Sunday, May 12, 2024

Blood Gun Money – How America Arms Gangs and Cartels

By Ioan Grillo, Talia Baroncelli 
May 11, 2024
Source: TheAnalysis.News




Thousands of guns used by Mexican cartels, as well as other gangs throughout Latin America, have been traced back to U.S. gun manufacturers. Journalist Ioan Grillo describes how the flow of guns to Mexico from the U.S. exacerbates the drug war and its accompanying forced displacement of people. Baroncelli and Grillo debate drug legalization and whether it can break up cartels that use American guns to maintain global drug distribution.  Cartels increase their profit margins by cutting their product with fentanyl and other lethal substances at the expense of people’s lives. 

Transcript

Talia Baroncelli

You’re watching theAnalysis.news, and I’m your host, Talia Baroncelli. I’ll shortly be joined by journalist Ioan Grillo to speak about how the U.S. arms cartels throughout Latin America.

If you’d like to support the work that we do, you can go to our website, theAnalysis.news. Hit the donate button at the top right corner of the screen, and make sure you get onto our mailing list; that way, you’re always notified every time a new episode is published. You can also like and subscribe to the show on YouTube or on other podcast streaming services such as Apple or Spotify. See you in a bit with Ioan Grillo.

Joining me now is journalist Ioan Grillo. He’s currently based in Mexico City and has been reporting from Mexico for over 20 years. He’s the author of several books, including El Narco and Blood Gun Money. It’s really great to have you today. Thanks for joining.

Ioan Grillo

Yeah, great to be here.

Talia Baroncelli

So your most recent book, Blood Gun Money, is really interesting because it identifies how so many weapons that are in the hands of cartel men or cartelito, as you like to call some of them, as well as other criminals in Mexico and other parts of South America, actually come from the U.S. So they’re produced in the U.S. You trace this web of how these weapons proliferate throughout the globe, but particularly throughout Latin America.

My first question would be, what got you into reporting on this specific topic of guns and the way guns are manufactured and illicitly sold to different parts of South America to drive cartel wars? You’ve been reporting on so many aspects of the drug wars in South America. I just wonder, what really made you hone in on that particular topic of guns?

Ioan Grillo

Yeah, sure thing. Like you said, I’ve been reporting on this now for 23 years. I’ve been in Mexico and seeing this catastrophic violence which really rose up in the time that I was here. I found myself first reporting what was a fun, exotic crime story of these crazy gangsters who had songs about them and made billions of dollars moving cocaine and managed to escape the DA and the Mexican army. Then it turned into reporting on the humanitarian catastrophe, mass graves with 300 bodies, families devastated, their sons and daughters dragged away and murdered.

I knew about the gun issue from early on. I used to work for the Houston Chronicle out of Houston, Texas. Right back then, 19-20 years ago, I was writing stories about the gun trafficking. But I thought, well, America’s got a Second Amendment. What more is there to say? The guns come down here to Mexico, and what can we do about it?

In 2017, I managed to get an interview in Ciudad Juárez at the prison there with a gun trafficker. He described in detail how he was trafficking firearms and was driving up from the state of Chihuahua in Mexico to Dallas every weekend and buying a dozen or so AR-15s, mostly, and taking them back. He described how he was doing it and said he was actually doing this by buying them at the gun shows with no paperwork whatsoever. He completely described this black market at the gun show. I thought that was interesting. How does it really work?

I went to the gun show in one of these gun shows in Dallas, where he was buying from, and recorded the conversations with people and realized there were two sides to the business there. One, there were the regular gun shops who were working at the gun shows and would still ask for ID and a background check. But the other was these people who would be selling brand new guns for nothing, which he describes as a black market at the gun shows. It sometimes gets into what’s called the private sale loophole, where people are selling guns, saying that I’m a regular collector and I’m going to sell you the gun with no ID. If I’m an old record collector, I can sell you a record, or I can sell you some of my old books, and I don’t need any paperwork. They were selling brand-new guns. I thought, wow, this is actually a pretty interesting subject.

I started talking to many, even of the pro-gun people, the gun sellers, who are like, “No, we don’t like the idea of massive amounts of firearms being sold to drug cartels who are carrying out mass murder in Mexico.” I found one gun seller who himself would become a confidential informant to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives. I was recording sales and looking into this thing.

I realized this is a really big issue. It’s not as simple as the Second Amendment. You can still have a perfectly good defense of gun rights, but try and reduce selling the firearms to the cartels. Then the numbers started coming out of how big this problem is. We started seeing that it’s more than 200,000 guns a year going to the cartels. In the last decade, more than two million firearms. One of the biggest episodes of gun trafficking, what effectively is like a hybrid armed conflict in Mexico. 

Yeah, that’s when I got into this four-year odyssey of trying to go, with a certain humility, stepping into the American firearms industry, the American gun debate, but to go right into this issue.

Talia Baroncelli

I think in your book, you mentioned that between 2007 and I think it was 2018, over 150,000 guns were definitively traced back to the U.S., guns that had been used by Mexican criminals and cartel men. You’re saying that a lot of the guns come from private sales, but I’m sure some of them are also a result of straw purchases. Is that something that you found out as well?

Ioan Grillo

Yeah, absolutely. There was the two biggest methods that the cartels get the guns from the United States which was these private sales, which, again, they’re not really private sales. These are gun traffickers abusing the private sale idea to sell quite large amounts of guns. You’ve got cases of people selling more than a thousand firearms, buying and selling guns. They’re really engaged in the business of selling firearms. But also straw buying, straw purchasing. So straw purchasing is if somebody’s got a clean ID. I asked Talia, “Can you go and buy me a firearm? You got a driver’s license here. You have no bad criminal record for violence. Go to the store. I’m going to give you 700 bucks, the cost of the AR-15 or the cost of the AK-47, plus 100 bucks for yourself.” People were doing that.

One of the things that grabbed my attention with this, you start seeing: why is it such a small amount of money? In one case, a guy walks into the store and buys 10 identical AK-47s. There’s obviously something up. Why would you go in there and say I’ll have 10. Why is there 10? The guns were called Romanian AK-47s, and he bought them in a store in Texas. If you are buying 10 of the same rifle, it’s weird you want 10 of the same rifle. So something’s up. But he bought those to sell to a cartel, and he was given a $600 fee plus the cost of the rifle. So he made $60 bucks a gun. It’s a pretty small amount of money.

In that case, one of the guns was used in the killing of a U.S. agent in Mexico, as well as these guns were used for mass murder. He was arrested and found for it. His crime was lying on the floor. His sentence was probation. Nothing. So even people involved in very clearly proven cases were getting no jail time. That was one of the reasons why straw buying was such an easy thing. 

You had cases of people buying more than 500 guns in a single sale. I mean, it is incredible stuff. People are going around and spending half a million dollars on 750 firearms in different stores, going from store to store to store. People are buying big guns, like 50 rifles that fire .50 cal bullets and all of these things. So it’s amazing. The scale of it is really low-hanging fruit of just like, yeah, again, it’s about the Second Amendment. How come you’re so openly and so easily allowing these guns to go to such violent organizations?

