below depicts the history of the Mexican drug trade:

Impact on Mexico

These endless wars for control between cartels in Mexico have taken a significant toll on the country. Between 2007 and 2014, for example, 164,000 people were killed in America’s southern neighbor. While not all those murders are drug-related, some estimates suggest 34 to 55 percent of homicides involve the drug war, a rate that is still incredibly high.

Aside from the number of deaths, all of the violence has influenced the Mexican people’s trust in the government as a whole. That lack of faith may be well founded as the weaknesses of the judicial and police forces are widely known. When the PRI was the single ruling party, it had effectively served as patrons to the drug cartels where an understanding was essentially worked out between the two. When the PRI lost its grip on power, this de-facto alliance between the government and the cartels also splintered. Without centralized consent, individuals at all levels of government as well as in the judiciary and police became susceptible to bribes from the various cartels.  In fact, many were often presented with the choice of either going along with the cartels in exchange for money or being harmed if they resisted. The corruption and subsequent lack of trust in authorities have gotten so bad that some citizens are forming militias of their own to combat the cartels.

Role of the United States

In addition to the impact that the U.S. economy has in terms of job opportunities, particularly since the passage of NAFTA, the United States has had a major impact on the drug trade in two other ways. First are the U.S. efforts to curb the supply of drugs, which were organized as part of the overall war on drugs. While the United States has had a variety of drug laws on the books, it was not until after the 1960s that the government took direct aim at eliminating illicit substances. In 1971, President Nixon formally launched a “war on drugs,” taking an aggressive stance implementing laws like mandatory minimum sentencing and labeling marijuana as a Schedule I drug, which made it equivalent to substances like heroin in the eyes of the law.

This emphasis on drug laws only intensified under President Reagan, whose persistence in prosecuting drug crimes led to a large increase in the prison population. During Reagan’s presidency, Congress also passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1986, which forced countries receiving U.S. aid to adhere to its drug laws or lose their assistance packages. These policies more or less continued for decades, often with more and more money being set aside to increase enforcement. Only in recent years has President Barack Obama offered much of a change as he has overseen modifications in sentencing and the perception of medical marijuana laws.

This focus on supply extends beyond the U.S. border as well. First, in Colombia, the United States repeatedly put pressure on the Colombian government to fight the drug traffickers. With these efforts still ineffective and with violence mounting, the United States again poured money into the country, helping to finance needed reforms in the Colombian security forces and for other things like crop eradication. In Mexico, a similar approach followed as a series of presidents, beginning in the 1980s, took on much more combative roles against the cartels with the approval and support of the United States. The United States helped support an armed forces overhaul to combat the traffickers and root out corruption within the Mexican armed forces, which had begun to permeate as a result of low wages. In Mexico, successive governments even went so far as to send the military into cartel-dominated cities and engage in assaults. While Presidents Zedillo, Fox, and Calderon sent in troops and met with some immediate success, in the long term it led to mass army defections, greater awareness of the reach of the drug economy, and ultimately other cartels filling the void where government forces were successful.

Since the inception of the drug war, the United States has spent an estimated $1 trillion. Primarily what the United States has to show for this is a number of unintended consequences such as the highest incarceration rates in the world. Another is one of the highest rates of HIV/AIDs of any Western nation fueled, in part, by the use of dirty syringes among drug users.

The problem is that for all its efforts to eliminate supply, the United States has done much less about demand, its other contribution to the drug trade. In fact, the United States is widely regarded as the number one market in the world for illegal drugs. To address demand instead of concentrating on supply, the United States could shift more of its focus to programs that educate or offer rehabilitation to drug users, which have been shown to be effective in small scale efforts.  Certain states have begun to decriminalize or legalize marijuana, a step which will certainly reduce the number of inmates and may also reduce levels of drug-related violence. Yet there is no single way to outright reduce the demand for drugs and some view decriminalization as actually fueling the problem. The following video provides an overview of the resources invested into the United Stats’ war on drugs:

The Importance of Capturing El Chapo

Considering all of the resources and efforts put in place, it is important to consider how much of an impact El Chapo’s arrest will actually have. Unfortunately, it looks like the answer is not much, if any at all. In fact, even El Chapo himself weighed in on his arrest’s effects on the drug trade, telling Sean Penn in an interview, “the day I don’t exist, it’s not going to decrease in any way at all.” El Chapo’s point is clearly illustrated through the number of drug seizures at the border. While exact amounts fluctuate, nearly 700,000 more pounds of marijuana were seized in 2011 than in 2005. The amount of heroin and amphetamines seized has also gone up as well.

The following video details El Chapo’s most recent capture:

His most recent arrest was actually his third; the first two times he escaped from maximum security prisons in stylish fashions, which is one of the reasons that U.S. authorities want Mexico to extradite him. Regardless of where he is ultimately held, since his first arrest in 1993 the drug trade has not suffered when he or any other cartel leader was captured or killed, nor has it suffered from the growth in seizures.

In fact, one of the major points of collaboration between Mexican and U.S. authorities has been on targeting, capturing, or killing of the kingpins of these cartels. While these operations have been successful in apprehending individuals, what they really result in is the further fragmentation of the drug trade. While some may argue that detaining top leaders and fragmenting the centralized drug trade is a mark of success, evidence suggests this is not so.