Talia Baroncelli

Well, something that you mentioned, which struck me as really fascinating, I didn’t realize this actually, was that the U.S. has laws that can prosecute drug running across the border, drug trafficking, but it doesn’t have the same legal framework or regulations to prosecute the trafficking of guns en masse. They, for example, could get people for smaller violations such as engagement in firearms businesses without a license, or as we were already talking about, straw purchases or knowing a sale to a prohibited person, that sort of thing.

You also document that because you attended the trial of El Chapo in, I think it was 2019. A part of the trial was they were able to get him on drug trafficking and other similar charges, but there were no mass U.S. guns trafficking or gun running against him and other members of his organization. I’m wondering, why do you think that is? Is that perhaps a result of some of the gun lobbying in the U.S.? Because your book is about Blood Gun Money: How America Arms Gangs and Cartels. Perhaps there is some incentive there to prevent certain legislation from being enacted.

Ioan Grillo

Yeah, absolutely. I saw the trial about Chapo, which was after covering things here for many years, it was surreal and crazy. I mean, you suddenly see these guys. They’ll be like a superstar. A lot of the U.S. media were enjoying and finding it a fun trial of this guy out there. But also, the violence during the last 20 years is like, well, yeah, it’s fun, but also, this guy has been involved in a mass murder down here. 

It was very interesting. They brought the guns out. They bought the AK-47s, they bought the grenade launchers, they bought them into the courthouse, and they said, “This guy is trafficking one and a half thousand, 2,000 AK-47s down here. He’s arming this war in Mexico.” They made that case verbally in the trial, but they didn’t have him charged. When I discovered there was no federal conspiracy for trafficking firearms, I thought, wow, how come we don’t know this? This is really weird. And then, what do these people get charged for with firearms cases? A lot of the time it’s, as I say, lying on the floor. And that’s why the case is so low.

Now, I must say this is a big turn. I wrote all this in the conclusion of my book, published in 2021, how this was the case, and they need federal firearms laws and higher sentences on straw purchases. Now, in 2022, in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in the United States they made a change. I don’t want to make an over-claim that it was my book that caused a change, but I do know that some of the assistants of the Congress people involved in this have been emailing me and asking me to speak to staff and various things. So maybe it could be involved in this.

This went down quite quietly, and the American media didn’t really spot or see these changes, mostly because this Bipartisan Safer Communities Act was also focused on mass shooters. People going to schools and spraying them up, Parkland style, spraying up kids. The media were very focused on those points. Rather than this gun trafficking, they made for the first time a federal conspiracy to traffic firearms and have started charging some people with those since then. So it’s a game changer, or we hope.

One of the things that we need to see is you can pass laws, but you still have to see them enforced and you still have to see things happening to try and make an effort with this. The conversation has been changed in a big way.

Now, we also had in 2021, in late 2021, the Mexican government suing the U.S. firearms companies over this firearms trafficking. So that was a big change. They also cited my book in that lawsuit. That was a big change as well, which really changed the conversation, and has made it much more in the media. So we’ve seen this change in the conversation. We’ve seen certain changes in laws, but will we see change in the action to see if this problem can be resolved or reduce the firepower of the cartels.

Talia Baroncelli

Well, we live in an incredibly violent society, and a lot of the violence is driven by gun makers who receive state subsidies from the U.S. government or even from other governments, such as the German government.

In your book, you also discuss the case of peace activist Jürgen Grässlin. For many years, Jürgen Grässlin has been campaigning against the really large gun manufacturer Heckler & Koch. Heckler & Koch has been manufacturing assault rifles such as G36 rifles for many years. He suspected that these guns were ending up in the hands of criminals and other violent actors across the world in really dangerous areas in which human rights violations were being committed. This was very difficult for him to prove. 

As a result of some evidence published by whistleblowers, he was able to get a Stuttgart court to fine Heckler & Koch for $3.4 million for their sales of G36 assault rifles to the Mexican government, which ended up selling some of these weapons to other parts of the country. Heckler & Koch guns were then actually used in the killing of 43 students and teachers in 2014 in Guerrero. It was as a result of this particular case that Heckler & Koch was sued.

What do you think needs to change on a more macro level in order to reverse some of the incentive structures of producing these guns?

Ioan Grillo

Yeah, his case is a very important case. I went there to interview him in Freiburg, and I went to the H&K factory up in the mountains there. It’s bizarre. You got these beautiful mountains in the Black Forest, this little town, producing millions of guns that end up in the hands of cartels in Mexico, in all of these conflicts around the world, just churning out these firearms.

Now, the bigger issue there is very, very difficult. People ask, “Can you actually stop the cartels from getting guns?” Now, what can you really do with that? In Mexico, you have these many organizations. They have this endless stream of AK-47s, AR-15s, .50 cals, grenades, all these weapons that they’re using for this kind of terror and using it for these things.

I’m working with corrupt police and corrupt military and so forth. How can you really turn that around and stop that? Then other people come around and say, “Well, it’s never going to stop. The only way is to give everybody guns. The more guns will actually make it more peaceful because then everyone would have one.” Then you realize in Mexico that doesn’t necessarily work because I work around these places, work around these super violent places, and even if I have a pistol, they would have an AK-47. Then there are groups, 30-40 of these guys with AK-47s. I’m not going to out-gun them.

Sometimes, it is such [inaudible 00:16:54] problems in how you really solve this. I think in some ways, you have to just look at what’s happening right now and how we can do and react to some of these things right now. The fact is the U.S. gun shops, gun factories, and gun distributors because someone’s bringing European guns– Romanian AK-47s are not made in the U.S., but they’re imported to the United States, sold in the United States, and they’re taken to Mexico. Why not try and challenge that? Especially in this time when we are at least trying to reduce, even if you’re not going to say we’ve got no guns, reduce that flow of firearms.

One of the problems is there’s such an excess of guns because they have so many guns, they use a gun in a crime. It’s a bit of a hot gun, they call it. They call it [foreign language 00:17:50]. The gun’s been burned because it’s been used in a pretty high-profile crime. So they sell it for cheap for like 100 bucks. The kids, the younger kids in the neighborhood, have got guns as well. They’re getting thrown down. Kids in schools have got guns and all this stuff. You’ve got such an excess of bullets where they don’t only just fire on the target, but they’ll fire 500 bullets and kill the person they’re going after, the guy selling tacos on the side of the street, and a pregnant woman driving in the car behind. You have to have some reduction of this violence to start somewhere.

Now, I don’t want to let Mexico off the hook. The Mexican government is massively corrupt and is working with cartels. Mexico needs to figure out some strategy for reducing violence in this country. But on this issue of gun trafficking from the United States, the Mexican government is right on this issue and has a moral high ground of saying, “Well, you can’t just give this Iron River of guns and let it flow to the criminals here in this country.”

Talia Baroncelli

Well, I think it’s a very complex issue. We can call so many issues complex, but this particular popular issue ties in with the flow of resources, as you call it, the Iron River, so the stream of guns to Latin America. But these weapons are used to ensure that there is a drug trade.

Part of the reason that there is a drug trade is because drugs are criminalized and not legalized. I also wonder how much of this is really driven by Nixon’s version of the war on drugs. We’ve seen various manifestations of that over the years. We know this policy of trying to cut the supply of drugs, but in a way, propping up a whole system, a whole apparatus around it, which actually fuels all of this violence and the power structures that maintain these drug cartels.

We could even go as far as to say that the U.S. government supports various regimes throughout South America and Central America, which are actually doing a lot of the drugs themselves. Someone is profiting from all of this. It’s probably not adequate to analyze one part of the problem and say that we just need to target the guns. It seems like there is an incentive structure there to keep things as they are and to not actually challenge the entire problem. It’s my own personal bias, but I think that if you would at least decriminalize and also legalize a lot of these drugs, then that would turn things on its head for the cartels.

Ioan Grillo

Yeah, so there are some deep issues there. Absolutely, the illegal gun trafficking and the illegal drug trade are totally entangled. It’s like these two venomous plants entangled around each other. You see this on so many levels. You see people selling heroine in Baltimore or now selling more synthetic opioids in Baltimore. People come in from Virginia, and they’ll trade guns for drugs. You see the Mexican cartels bringing guns down from the U.S. all the way down to Colombia and exchanging them for cocaine. Then the guns are being used to fuel a civil war in Colombia for many years.

You see this exchange of guns and drugs, and then because the drug trade is such high money and many people can do it, then who actually dominates the trade? People with more guns and violence. So, you use guns to defend your turf in the drug trade. Whereas the illegal gun trade is worth a relatively small number of total dollars, though some people still get very rich from this, the illegal drug trade, they say, is worth more than $300 billion per year around the world.

Now, questions of drug policy reform. Well, I shall get to your last question, then get to drug policy reform. You mentioned the U.S. government itself supporting regimes or government groups involved in drug trafficking. It is a very, very big issue, and a very relevant issue. It’s like the U.S. government is having a war on drugs and self-sabotaging the war on drugs, whether through policy or just this innateness.

In big cases like Afghanistan, where you saw not just the U.S. but all of the allies in Afghanistan and the biggest heroin state in the world for many years, the Taliban are coming in and starting some horrific stuff for the Taliban, but also start clapping down on poppies. Then, weird things with the U.S. government criticizing the Taliban for clapping down on poppies. Very weird politics to understand. Then you see this again and again.

Going way back up Vietnam. In Vietnam, actually, South Vietnam was involved in drug trafficking, the state being down there. The Secret Army in Laos, the CIA-funded Secret Army, also moved heroine with the poppies, getting the U.S. soldiers addicted, going back to the U.S., and then bringing this addiction problem. It is just again and again.

We go to the Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s. The Contra army against the Sandinista government and the Contras getting cocaine money. So you see, again and again, there’s the U.S. self-sabotaging its own war on drugs or politics overriding that, which is, again, a real problem.

On to the drug policy reform. I’ve been now involved in this for 23 years. I grew up in an area; I grew up in the city of Brighton in the U.K. We got a lot of drug use back in the 1980s. I knew four guys, teenagers and a young man who died of heroin overdoses back then. We had our own opioid epidemic back in the day.

I was thinking that legalization is the silver bullet that will solve this. We can legalize it. In 2012, I wrote op-eds in the New York Times, very clearly arguing for legalizing marijuana. This is going to hit the cartels. Take the marijuana away from them.

We get to now, and I have more disillusionment about this, and I explain why and where I am with that kind of thinking. One thing is that the marijuana money being taken away hasn’t weakened the cartels, unfortunately. I still believe in marijuana legalization. But the cartels are moving to other drugs and moving to everything else, from extortion to kidnapping, to human smuggling, to sex trafficking, to oil theft, all of these different crimes. I still think marijuana should be legalized, I could say, but I was hoping there’s a bigger impact in weakening the cartels there.

Then we had this revolution. I do believe there has been a revolution in drugs, from plant-based drugs to synthetic drugs. In the last few years, this has accelerated. It’s been coming for a while. We have synthetic drugs going back a long time, but then we really started to see it in the last couple of years. First, we see crystal meth, and then we see them selling more crystal meth than cocaine, and then more fentanyl than heroin. The numbers are just absolutely going off the chart.

So now we see more than 107,000 overdose deaths in the United States in a single year, about 70% with fentanyl in their system. Devastating. You go back to the crack epidemic in the 1980s, the worst years of the crack epidemic, and they had like 5,000 overdoses. There were other issues of shootings and problems in communities, but the level of overdose deaths now is off the chart. I just wonder what the hell we do about fentanyl. Now it seems sadly that heroine was the good old days.

Now, I still do believe we should have a conversation about drug policy reform, about what we should have as drug policy in our societies, in America, in the United States, in Canada, in the U.K., in Germany, particularly with big consumption, with cocaine. What can we legalize and decriminalize? But I’m less optimistic that it’s such a magic bullet. Also, I realized now the actual business of drug policy reform is like we got the marijuana, and then we got a bit stuck here. The discussion is kind of dissolved. I totally agree. We need a big conversation about this. I am a little bit less sure of what exactly the moving forward should be.

Talia Baroncelli

We don’t really have a case in which there are ideal circumstances or conditions for that. I mean, yes, of course, many countries, Canada, for example, and then different parts of the U.S., have legalized or decriminalized marijuana, but they haven’t done so with all drugs to see how that would affect drug trafficking, how that would affect the cartels.

I do remember that Roberto Saviano, who is this writer, I’m sure you’re familiar with his work, he was, I guess you could say, undercover with Camorra, with some of the Italian Mafia in and around Naples. He was, in a way, a whistleblower. He came out of that experience and was able to, based on his statements, was able to get a lot of Neapolitan Mafia guys behind bars. But he’s interviewed lots of or several crime bosses who are now in jail or who are willing to actually speak to journalists. A lot of them did say that if drugs were to be legalized, that would totally upend the business that these Mafia guys are conducting and that it would, in a way, result in more taxes being paid and more regulation of the entire flow of weapons and drugs. That would essentially help Italy as well. It would increase their growth and the amount that they’re able to get from taxes and that sort of thing.

To hear that from someone who is so deeply, from criminals essentially, who are so deeply embedded in the Mafia and in the drug trade, say that one of the biggest threats that they perceive to their business would be something like legalization and decriminalization. I’m sure it means something, but of course, we haven’t had those conditions to see how it would work in practice. I take your point that it’s not the silver bullet or it’s not the one-size-fits-all policy for all the problems that we have that are related to the drug trade.

I did want to move on to one other issue that I think is really important. We’ve seen so many deaths in Mexico, and you term it a hybrid conflict because it’s not officially categorized as an armed conflict by many other countries. So that means that asylum seekers from Mexico, some of them get asylum, but not all of them are recognized as refugees because the conditions in Mexico are not really labeled as an armed conflict. I wonder how you think that plays into some of these issues and issues at the border, for example, between the U.S. and Mexico.