Conclusion

Aside from relocating the hub of the drug trade to Mexico, the war on drugs has had several other unintended consequences such as high civilian deaths, persistently high rates of HIV infection, and massive levels of incarceration to name a few. While the United States has had some success targeting suppliers and traffickers, it has been unable to reduce demand domestically.

Those involved in Mexico faced a similar conundrum. Not only do citizens in Mexico not trust their government, many of them have become dependent on the drug trade and shutting it down could actually hurt the economic prospects of many citizens.

While El Chapo’s most recent capture has the potential to provide the government with some credibility, it still may not mean much. Even if he is prevented from escaping again or running his old empire from jail, someone will likely take his place. That is because the drug trade does not rely on individuals but on demand and profits. Until these issues are addressed and Mexican citizens have legitimate alternatives to joining cartels, it does not matter how many cartel leaders are arrested, the situation will remain the same.

Resources

CNN: ‘Mission Accomplished’: Mexican President Says ‘El Chapo’ Caught

Frontline: The Colombian Cartels

Borderland Beat: The Story of Drug Trafficking in Latin America

Congressional Research Service: Mexico: Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking Organizations

Jacobin: How the Cartels Were Born

Frontline: The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico’s Drug War

Council on Foreign Relations: Mexico’s Drug War

Drug Policy Alliance: A Brief History of the Drug War

Matador Network: 10 Facts About America’s War On Drugs That Will Shock You

The Washington Post: Latin American Leaders Assail U.S. Drug ‘Market’

The Huffington Post: Why The Capture of ‘El Chapo’ Guzman Won’t Stop His Cartel

The Guardian: Mexican Farmers Turn to Opium Poppies to Meet Surge in US Heroin Demand

CIR: Drug Seizures Along the U.S.-Mexico Border

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Finding El Chapo: What his Arrest Means for Mexico and the Drug Trade appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever made a mistake that affected people at work? I’m willing to bet that you have. I have–I used to work in the Chemistry stockroom at a major university–I think that’s all I need to say. In some lines of work, meteorology, for example, mistakes are part of the day to day, and people don’t say much when something is flubbed a little bit. On the other hand, there are careers where mistakes cost lives–like surgery. Watch “Grey’s Anatomy” and you’ll know that, fiction aside, mistakes happen there, too. It’s rare, though, that a mistake at work will cause public ridicule.

Unless your job is hosting the Miss Universe pageant, I suppose.

The internet has been having a field day with the fact that Steve Harvey, the host of “Family Feud” and this year’s Miss Universe pageant, announced the wrong winner at the conclusion of the 2015 pageant that took place on  December 20 in Las Vegas. He awkwardly apologized on live television while last year’s Miss Universe took the crown and sash off of one stunned young woman, Miss Colombia, and then put it on another: Miss Philippines.

Entertainment Tonight has covered much of the aftermath, revealing that Steve Harvey is likely to continue hosting Miss Universe for several years, as stated in the contract that he signed just days before this year’s pageant. It’s also been revealed how he made his mistake–he didn’t rehearse who had won. He read the name off the cue card and then kept reading, seeing that his revealed winner was actually the first runner up. Harvey has reportedly apologized to both contestants. ET also revealed that Miss Colombia, Ariadna Gutierrez, has accepted her “destiny,” as she calls it, and loves that the entire world is talking about her country. She then took the high road and congratulated the new Miss Universe, Pia Alonzo Wurtzbach from the Philippines.

That’s all well and good, but let’s take a step back and think about this in a different way–the power our mistakes have to stay with us.

For example, many of you listened to the first season of the sensationally popular podcast, “Serial,” I’m sure. There were many aspects of the story that host Sarah Koenig explored, but one of the most cut and dry seemed to be this–Adnan Syed’s original attorney, Cristina Gutierrez (no relation to Miss Columbia), allegedly messed up his case. Her “flub” (if we can call it that) was one of those that changed someone’s life. Rather than taking a crown and year of publicity and appearances away from someone, her mistakes took away someone’s freedom (maybe–one can never be sure, but other lawyers have been outspoken in the fact that, had Syed’s case been presented properly, he would have never been convicted in the first place). The unfortunate aspect of this part of the “Serial” story is that Gutierrez died in 2004, so she can neither explain what was going on in her head at the time nor apologize to Syed, his family, or Hae Min Lee’s (the victim’s) family.

And, like in the case of Steve Harvey, the internet (and other podcasters) are giving her a really hard time. In fact, her son has even made a statement to a reporter at the Baltimore Sun defending his mother and her actions because of all of the attention “Serial” pointed at his mother. But the internet is unforgiving, in both the cases of Cristina Gutierrez and Steve Harvey.

It begs the question—can mistakes ever be forgotten online, or will they always haunt us?