Ioan Grillo

Yeah, sure thing. Basically, I’ll go into something just to say it. Look, the drug issue has been there for a long time. I pushed for a long time with this legalization stuff. I got quite disillusioned in seeing this thing stuck, this debate stuck. One thing, we have a lot of popular opinions saying, “Well, we should end the war on drugs and legalize stuff.” Then you have to really move into legislation. I totally agree, we haven’t tried a full-on legalization, and we have examples like Portugal, which have certainly been successful models. There certainly needs to be a lot of stuff in terms of health stuff, but it’s a complicated, difficult issue.

Really, for example, if we’re going to look at the United States, what do you push to legalize or decriminalize first? How do we do this? Sometimes, what we end up with in the U.S. is you end up with the drug market being decriminalized. Maybe you can consume drugs without being punished, and I know that’s fair enough, but the selling of drugs is still being controlled by cartels. That’s one of the things with decriminalization: it is still allowing it in their hands. That’s the thing there. Get on with what you’re saying.

Talia Baroncelli

Right. Thanks for bringing up the Portugal case because that’s actually an example of things working in a very limited context, of course. It’s not the whole of Europe, so there are still issues in other parts of Europe, but Portugal has been quite successful in legalizing drugs.

Ioan Grillo

Absolutely, or decriminalizing. One of the reasons I think that Portugal has success where parts of the U.S. have failed with this is because they still have a health system in Portugal. People can get help, medical help, and remuneration help. Whereas in the U.S., and if you look at some of these West Coast cities, there’s just a lot of people with no health help at all. Some people are taking fentanyl on the street and so forth, but they have no real backup or support to actually help them get out of it.

But anyway, going back to talking about the conflict. Across Latin America, we’ve had this violence in a bunch of countries. So you have Mexico, we’ve had Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Colombia, Venezuela, with a lot of these same issues where criminals have become a form of para-militarily organized crime. Rather than being gang members, these are like para-military organizations with people with radios, AK-47s, and structures who are taking over and being like a duopoly of power in these areas. Then a lot of people are fleeing that violence.

People at the beginning, when people started to become aware of the ability to claim asylum for this, they started coming with these cases of why  I’m fleeing these organizations.

Now, the original asylum law, going back to the 1950s and the refugee freedom and so forth, were very much geared to more thinking about things like the Holocaust. They were like, we’re looking at governments that are really repressive, and we’re looking out for persecuted ethnic minorities, like obviously the case of the Jews in Germany. People were looking back and said, “How come these people were not given refugee and were not able to be refugees anywhere.”

Talia Baroncelli

Well, to add some important context, in 1951, when the Geneva Refugee Convention was created, it had a geographical demarcation or requirement, and it was primarily for Europe. Then that later got expanded in 1967 to include refugees coming from elsewhere. It was really a product of the outcome of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was really specific to Europeans, essentially. But then that was broadened out. I think Mexico has also played a large role in shaping asylum laws and pushing for the broadening of that asylum body of law.

Ioan Grillo

Yeah, absolutely. Then you see, in these cases, people are saying, “Well, we’re going to argue that these cartels and these gangs, the law was beefed up to show the government being repressive or were persecuting groups.” So, these gangs are effectively working with governments.

In Mexico, if the Sinaloa cartel wants to kill you, and the Sinaloa cartel has massive amounts of police and military working for them, then you have to leave the country. Your government is not protecting you, and you’re effectively being persecuted by the state. So people are going to the United States and arguing these cases in courts and start to have a success rate in this, getting successful cases and winning asylum on this basis. So then what you got was you had this massive increase. This was what the judges at the beginning were quite apprehensive about trying to grant asylum in these cases. People were fleeing China. Will get into it much more.

What people say for one of the reasons was the judges were apprehensive about awarding asylum in these cases. We’re going to open the floodgates if we start giving asylum to people from Mexico and Latin America. Now, they had good lawyers, good lawyers like Carlos Spector, a lawyer in El Paso, a very good lawyer, arguing these cases, and bringing in experts and showing this quite well, and people will give them these cases. Then you got this massive increase in asylum claims. Also, there were a lot of people from the United Nations Refugee Agency going around handing out leaflets and raising the people’s understanding of asylum cases.

Talia Baroncelli

Which is also their right to be informed as to what their rights are under the asylum rubric.

Ioan Grillo

There has been a big backlash in the United States. First, a backlash with Trump, and then this big back and forth on this. Now, what you see right now, or you’ve seen now, is the number of asylum seekers going so high in the United States. You’ve now got a backlog. Last time I checked, it was one and a half million cases backlogged, it is probably a lot higher now. It goes up a very steep rise there. Large amounts of people. A lot of people come from Venezuela, continuing to come from Cuba, and from across Latin America.

The immigration here in Mexico has changed massively. When I first began covering this a couple of decades ago, it was the vast majority of Mexicans. They’ll go over the Sonoran Desert. Now it’s less than a quarter of those going over that are Mexican, about three quarters from outside Mexico, mostly from Latin America. These cases were similar stuff coming from Jamaica, from Haiti, from Honduras, from Nicaragua, from all of these different countries, and also people coming from further afield.

Now you’ve got the situation where you’ve had these various attempts. You had the attempts by Trump to try and slow this down. It is a very confusing situation of asylum law.

Now, I was just yesterday, I came from Ciudad Juárez. I will give you an example of how confusing and complicated it is now on the border. I went to a camp of refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants. There was a camp of tents and stuff on the border. Met some Venezuelans who were planning to go over. For a time, they would get over the river, neck to the wall, past this barbed wire, and then the U.S. would say, “Okay, we’re going to process you and allow your asylum claim.” Because of the back and forth, suddenly they’re saying, “No, we’re not going to do it anymore.”

I met these guys in the camp on Saturday. On Sunday, I was sitting on the plane about to come back, and the guy called me in a video call right from where he was on the wall. He said, “No, they’re not letting us come in.” It’s a big thing here. So they’re constantly changing the games, changing the rules. So you see people getting pushed further out into the desert to try and go in, and it is a very bad situation. A lot of people, with record numbers at the border but unclear policies of what the rules are, and this is becoming a hot political issue that could even tip the election in favor of Trump in this year’s elections.

Talia Baroncelli

Well, there are a lot of issues there because I think the Republicans want the border to be something that they can campaign on. I don’t think they actually want to improve the situation. When you talk about a crisis, there are different perspectives on this. Some activists would say that it’s also a crisis for people on the move who are trying to claim asylum. It’s not just a crisis of nation-states dealing with people on their borders, but also for the people themselves who are living through this.

You mentioned that there’s a confused set of laws. Under Trump, the Supreme Court or the various courts that were dealing with asylum were enacting laws that were really in contravention with a lot of more international asylum laws and international conventions. They were enacting what’s called safe third country principles, saying that if you’re coming from, say, Honduras, and then you’re in Mexico, and if Mexico is considered to be a safe country, then you should actually be applying for asylum there. Your asylum claim in the U.S. would be thrown out because you pass through a safe country. It goes both ways.