Well,  it certainly seems that the memes and videos surrounding Steve Harvey are here to stay. Poor Cristina Gutierrez—whether or not she flubbed Syed’s case, nothing can be changed now. Even if he successfully wins his appeal, he still lost at least 16 of his best years to a life sentence in a Baltimore prison. Now that “Serial” has brought her seemingly small murder case to the big time, her name will most likely be forever be tarnished in the internet’s eyes. These two examples show us that, while the internet may forgive (such as in the publishing of the apologies released by Harvey), it never forgets. Sure, Steve Harvey is a celebrity; but Cristina Gutierrez was not. She was a regular person who was thrust into the spotlight after her untimely death in a way that would likely embarrass her if she was alive to see it. It’s a good example to everyone else—watch what you say and do. In the age of the internet, you seemingly can’t take it back.

Amanda Gernentz Hanson

Amanda Gernentz Hanson is a Minnesota native living in Austin, Texas. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry from Hope College and a Master’s degree in Technical Communication from Minnesota State University, where her final project discussed intellectual property issues in freelancing and blogging. Amanda is an instructional designer full time, a freelance writer part time, and a nerd always. Contact Amanda at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Steve Harvey, Miss Universe, and Mistakes in the Internet Age appeared first on Law Street.

Buried treasure often seems a fantasy that doesn’t exist outside of the movies but last week, Colombia announced an archaeological discovery beyond the imagination of any Hollywood writer. The Spanish galleon San Jose, which was sunk on June 8, 1708, has been discovered off the coast of Colombia. The vessel may contain as much as $17 billion in precious metals and gems. Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos is already hailing the wreck as a major discovery for Colombia but there have been conflicting claims over who should profit from the salvage. Take a moment to learn about the bounty of the San Jose, the ongoing legal scuffle, and who stands to benefit.

History of the San Jose

The War of Spanish Succession raged from 1701 to 1714, sweeping across Europe and sending a dozen kingdoms into turmoil. The conflict sparked proxy battles in colonial territories in the Caribbean and Latin America. The Spanish relied on jewels and precious metals from their colonies to fund some of their battles in Europe and the British Empire sent ships from its holdings in the Caribbean to attack Spanish vessels carrying these treasures back to the court.

On June 8, 1708, a battle which is now referred to as Wager’s Action broke out in the early evening. A squadron of British ships commanded by Charles Wager ran into a Spanish treasure armada led by Admiral Jose Fernandez de Santillan off the cost of what is now the city of Cartagena. Wager attacked the armada, hoping to seize the treasure, but during the battle the San Jose exploded, losing its cargo and almost the entire crew to the depths of the sea. It is unclear why the ship burst into flames, but now that the wreck has been discovered, archaeologists may be able to determine the source of the explosion. Wager was able to sink another ship in the fleet, the Santa Cruz, but the rest of ships escaped him and sailed on to Cartagena. The Spanish court history recorded the loss of the San Jose’s crew in its records:

Six hundred lives had been destroyed in an instant. Most of them either were vaporized in the explosion or went to the bottom of the Caribbean with the tons of precious metal which had been destined to finance the killing of thousands more on the battlefields of Europe

Competing Claims to the Treasure

President Santos is hailing the discovery as a Colombian success, but a group of American salvage investigators, who call themselves Sea Search Armada, have contested the president’s claim. Sea Search Armada (SSA) claimed that it first found the wreck in 1982 and the Colombian government is trying to cut them out of the profits. According to the Associated Press,

Two years later, Colombia’s government overturned well-established maritime law that gives 50 percent to whoever locates a shipwreck, slashing Sea Search’s take to a 5 percent ‘finder’s fee.’…A lawsuit by the American investors in a federal court in Washington was dismissed in 2011 and the ruling was affirmed on appeal two years later.

SSA claims that the Colombian government recognized how profitable recovering the wreck could be and purposefully changed the existing law to cut out the research team which found the wreck 700 feet below the surface in 1982. The group claims that the original research team from the Glocca Morra Company (contracted by SSA) struck a deal with the Colombian government to receive 35 percent of the treasures of the San Jose. Colombia has not delivered on this deal and SSA managed to win the right to a 50 percent share to any proceeds make off of the wreck in a Colombian court case. However, the government has denied SSA’s claim to the treasure since announcing its recovery last week. The Colombian government is already planning to build a museum dedicated to the San Jose in Cartagena, hoping to draw more tourists into the site of the wreck. The SSA could potentially benefit off of the museum and the treasure itself if it appeal its case in coming months.

The litigation between the Colombian government and SSA has been brewing for decades but this week  an unexpected claimant entered the contest: Spain. Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Garcia-Margallo is obtaining more information on the wreck, hoping to build a case for returning it to its nation of origin. In a recent interview, Garcia-Margallo claimed that Spain wants to resolve any ownership conflict with Colombia in a peaceful manner but also stated that, according to a prior UNESCO convention, the wreck can be considered part of Spain’s national heritage and may fall under Spanish protection. President Santos has struck back at both American and Spanish claims, arguing that the wreck is part of Colombian national heritage and that the claimants throwing their hats into the ring have no right to the wreck. During a recent press conference, Minister of Culture Mariana Garcés discussed how the salvage of the ship was an effort organized and undertaken by Colombians. The three competing claims will most likely have to be processed in multiple courts, making it a truly international legal battle.

The Role of UNESCO

In 2009, the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage went into effect. According to UNESCO,

Underwater cultural heritage encompasses all traces of human existence that lie or have lain underwater and have a cultural or historical character. Over the course of earth’s history, entire cities have been swallowed by the waves, and thousands of ships have perished at sea. While these ships, structures and other cultural items are not frequently visible from the water’s surface, they have survived at the bottom of lakes, seas and oceans, safely preserved by the submarine environment.  Such heritage provide testimony to various periods and aspects of our shared history; for example, the cruelty of the slave trade, the ferocity of war, the impact of natural disasters, traces of sacred ceremonies and beliefs and the peaceful exchange and intercultural dialogue between disparate regions of the globe.

The 2009 act was designed to protect these underwater sites for generations, both from the ravages of the sea and from looters who steal artifacts and sell them for personal profit. UNESCO has been criticized for being vague in the definition of “cultural heritage” and for poorly defining the procedures for how artifacts should be retrieved and restored. Spain may manipulate those ambiguities in attempts to gain ownership of the wreck of the San Jose but Colombia is not a participating member of the 2009 treaty and therefore has no binding obligation to turn the ship over to Spain. The San Jose was built in Spain but Colombia now considers the wreck to be part of its national history.

This raises an interesting question for future wrecks that pit a former colonial power against a country they once exploited. The ship itself was Spanish but the treasure came from Colombian mines and was uncovered by Colombian laborers. Spain may have been using the treasure to finance its European endeavors, but did the treasure ever truly belong to Spain or was it stolen from Colombian indigenous tribes? With access to the treasures of the wreck, archaeologists may be able to determine who held original ownership of the gold and gems using markings in the gold and shipping records to retrace where they came from. Charles Beeker, Director of the Center for Underwater Science at Indiana University, argues that the wealth aboard the San Jose was taken during conquest and should be returned to the indigenous population.

Conclusion

President Santos has announced that the retrieval of the shipwreck will take years to complete, so neither Colombians nor Americans can expect to benefit off of the San Jose immediately. However, the wreck presents an interesting challenge for policymakers trying to determine ownership of archaeological sites. Should “finder’s fees” be the only reward for researchers who unearth major archaeological finds or should we cut them a bigger piece of the pie?  Do indigenous populations have a right to treasures that were stolen from them decades ago or should colonial powers retain the wealth they captured during the height of imperialism? Discoveries like the San Jose don’t turn up every day so the legal code on how to proceed when they do is far from clear. As the Colombian government enters the international legal quagmire to defend their claim to the wreck, archaeologists and treasure hunters around the world are waiting with bated breath to see who will win the prize.

Resources

Primary

UNESCO: The World’s Underwater Cultural Heritage

Additional

CNN: Colombia Says it Found Spanish Galleon; U.S. Firm Claims Half of Treasure

Facebook: Sea Search Armada

Encyclopedia Britannica: War of the Spanish Succession

Live Science: Sunken Treasure Ship Worth Billions Possibly Found After 300 Years

CBS News: “Holy Grail” of Shipwrecks Found off Colombia

BBC News: Spain Says it has Rights to Colombian Treasure Ship

The City Paper Bogoto: The ‘Rich’ History of the San José

Law of the Sea Institute: Ensuring the Preservation of Submerged Treasures for the Next Generation: The Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage in International Law

National Geographic: Treasure on Sunken Spanish Galleon Could Be Biggest Ever

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Wreck of the San Jose: Legal Battles Over Sunken Treasure appeared first on Law Street.

In Colombia a violent conflict has been raging for more than 50 years. This conflict has pitted the nation’s government against a rebel–possibly terrorist–group known as FARC. With the struggle surpassing the half-century mark, both sides have been willing to return to the negotiating table to give peace yet another chance. However, the process is once again under the threat of unraveling due to a familiar cycle of FARC ambushes and government reprisals. Read on to learn about the conflict’s history, previous efforts at peace, other groups and issues in play, and whether this round of negotiations is likely to actually result in peace for the embattled nation.

History of the Conflict

The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia’s (FARC) earliest origins can be traced all the way back to the late 1940s and 50s. During this time, the two major political parties in Colombia–the Liberals and the Conservatives–were locked in a brutal civil war for control of the country. The conflict left more than 300,000 people dead. Following the end of the war, the Conservatives took control of the government and barred many of their Liberal opponents from participating, in effect marginalizing them. Several groups emerged as a reaction. One of these groups was led by Manuel Marulanda, who founded the FARC’s precursor, the Marquetalia Republic, and was the first leader of FARC as well. This group began arming and organizing in the mountains.

In 1964, the government launched an attack on this organization, quickly routing them. However, Marulanda escaped along with several followers. Before fleeing he and other group leaders agreed to the Agrarian Program of the Guerillas, basically FARC’s constitution, which created roles within the group and a common strategy. This was followed up every two or four years by congresses where the group’s members would meet to discuss new policies.

A seminal moment was reached at one such conference in 1982, when members became determined to solidify their control in the mountainous regions and also begin to expand their influence into cities with the ultimate goal of taking the capital. In the ensuing years, particularly from the 1990s to the early 2000s, the group engaged in several high profile and ostentatious attacks on police, soldiers, villagers, rival groups, and even a presidential inauguration.