Most scholars would argue that contravenes the right to asylum in itself because there could be various reasons for someone seeking asylum in the U.S. and not feeling safe to do so in Mexico. Perhaps they’re also being persecuted there, or they’re affected by some of the violence there. But that really, I guess, goes into the weeds.

There are legitimate problems, of course. There’s a huge backlog with the courts and not enough people processing asylum claims. There’s a huge backlog where people are waiting for years and years in the U.S. waiting for a determination to be made on their case. I also think that some of the policies just exacerbate the issues. They say that people should be coming in through official ports of entry. If that doesn’t happen, they’re pushed further into the desert to try and cross there and then end up endangering their lives. I think the authorities definitely make it worse.

Then, this standoff with the governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, and the state forces versus the federal government doesn’t really actually help the people on the ground and the people who are searching for somewhere to stay or for asylum.

I guess my final question would be, what do you make of AMLO’s response to all this? The President or Prime Minister of Mexico, I can’t remember.

Ioan Grillo

President of Mexico.

Talia Baroncelli

President of Mexico. Has he largely been coordinating or supporting U.S. policy on migration, or has there been some pushback there? I know in your book, you did mention that he declared that the war on drugs, or the Mexican drug war, was over in 2018. I don’t know what he said since then, but how would you assess his response to these migration issues?

Ioan Grillo

Yeah, sure. Just to respond to the one thing you said there, I think it’s a very good point you made about the Republicans as well. I was there earlier this year. In January and February, I was over on the Piedras Negras, Eagle Pass border, where this take-back-our border caravan went to and where they used this big claim of the military there, stopping the migrants and so forth.

One of the things while I was there that I thought was interesting. I was talking to two guys, and they were more from a right-wing perspective. I was talking to them and they were saying they didn’t really know the border, and they were like, “Wow, this is a farce.” The Republicans, they’re not really interested in solving this issue. They want this bad to campaign on because they have nothing else to run on. They want us to stay in a bad situation. They’re not really solving this. You see, the farce of the way that was done with the take back our border caravan, by the way, was mostly old guys. The average age was 75. It wasn’t very threatening. It wasn’t like there’s some big mass mobilization to the border at that point.

Also, you see the farce of the governors. They had this one park with barbed wire and all the governors taking photographs with the military behind. That’s just one tiny little bit on the border. It’s like, what do they even see them making?

About the desert stuff, I’m just working on a new story right now. I was looking at why the numbers of deaths over the desert are just, we’re talking about for the numbers we know, close to 900 deaths in a year on the border now, the most deadly border in the world, and a lot of deaths happening. I just want to find out what changes are there. One of the worst areas is right next to Ciudad Juárez, in a deserty area called Sunland Park.

One of the issues or some of the issues with this is you have got bigger numbers, and bigger numbers means more deaths. You have got these more barbed wires there and it’s pushing people out. But also, you’ve got these among the human smuggling gangs; they call them Pollero, the human smugglers. Polleros are like chicken herders, and they call the migrants chickens. You have this new generation. You used to have this old-school generation of older human smugglers who move and take care of the migrants to an extent. Now, we were there, it’s like young kids, I mean, 18, 16, 17, 18, 19, the ones running a lot of this human smuggling. There’s such high numbers. They’re treating people badly and people are ending up… they’re letting them out, running them into the desert, and they’re saying, “Oh, just go,” and they’re getting lost and die there. Some crazy conditions.

On your last question about Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the President of Mexico. A fascinating character. I’ve followed his career for the last two decades since he was mayor of Mexico City—three presidential campaigns. We’re coming to the end of his presidency. I’m getting to, I guess, his handing over of power. We can maybe make some observations about him or his presidency. I always quite liked his rhetoric. Personally, I think his discourse was quite a practical left-wing discourse. It was left-wing, and it made the country more equal, restoring communities. It was interesting. It was often about values, about neoliberalism being this idea of everyone for themselves and this idea of more of a society, more of a nation. I quite like his discourse, and I can see why a lot of people are in favor of him.

I think in power, so he called his government the Fourth Transformation and said it would be a transformation of Mexico like the Mexican reform movement in Benito Juárez; this is the 19th century, the Mexican Revolution. What did he actually say? He said, independence, the reform movement, and the revolution, the three or four transformations. He would be the fourth transformation.

When you build it so high, it’s hard to fit that bit of being a transformation of Mexico. I think his presidency, overall, I think it’s been okay in an economic sense. It’s been okay. I think politically, it’s been okay. I think the violence has been terrible, but I don’t need to get out of the car too much, but it has been terrible under him and the last three presidents. So it was terrible under [Felipe] Calderón, under [Enrique] Peña Nieto, under AMLO, even under Vicente Fox. Before that, you saw a rise in violence. So it was a bigger, deeper problem that he’s failed to confront. But then again, so have other presidents.

He never really figured out his ideas on the violence. He initially had this idea of a ‘hugs not bullets’ or ‘end the drug war’ idea, but then he didn’t really follow that through really hard. Then he had another idea, which is more like restoring the power of the state, restoring a national guard.

On the economics and the reason why I think he is popular, and I think why some of the foreign press overplay and attack him in saying, “This is a terrible guy,” then they have to say, “Well, this guy’s pretty popular.” His rhetoric is popular with many Mexicans. His discourse, how he’s saying he’s popular with many people. Now, it’s populist. It is sometimes confrontational and attacks certain journalists and so forth. But still this basic idea of restoring a nation and for the people and having some other leadership and not just being bossed around is popular with people. He has kicked back some money into some of these social programs.

It was interesting that during the pandemic, he had actually a more austerity program. He didn’t run up or borrow loads of money like a lot of presidents around the world and a lot of Mexican presidents would have done. He was like, “Why borrow loads of money, which is going to go into the hands and be ripped off by these rich companies?” Now, I do believe a lot of that extra spending that happened in the pandemic in many countries only ended up in the hands of super-rich people. AMLO, he sustained the economy reasonably well on that. So we’ll see. He’s leaving power, and it looks like Claudia Sheinbaum is from the same party. His chosen successor will become the first female president of Mexico, and then we’ll see how she does.

Talia Baroncelli

In terms of his interactions with Biden, some people would say that the Democrats are usually better on asylum issues. If you actually look at the track record, Obama deported four more asylum seekers than Trump, for example, and the policy itself has largely been the same. Is AMLO still sticking to this remain-in-Mexico policy where there’s a concerted effort on the part of the military and other police departments to try and prevent people from crossing and staying in Mexico and not to try and enter the United States?

Ioan Grillo

Yeah, sure. That is a good point about Obama deporting more people than Trump. It’s a good fact there to remember. I think with Obama, I would often talk about the Democratic administration on this issue. They don’t want to be associated with being heavy on migration or heavy on asylum seekers. But the practice is they will try and push back. There are a lot of low-hanging targets to deport under Obama. What I mean is, I’ve covered a lot of the deportations that happened here, and that was part of what made the drug war explode as well. There are loads of people being deported and then being recruited to cartels, fighting the violence. There are a lot of these towns were people were being deported. It was often people with drunk driving, domestic violence, a simple crime, and then bang, you’re deported. Before you had to be processed for a crime to stay in the U.S. It was deportation, deportation, deportation. It changed the dynamic there.