Ideology and Perception

FARC was founded on a Marxist-Leninist ideology. The group claims to represent the lower class of the country, namely the poor and farmers, who it feels are being oppressed by the government. It also opposes the opening up of the country to foreign interests, particularly American corporations, which it views as imperialistic.

However, while FARC espouses a high-minded ideology, its actions are less than noble. In fact the group has been designated a terrorist organization by a number of countries including the U.S. This is due in part to the group’s tactics, ranging the whole violent gambit from murder to bombings. With its base in Colombia, as well as its presence in Ecuador, Panama, Brazil, Venezuela, and Peru, the group launches attacks usually within its own territory as well as outside raids to obtain supplies. These attacks generally target military personnel and foreigners, however a large number of civilians have been caught in the cross fire.

FARC’s Power Base

While its commitment to Marxist-Leninism is dubious, so too are the ways the group generates its funding. Much of the wealth created by FARC has been through practices such as kidnapping, extortion, and cocaine trafficking. In fact, estimates for the amount of money FARC earned from the cocaine trade range from $220 million to $3.5 billion. FARC has also, recently, added the ignominious task of illegal gold mining to this grim list.

Additionally, the group has allegedly received support from like minded and sympathetic governments in Venezuela and Ecuador. According to documents the Colombian military claims it seized in a raid against FARC in Ecuador in 2008, then-Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez had given the group $300 million. While Chavez denied the allegations, these countries have been open to FARC in response to U.S. support of the Colombian government.

So Close Yet So Far Away

The current peace negotiations between FARC and the Colombian government are not the first attempts at a détente. In fact they are far from it–attempts to broker peace between the two sides have gone on almost as long as the fighting. The first efforts came in 1984 when, as part of Uribe Accords, FARC agreed to stop the kidnappings and the government pushed the group to channel its energy into legitimate political movements. Although the ceasefire ultimately did not hold and the group continued fighting, it did lead to the Patriotic Union and the Colombian Communist Party. These were the legitimate government parties associated with the FARC, similar to Hamas in Palestine or Sinn Fein in Ireland.

These talks failed however, because FARC’s political candidates, though successful, were repeatedly murdered by right-wing paramilitary groups. Additionally no demands of a ceasefire were ever made on behalf of the government.

The next major effort came in 1998, when then-President Andres Pastrana once again agreed to provide FARC with a demilitarized zone from which to operate. However, this move backfired as FARC capitalized on the temporary weakness of the government to recollect itself militarily, launch attacks, grow coca, and kidnap officials. Nevertheless, this lack of commitment on behalf of FARC may have ushered in its own decline, as it led to a backlash in which the citizenry called for a tougher stand against the rebels. This was carried out by then-incoming President Álvaro Uribe.

The latest round of peace negotiations began secretly in Cuba. When preliminary agreements were reached, another round was proposed to be conducted in Norway, with final negotiations returning to Cuba. As part of this agreement, several reforms passed aimed at compensating victims and pardoning FARC members. The discussions themselves centered on six points. These points included rural development and land policy; the political participation of FARC; ending the conflict and reinserting FARC members back into civilian life; the end to cultivation of illicit crops and drug trafficking; reparations for victims; and lastly the implementation of these agreed-upon measures once the negotiations had concluded.

So far tentative agreements have been reached on three of the issues, although nothing is finalized until the whole process has been implemented. These three points were land redistribution, the role in civil society for demobilized FARC members, and putting an end to the illicit growing of crops used for the drug trade. However, the negotiations were temporarily put on hold when FARC kidnapped three high-ranking military officers. They were eventually released and talks resumed.

The discussions have once more been put under pressure, with the attacks on soldiers as well as a raid that killed one of the FARC negotiators. The ceasefire has also been lifted by the government and airstrikes against rebel positions have begun once more. Despite this pressure though, talks have continued in Cuba.

Other Players in Colombia

Along with FARC there are several other groups at work. These groups can be divided into left wing, of which FARC is one, and right wing, which generally oppose FARC at all levels.

Leftists

While FARC may be the largest and most infamous group in Colombia, it is far from the only one. Another Leftist group in the country is the ELN or National Liberation Army. The ELN formed at the same time as FARC, however its membership was comprised chiefly of students, Catholics, and intellectuals who were more focused on replicating a Castro-style revolution. While the groups have similar beginnings and ideologies, ELN is focused more in urban areas as opposed to the rural locations FARC dominates. Despite these similarities however, the groups have clashed directly. ELN, like FARC, is also listed as a terrorist organization, according to the U.S. State Department.

Both of these groups have operated under the larger Simon Bolivar Guerilla Coordinating Group, an umbrella organization for left-wing organizations. Along with FARC and ELN, M-19 and EPL also worked under this designation. M-19, or the April 19^th movement, was FARC’s attempt at an urban organization. However, this group ultimately broke away and became independent. EPL was another aggressive communist group that was eventually weakened by FARC attacks.

Leftist groups such as these both help and hurt FARC’s position. By existing and making similar demands they reveal to the government the reality of problems such as poverty, which can be more easily dismissed if they are only discussed by one group with a controversial past. On the other side, they can be harmful by splintering the potential support base for FARC and directly undermining the group when they engage in internal conflicts that can create more violence.

Right-Wing Paramilitaries

While leftist groups formed in reaction to the conservative government,right-wing groups formed in response to organizations such as FARC. These started out small in the 1960s as local self-defense groups authorized by Colombia’s Congress.

Eventually they consolidated into the AUC or United Self Defense Forces of Colombia. This was essentially a holding company paramilitary group, created and funded by rich farmers and narcotics traffickers to protect these people and their interests from FARC and like-minded organizations. This group was very strong and its membership ranged from 8,000 to 20,000 members. Additionally, while there was never any admitted connections between these groups and the government, it has been widely speculated that the administration often looked the other way or even funded the operations. Although the group was disbanded in 2006 and its leaders pardoned, many of its former members are suspected of continuing to operate in the drug trade and other criminal operations. This group was also considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government until 2014.

These right-wing para-military groups have a dual effect on FARC. On one side they show the violence perpetrated against the group, often at the behest of the government or powerful individuals, which can further justify FARC’s cause. Conversely they are actively trying to destroy FARC and have seen a certain degree of success. In either case, they have ratcheted up the violence and created a culture of fear and mistrust. They also make FARC less likely to come to the peace table because they are seen as the secret hand of the government.

Economics and Legacy

Decline of FARC

While securing peace with FARC is still an important goal, its importance has diminished over time. This is partly due to economics, as in 2012 a free trade agreement between Colombia and the U.S. went into effect, making the allies that much closer. Additionally, the economy of Colombia has continued to grow despite the fighting, averaging nearly 6 percent growth a year. In individual terms this has meant the average income per person has gone from $5800 dollars in 2000 to $10,000 in 2011.

The effect of this is two fold. For a government weary of fighting and eager to shine on the global stage, defeating or at least containing FARC would allow it to focus more on improving its economy and the well being of its citizens. Additionally, an improved standard of living would also seem to undermine the very existence of FARC as the group was originally supposedly founded on the idea of protecting and standing up for underrepresented groups, namely the peasants.

FARC also appears to be declining. In 2001, the group was believed to have as many as 16,000 members; that number has recently dwindled to as few as 6,000 to 8,000. This has been the result of an intensified campaign by former President Uribe, whose father was murdered by FARC in a kidnapping attempt. Aside from decreased membership, the leadership of FARC has also been hit hard. After its founder died of a heart attack in 2008, his second in command was subsequently killed in the raid in Ecuador. Other leaders have also been killed. Desertion has become a problem as well as some fighters, who were attracted by noble ideas, have become jaded by the drug trafficking and perpetual violence.

Legacy

So what legacy does FARC leave behind? In terms of numbers, over 220,000 people have been killed as a result of fighting between the group and the government since its inception. Additionally, much of the popular support once enjoyed by FARC has eroded, as people have become exhausted with the conflict and simply want a better life. Most of the territory once held by FARC has also been lost as a result of the increased military efforts on behalf of the government. Thus, FARC’s strength and importance has been greatly reduced. Still, an agreement between the group and the government would be a major step in rebuilding the war-torn nation.

Conclusion

The most recent round of talks between Colombia and FARC offer a glimmer of hope. But this hope can only be achieved if both sides stop committing the same perpetual violent acts that have spawned this conflict in the first place. Nevertheless, if the last few month’s actions are any indication, this is not going to happen.

This presents a challenge to both sides. On one side, FARC is a diminished organization that faces enemies on all sides and has few friends. The government, meanwhile, clearly wants to capitalize on economic growth and turn the page on the history of drug violence and terrorist insurgencies. Both of these goals can be accomplished, but the two sides have to come to terms and end a destructive conflict that has lasted for more than 50 years.

Resources

Primary

Congressional Research Service: Peace Talks in Colombia

Additional

Stanford University: Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People’s Army

Council on Foreign Relations: FARC, ELN: Colombia’s Left Wing Guerillas

BBC News: Colombian FARC Negotiator Killed in Bombing Raid

Institute of the Americas: Colombia Pushes Back Cartels, Terrorists to Become Economic Powerhouse

Al Jazeera: Profile: The FARC

Ploughshares: Colombia

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FARC: Preventing Peace in Colombia? appeared first on Law Street.

Heroin addiction is a scary reality for many Americans. It’s often an ongoing roller coaster involving several rehab stints, withdrawal, and lifelong addiction struggles. And it’s unfortunately becoming a more common phenomenon. Today, the drug is no longer an outlier compared to its competitors.  It has been identified by some as the new drug of the upper-middle class. Is this a fair assessment? Here are the facts.

What is heroin?

Heroin received its name from the “hero-like,” invincible effect the drug provides its user. It is also called by other names on the street including: H, Junk, Smack, Big H, Hell Dust, and countless others. Additives can change the color from white (pure heroin) to rose gray, brown, or black. Heroin can be laced with a variety of poisons and/or other drugs. It is injected, smoked, and snorted.

What is the science behind heroin?

From a scientific perspective:

Heroin is an opiate made from the chemical morphine, which is extracted from the dried latex of the opium poppy. Morphine is extracted from the opium latex, and these chemicals are used to make opiates, such as heroin, diamorphine and methadone. Heroin is the 3,6-diacetyl derivative of morphine (hence diacetylmorphine) and is synthesised from it by acetylation.