By the time Trump came in, a lot of them were the migrant community without papers that were being lowered down, so it wasn’t as easy to deport the big numbers.

AMLO was initially, again, I know it’s fine. People should come here. We’re going to give jobs to them and so forth. Under Obama, under Trump, and under Biden, you see the same thing playing out, where when you have these large numbers of people coming through Mexico, Mexico will use its National Guard, it’s military to slow down this migration. It will do that because generally, under a certain, say, duress or under working with the United States, the Mexican government generally recognizes it’s got half a trillion dollars in trade with the United States, and that’s more of its benefit. It can do this and slow it down. Now, that slowing down, which is done, you’ve seen almost like this constant up, my bills go up, down a bit, up again, for the last 10 years. It’s only slowing this down. It paused things. They continue to do that. Mexico continues to do that, at least tries, but still the numbers are… it’s doing that right now. Biden is trying to keep it out of the news till the election. I don’t know. It could be huge numbers over the summer. Again, last year, December, I think, was the highest month ever. Then the Mexican government has been hitting back, but we’ll see how much it will hit back on this going into the summer.

Talia Baroncelli

Ioan Grillo, it’s been great speaking to you. I highly recommend that people read your book, Blood Gun Money, which is right behind you, so people can take a look at it in bookstores. Also, they should check out your recent article on how fentanyl has indirectly killed the opium trade. That was a really interesting piece. I highly recommend that people check out your work. Where can they find you online?

Ioan Grillo

Yeah, sure. So check out my sub stack, I have stories in there. That’s a great issue to talk about: the opium, this revolution of synthetic drugs and the opium farmers being taken out there. It’s www.crashoutmedia.com. You can see all of my stories there. You can see it’s a funny name, I-O-A-N G-R-I-L-L-O. You can see me on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and a bunch of places there as well.

Talia Baroncelli

Great. Thank you for watching. Thank you for watching theAnalysis.news. If you enjoy this content and you’d like to support us, feel free to go to our website, theAnalysis.news. Hit the donate button, and get on our mailing list. See you next time.

HINDUTVA IS ARYAN PATRIARCHY

Indian Women Have Gone Backward Under Narendra Modi’s Rule

On taking power, Narendra Modi’s government claimed that it would address a wave of sexual violence and raise the status of Indian women. But things have got worse for women under Modi’s rule, with a culture of misogyny that flows downward from the top.
May 11, 2024
Source: Jacobin




The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which currently heads the ruling coalition government in India, has long had a reputation as a male-dominated, Hindu supremacist organization with an upper caste and patriarchal image. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has promoted a makeover of the party’s image on several fronts. He is now seeking a third term in office and campaigning aggressively on the government’s numerous initiatives related to women.

The BJP is specifically targeting women as a separate vote bank, inspired by the higher turnout of female voters in recent elections. The emergence of women as an identifiable constituency makes it imperative to take stock of the BJP’s claims to have “empowered” women during its decade-long rule.
Violence Against Women

When the BJP-led electoral alliance came to power, there was palpable discontent about growing crimes against women. People desired changes in the legal framework, especially with respect to crimes of sexual violence. An appeal to this widespread sentiment became one of the important planks on which Modi based his 2014 election campaign.

However, since Modi’s party has been in power, the country has witnessed a further spurt in violence against women. The 2021 data of the National Crime Records Bureau reveals that on average, eighty-six women were raped every day in India, while forty-nine cases of crimes against women were lodged every single hour. The overall number of crimes against women per one hundred thousand of the population increased from 56.3 in 2014 to 66.4 in 2022.

Growing violence against women reflects not only a deep patriarchal bias but also an utter institutional failure. At times, we have seen the BJP defending and protecting those accused of violence against women. For example, the union minister of women and child development, Smriti Irani, shamefully lashed out at victims who publicly expose their perpetrators, accusing them of “defaming” the government.

Clearly, the culture of impunity has become more entrenched, particularly among those enjoying proximity to the ruling elites and belonging to dominant castes and communities or other positions of influence in society. The last decade of Modi’s rule has seen numerous disturbing instances of sexual violence, many of which involved women from marginalized communities and economically vulnerable backgrounds.

Several of these cases found their way into the mainstream news, such as the gang rape of a minor girl by a BJP legislator in Unnao, Uttar Pradesh, in 2017; the repeated gang rape and murder of an eight-year-old Muslim girl in Kathua, Kashmir, in 2018; and the gang rape of a Dalit girl in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, in 2020. Compromised police investigations, criminal negligence, and covert institutional backing for the perpetrators have been apparent.

From the release of the rapists of Bilkis Bano, a victim of gang rape during the 2002 Gujarat communal carnage, to the eerie silence of Modi amid the horrifying violence and rampant sexual assaults on women in Manipur during the recent clashes between Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities, the BJP’s approach to the violence unleashed on women during communal pogroms and ethnic clashes is even more revealing of its misogyny.
Impunity at the Top

We can expect little else from a ruling party that has the highest number of sitting members of parliament (MPs) and members of legislative assemblies (MLAs) against whom cases of crimes against women have been registered.

Naked displays of impunity by BJP politicians and legislators have often surfaced over this past decade. These include the intimidation of India’s female wrestlers of international fame, who mustered the courage to expose rampant sexual harassment by Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, a BJP MP and president of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI).

In the course of this year’s general election, numerous disturbing videos have surfaced of mass rapes and sexual assaults by Prajwal Revanna, a sitting MP from the BJP’s key electoral ally in Karnataka. Modi has been accused of knowing about the accusations but campaigning for the sexual predator anyway, desperate for votes from Karnataka. Revanna was allowed to flee the country. The scandal is a farcical repeat of the pattern of culpability manufactured and abetted by the ruling party on several previous occasions.

Keen to save its image and absolve itself of allegations of complicity, the Modi administration has repeatedly resorted to gimmicks such as enhancing the severity of punishment. The overt focus on the quantum and severity of punishment draws attention away from the abysmally low conviction rates for rape and the fact that it is the certainty of punishment more than its severity which is the effective deterrent.

In 2021, for instance, the conviction rate for crimes against women was a mere 26.5 percent, while 95 percent of cases were still pending. Although it has introduced more stringent criminal laws, the government has done precious little to ensure greater accountability of the police, reform of the judicial system, or improved measures to rehabilitate and empower rape survivors.

In fact, the Nirbhaya Fund, which was established in 2013 after public outrage over the Delhi gang-rape case, is grossly underfunded and underutilized. In 2021, only 50 percent of the money allocated had been released, and only 29 percent had actually been spent. The consequence is a lack of sufficient fast-track courts and one-stop rape crisis centers, which actually hinders the pursuit of justice.
Communal Misogyny

The BJP’s claim to be successfully fighting gender oppression is further exposed when we factor in the impact of its divisive communal politics on women. India saw a sharp rise in honor killings over the last decade, with BJP-ruled provinces topping the chart.