So what does that mean? Essentially, heroin is an opiate–a drug created from opium that sedates, tranquilizes, and/or depresses the body. It’s similar to a common base in a variety of pain killers–morphine. Opium comes from the cultivation of poppy seeds.

Effects of Heroin                                                     

Heroin users report several effects that differ based on the individual. Heroin can cause a temporary state of euphoria, safety, warmth, and sexual arousal. It can also create a sense of disconnect from other people, causing a dreamlike state and/or sense of floating. It is a depressant, rather than stimulant like cocaine, and it can be used as a self-medicated pain reliever.

Adversely, users can immediately experience vomiting, coughing, constipation, hypothermia, severe itching, and inability to orgasm. Long-term effects include rotten teeth, cold sweats, weakening of the immune system, respiratory illnesses, depression, loss of appetite, insomnia, and tuberculosis. Although this is not a direct effect, the sharing of needles from intravenous injection can often lead to AIDS, Hepatitis C, and other fatal infections.

After the effects wear off, users will start to feel extreme withdrawal symptoms if another dose is not administered. The symptoms of withdrawal can include “restlessness, aches and pains in the bones, diarrhea, vomiting, and severe discomfort.”

How do Americans get heroin?

Afghanistan is the “world’s largest exporter,” producing over 80 percent of the world’s opium. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the Afghan poppy cultivation and opium industry amassed $3 billion in 2013, a 50 percent increase from 2012.

Overall, Mexico is the largest drug supplier to the United States. Specifically, Mexico produces Black Tar Heroin, one of the “most dangerous and addictive forms of heroin to date.” This variety looks more similar to hash than powder and can cause sclerosis and severe bacterial infections.

Colombia is the second largest Latin American supplier to the United States. Colombian cartels historically distribute from New York City and are in “full control of the heroin market in the Eastern United States.”

The “Golden Triangle” includes the countries of Burma, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. Before the escalation of the Afghan opium market, these southeastern Asian countries reigned over the world’s opium production.

Is it true that middle class heroin use is on the rise?

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a study in 2014 about the changing demographics of heroin users in the last 50 years. Over 2,800 people entering treatment programs participated in self-surveys and extensive interviews.

The results do seem to indicate that heroin is transitioning to the middle class. It is leaving the big cities and becoming more mainstream in the suburbs. Of course, there has been heroin drug use in suburbia before; however, now there is a marked increase.

In the 1960s, the average heroin user was a young man (average age of 16.5) living in a large urban area. Eighty percent of these men’s first experiences with an opioid was heroine. Today, the average heroin user is either a male or female in their twenties (average age of 23). Now, 75.2 percent of these users live in non-urban areas and 75 percent first experienced an opioid through prescription drugs. Almost 90 percent of first-time heroin users in the last ten years were white.

In New York City, doctors and drug counselors report a significant increase in professionals and college students with heroin addictions, while emergency rooms also report an increase in opiate overdoses. In Washington D.C., there has been a 55 percent increase in overdoses since 2010.

Why Heroin?

With all this information readily available through school systems and the internet, why is the educated, middle class turning to heroin? Factors may include increases in depression, exposure to painkillers, and acceptance. The perception of the heroin junkie has changed. A user can snort heroin (bypassing the track marks from injection) and go undetected by those around. It can be a clandestine affair–an appealing notion if the user does want to keep their drug use secret.

Anxiety disorders are the largest mental illness in the United States today, affecting more than 40 million Americans. In a country that loves to self-medicate, heroin offers a false yet accessible reprieve from anxiety and depression.

Prescription drug users also move to heroin. Prescription drugs are expensive and only legally last for the prescribed amount of time. To name a few, these gateway prescriptions drugs come in the forms of hydrocodone (Vicodin), fentanyl (Duragesic), and oxycodone (OxyContin). From 1999-2008, prescription narcotic sales increased 300 percent in the United States. Unlike these expensive prescriptions, a bag with approximately a quarter-sized amount of heroin can be sold for $10 off the streets. The transition isn’t hard to imagine, especially when the desired effects are similar.

Case Study: Understanding Suburban Heroin Use

Young upper-middle class adults are generally perceived as being granted every opportunity and foundation for success. Parents can afford a comfortable lifestyle and access to decent education for their children. So the question continues: why are so many from this walk of life turning to heroin? Through the funding of the Reed Hruby Heroin Prevention Project, the Illinois Consortium on Drug Policy conducted a report Understanding Suburban Heroin Use, to “demonstrate the nuanced nature of risk and protective factors among the heroin interviewees.” A risk factor puts a person in danger of using heroin, while a protective factor reduces the chance of use.

The overriding connection among the interviewees is the “experienced degree of detachment between parent and child and the overall lack of communication.” Contrary to common stereotypes, verbal, physical, and/or earlier drug abuse wasn’t vital in providing a pathway to heroin. A large portion of the answers, proved in these case studies, seem to be the previous emotional health of the users.

Example One

Interviewee one is a 31-year-old male who transitioned from pills to heroin. He is described as athletic, articulate, and candid. He was raised in an upper-middle class Chicago suburb. Although his family was close and intact, he experienced a sense of loneliness. His parents practiced a more hands-off approach to parenting that made him feel like an adult at an early age. His parents didn’t drink or abuse drugs during his childhood. His brother was diagnosed with ADHD, while he was not, although he experienced “restlessness.”

He was caught smoking marijuana at age 14 by his father, quit for a couple months, then resumed. His parents assumed he remained clean because he received good grades and they liked his group of friends. At age 17, he chose to work rather than attend college after graduating high school a semester early. He was earning almost as much income as his father. At 17, he tried his first opioid with a friend whose medical condition allowed easy access to OxyContin. When the prescription ran dry, they turned to heroine. He rationalized the transition thinking if he could handle OxyContin, he could handle heroin. Six months later, he was using approximately $100 worth of heroin daily and eventually moved to violent and illegal actions to sustain his supply. He admitted:

Heroin gave me something. It made me feel the best I have ever felt…Maybe I think love was missing. Like, love. I think. I that, uh, because I always felt like alone. Like even though I had good family, I always felt alone. Different.

Example Two

Interviewee two is a 27-year-old female from the western suburbs of Illinois. She is described as attractive, cheerful, and helpful. She was raised in an educated, wealthy family. She was a cheerleader in high school and earned good grades. There aren’t any psychological or substance abuse problems in her family. She felt disconnected from her siblings as they were much older and felt distant from her parents, as well. Her parents often “bickered” but never had big fights. When she confided in her mother as a child that she might be depressed, her mother seemingly brushed it off.

She started smoking pot in junior high at age 15. Although social, her group of friends was not part of the most popular crowd. This was a constant concern. She maintained a B average and continued with sports, while starting to smoke marijuana every day. An after-school job paid for this habit. When her parents found drug paraphernalia in her room, they didn’t probe the situation and just sent her to her room. Searching for a personal connection, she started dating an older boy. She connected with his parents in a way she could not with her own. During senior year, they both started using cocaine, which became a daily habit. She eventually transitioned to heroin, because as she put it in an answer to one question:

Heroin made me feel real mellow like I had not a care in the world. I had a lot of “what am I doing with my life” and physical pain that I was covering up.

After losing her job, she pawned her belongings with a variety of her parents’ things, and stole from others. She refrained from turning to prostitution, although she heard of other girls going down that road. She finally sought out help after witnessing her boyfriend get pistol-whipped and robbed during a drug exchange.

What does this tell us about heroin use?

There are similarities and differences to all of the case studies in this project. In these two examples, the users come from seemingly sturdy homes and backgrounds. The stereotypes of drug users aren’t present in these cases; however, they both felt distant from the people around them at an early age in life. They also wanted to avoid internal and external pressures. This glimpse into the lives of users offers some potential answers to the question of why relatively well educated, middleclass Americans may turn to heroin.

Fighting Back

In March 2014, the United States Department of Justice and the Attorney General Eric Holder vowed to take action against the “urgent public health crisis” of heroin and prescription opiates. Holder claimed that between 2006-2010, there was a 45 percent increase in heroin overdoses. To start, Holder pushed law enforcement agencies to carry the “overdose-reversal drug” Naloxone and urged the public to watch the educational documentary “The Opiate Effect.” Holder also outlined the DEA plan as follows:

Since 2011, DEA has opened more than 4,500 investigations related to heroin. They’re on track to open many more. And as a result of these aggressive enforcement efforts, the amount of heroin seized along America’s southwest border increased by more than 320 percent between 2008 and 2013…enforcement alone won’t solve the problem. That’s why we are enlisting a variety of partners – including doctors, educators, community leaders, and police officials – to increase our support for education, prevention, and treatment.

Conclusion

Heroin has seen a migration to the middle class. But what can we do to stop it? Many of these new users are already educated on the adverse effects of heroin and know the bottom line. A fear of health concerns isn’t enough. We need to stop it at the source, whether it is gateway prescription drugs or emotional health. Substance abuse is a disease to be cured, not the label of a criminal. The Affordable Care Act and Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act aim to expand behavioral health coverage for 62.5 million people by 2020. Every addict, regardless of demographics, should have the ability and necessary tools to recover.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Justice Department: Attorney General Holder, Calling Rise in Heroin Overdoses ‘Urgent Public Health Crisis,’ Vows Mix of Enforcement, Treatment

JAMA Psychiatry Releases: Demographics of Heroin Users Change in Past 50 Years

Reed Hruby Heroin Prevention Project: Understanding Suburban Heroin Use

Additional

About Health: What Heroin Effects Feel Like

Anxiety and Depression Association of America: Facts & Statistics

The New York Times: The Middle Class Rediscovers Heroin

Original Network of Resources on Heroin: Heroin By Area of Origin

RT: America’s $7.6 Billion War on Afghan Drugs Fails, Opium Production Peaks

Tech Times: Study Profiles New American Heroin Addicts

Foundation For a Drug Free World: The Truth about Heroin

WTOP: Heroin Use Rises in D.C. Among Middle, Upper Class

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Heroin: The New Drug of the Middle Class? appeared first on Law Street.