This alarming trend cannot be separated from the vigilantism of right-wing mass organizations with connections to the ruling party. These organizations have been aggressively targeting interfaith consensual relationships, especially those between Hindu women and Muslim men.

Many have rightly argued that in view of its divisive agenda of targeting particular religions and communities, the Modi government has seen the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) as a way to push for uniformity across communities rather than substantive gender equality within communities.

The UCC introduced in the Uttarakhand province, for example, overlooks discrimination within the personal laws of the undivided Hindu family. Instead, it curbs the right of women to cohabit with partners of their choice, thereby paving the way for moral policing by state institutions and vigilante groups.

Modi’s divisive, partisan form of politics also came to the fore in 2022 when hijab-wearing Muslim women students were denied access to state pre-university colleges in Karnataka, which was then ruled by the BJP. This hampered the educational opportunities of young women who come from a minority community that is already battling educational disadvantage.

Importantly, it is not only minority Muslims whose access to education has taken a hit. The BJP’s education policy has intensified the neglect of publicly funded schooling across the board, paving the way for the merger of government schools in a supposed bid to “rationalize” resources.

Such measures, leading to the closure of several schools, have adversely affected the education of girls, especially in rural areas. This has triggered protests by school-going girls and their parents.
Hollow Claims

Another example of hollow claims about uplifting and bringing dignity to India’s rural women concerns the much-advertised social empowerment scheme aimed at eliminating open defecation. Far from being a novel initiative, this is simply a repackaged version of an earlier rural sanitation program, now referred to as Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (SBA).

Although SBA provides monetary support for the construction of toilets in rural households, the scheme comes without the laying of a proper sewer system and maintenance. As a consequence, it reinforces the vile and primitive practices of manual scavenging. The double tragedy is that such stigmatized work is carried out mostly by Dalit (“untouchable”) women in villages.

In real terms, the Modi era has spelled doom for the large majority of women from the working and lower-middle classes as well as poor peasants and impoverished tribal households. The burden of social reproduction borne by these women has greatly increased with the rapid privatization of many public utilities and the steady withdrawal of the state from health care and education.

While the government showcases a plethora of welfare schemes, the actual cash transfers amount to paltry sums. This is especially true in a context where inflation persists unabated and budgetary allocations for such schemes are being steadily curtailed.

Modi’s administration claims to have distributed over ninety-five million deposit-free liquified petroleum gas (LPG), or clean fuel, connections to poor rural households between 2016 and 2023. Yet with LPG prices skyrocketing, more than half of rural women continue to collect firewood and use polluting solid fuels. In this way, the average Indian woman continues to juggle a high quantity of housework and has to spend much more time attending to these tasks.
Smoke Screen

The government’s claim to have empowered women does not stand up when measured against the realities of women’s everyday lives and their skewed access to livelihoods and gainful employment. At one level, we can see rising crimes against women and the pervasive culture of impunity that adversely affects the efforts of women to venture out, unfettered, into the public sphere.

At another level, behind the smokescreen of paid news, we can discern the fast-deteriorating conditions of women in India’s labor market. The current status of the state-backed national rural employment guarantee scheme (the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, or MNREGA) is alarming to say the least. Notably, women constitute over 50 percent of the MNREGA workforce.

Intensifying agrarian distress and rising unemployment have resulted in increased demand for MNREGA work. However, the Modi government’s budget cuts for MNREGA have led to a shortage of work under the scheme, along with massive delays in payments.

In addition, around five million women are presently employed under various schemes and programs run by Union and state governments. These women, who belong mostly to “lower” castes and come from impoverished backgrounds, are mobilized for various forms of community work, such as the delivery of primary health care in villages or taking care of children in anganwadis (rural childcare centers).

However, their work is undervalued by being cast as an extension of voluntarism and community service. As a result, they are denied the status and rights of workers and receive paltry “monthly incentives” or honorariums. This has driven many to engage in vigorous struggles for recognition as government workers. The Modi government offers no assurances for their uplift.

When boasting of its efforts to generate livelihoods for women through microfinance loan schemes like the Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana (PMMY), the government conveniently overlooks the fact that private capital accounts for the larger share of India’s microfinance industry. By steering clear of effective regulation of mushrooming microfinance institutions, the BJP has left women to increasingly bear the brunt of predatory lending and become caught in the vortex of indebtedness.

In the interest of “ease of business,” the government has introduced new labor codes that represent a further withdrawal of the state from public regulation of relations between workers and employers. The infamous codes have pushed more and more women workers into the informal sector, exposing them to precarity and vulnerability.

Heavily concentrated in the lowest rungs of the labor market, women are falling prey to dismal working conditions characterized by low wages and overwork. The insecure and informal work arrangements also breed rampant sexual harassment of laboring women.
Recognition and Redistribution

Electoral politics in India was traditionally driven by the logic that the voting choices of women were shaped by their male counterparts within the family, caste, community, and so on. However, women have been emerging as an electoral constituency in their own right. That is one reason why issues of concern to women have steadily gained more attention in recent years.

In response, the Modi government has sought to milk the long-pending issue of reserving 33 percent of seats for women in the Lok Sabha, India’s parliament. In January 2024, just before the announcement of polling dates for the general election, it strategically passed the bill on reservation for women.

The measure offers nothing substantial for the average woman and for the masses in general, since India’s skewed first-past-the-post electoral system fails to provide for more representative governments that cater to the interests and aspirations of socially and economically vulnerable sections of society.

Moreover, as a general trend, women candidates of all political parties come from affluent backgrounds. This looks likely to continue even after the reform, reinforcing the status quo whereby women from the dominant sections of society will continue to capture the parliamentary space.

It is at a time of growing pauperization of women that the increase in women’s representation in the ruling establishment has been put into effect. As a mere politics of recognition, this measure can be easily co-opted and translated into a form of patriarchal patronage — until, of course, it is reenvisioned with redistribution of resources so that the lives, liberty, and livelihoods of women are concretely secured.

Women in India have been far from passive over the past decade. They have been in the forefront of numerous movements against discriminatory citizenship laws, sexual violence, pro-corporate farm laws, dispossession, anti-labor policies, and so on, all of which have challenged the legitimacy of the ruling dispensation. We can expect such resistance to build anew and persist — Modi or no Modi.



Maya John is an assistant professor of history at Jesus and Mary College, University of Delhi.
Plastic, Plastic Everywhere — Even at the UN’s “Plastic Free” Conference

At a conference meant to address the plastic crisis, pro-plastic messaging was inescapable. Meanwhile, industry insiders — some positioned as government delegates — were given access to vital negotiations.

By Lisa Song
May 11, 2024
Source: ProPublica

Pro-plastic ads near the Ottawa, Ontario, convention center where the United Nations plastics treaty negotiations took place Credit:James Park for ProPublica


When I registered to attend last month’s United Nations conference in Canada, organizers insisted it would be a “plastic free meeting.” I wouldn’t even get a see-through sleeve for my name tag, they warned; I’d have to reuse an old lanyard.

After all, representatives from roughly 170 countries were gathering to tackle a crisis: The world churns out 400 million metric tons of plastic a year. It clogs landfills and oceans; its chemical trail seeps into our bodies. Delegates have been meeting since 2022 as part of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution in hopes of ending this year with a treaty that addresses “the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

The challenge before delegates seemed daunting: How do you get hundreds of negotiators to agree on anything via live, group editing? Especially when representatives from fossil fuel and chemical companies would be vigorously working to shift the conversation away from what scientists say is the only solution to the crisis: curbing plastic production.

But when I got to the meeting, I discovered those industry reps were not the sideshow; they were welcomed into the main event.

They could watch closed-door sessions off limits to reporters. Some got high-level badges indistinguishable from those worn by country representatives negotiating the treaty. These badges allowed them access to exclusive discussions not open to some of the world’s leading health scientists.

In a setting that was supposed to level the inequalities among those present, I watched how country delegates and conference organizers did little to minimize them, making what was already going to be a challenging process needlessly opaque and avoidably contentious.

With such high stakes, I asked the INC Secretariat — the staff at the UN Environment Programme who facilitated the negotiations process — why they hadn’t set rules on conflict of interest or transparency. They told me that wasn’t their job, that it was up to countries to take the lead. But in some cases, countries pointed me right back to the UN.

Over five days, I would come to understand just how hard it will be to get meaningful action on plastics.A pro-plastic ad Credit: James Park for ProPublica

Day 1: Represent the Public? Stay Out.

From the moment I landed in Ottawa, the counter-argument of the plastics industry was inescapable, from wall-sized ads at the airport to billboards on trucks that cruised around the downtown convention center.

Their message: Curtailing plastic production would spell literal doom. (I could almost see the marketing pitch: Think of the children!)

These plastics deliver water, read one, depicting a girl drinking from a bottle in what was implied to be a disaster zone.

I headed to the media registration desk and got my green-striped badge, which placed me at the lowest rung of the pecking order.

At the top were people on official delegations. Their red-striped badges opened the door to every meeting, from the large “plenaries” where rows of country representatives spoke into microphones, to smaller working groups where negotiators hashed out specifics like whether to ban certain chemicals used in plastic.

The majority of the attendees wore orange badges. This hodgepodge of so-called observers included scientists, environmentalists, Indigenous peoples and some industry reps, though the color code made no distinction among them.

Observers were allowed into certain working groups at the discretion of government delegates.

Reporters could attend only plenaries.

These huge, open sessions were like the UN equivalent of Senate floor speeches: declarations and repetition to get ideas into the public record.

Veteran observers tracked the real action in the margins, standing in the back of the ballroom to watch who was talking to whom. It was an art, they said: You want to stroll close enough to read the small print on name tags, but you have to be chill about it.

I was not chill about the lack of access, which prevented sources from talking about what happened behind closed-door proceedings. They were governed by rules that prohibited those present from recording the meetings or revealing who had said what.

Reporters trying to inform the public and hold governments accountable were completely shut out. Yet somehow the rules allowed the industry whose survival depends on more plastic production to dispatch reps to watch negotiators at work.

The rules follow the “norms when it comes to fundamentals of negotiating, multilateralism, and diplomacy amongst UN Member States,” said a statement from the INC Secretariat. These meetings are managed by the countries negotiating the treaty, the statement said; the countries set the rules.

But when I asked the U.S. State Department, which led the U.S. delegation in Ottawa, whether journalists should have more access, a spokesperson directed me back to the UN.An environmental health adv
ocacy group near the Ottawa convention center Credit: James Park for ProPublica

Day 2: “The Human Right to Science”

I heard about an exhibit at the nearby Westin hosted by the Alliance to End Plastic Waste. It sounded like an environmental group, but an online search showed it was founded by corporations including Dow and ExxonMobil. Dow didn’t respond to a request for comment. ExxonMobil said it attended the conference “to be a resource, bring solutions to the table and listen to a broad range of views by all stakeholders.”

As I wandered through the ballroom stocked with refreshments, shiny videos and diagrams promoted the potential of “circularity,” a marketing term that’s often focused on recycling. Independent research shows pollution will skyrocket if companies don’t curb production, but the industry has, for decades, shifted attention from that with false promises about waste management.

“The work we do is not the whole solution,” the alliance later told me in an email.

But I could easily see someone leaving the exhibit with that impression.

The finer points of plastic science, from its toxic manufacturing process to the limits of recycling, are highly technical and complex.

While countries like the United States could afford to fly in multiple experts to inform government delegates, other countries could not.

Later that day, I met Bethanie Carney Almroth, an ecotoxicologist from Sweden’s University of Gothenburg, who was among 60 independent, volunteer researchers who had traveled to Canada in hopes of bridging that gap in access to expertise.

As part of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, they shared fact sheets and peer-reviewed studies and made themselves available for questions. Carney Almroth said ensuring the integrity of the group was vital. Members must have a proven track record of researching plastic pollution and follow a conflict-of-interest policy to prevent bias.

“The human right to science,” she said, “includes the right to transparency.”Bethanie Carney Almroth, a professor of ecotoxicology at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, is on the steering committee of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty. Credit: James Park for ProPublica

Day 3: “No Such Thing as Conflict of Interest”

For the first two of these conferences, the INC Secretariat didn’t include the participants’ affiliations when they released the list of people who had registered for the event, making it hard to tell who worked for the industry. That has since changed, making it easier for advocacy groups to scour lists for fossil fuel and chemical company affiliations.

After the UN released the roster of the 4,000 people who had registered for Ottawa this year, the Center for International Environmental Law released its analysis of industry attendees. It found about 200 people with observer-level badges.

What’s more, the group said, 16 industry representatives had received the red badges usually reserved for government delegates. They were invited onto official delegations by China, the Dominican Republic, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Thailand, Turkey and Uganda. I later learned an Indonesian delegate was listed as part of its Ministry of Industry; LinkedIn revealed him to be a director at a petrochemical firm.

I reached out to officials from all 10 countries. Most did not respond.

(The United States wasn’t on the list. “As a matter of policy, the United States does not include any industry or civil society representatives in our official delegation,” said a spokesperson from the State Department.)

There is “no such thing as conflict of interest in International negotiations,” the executive director of the Uganda National Environment Management Authority, Barirega Akankwasah, told me in a WhatsApp message. It’s “a matter of country positions and not individual positions,” he said, adding that the conference was “open and transparent” and stakeholders were “all welcome to participate.”

An official from the Dominican Republic, Claudia Taboada, told me that environmental groups and academic scientists had been consulted before the Ottawa conference and that the two industry reps on the country’s eight-member delegation had restricted privileges. They were barred from internal meetings where observers weren’t allowed, she said, and they couldn’t negotiate on behalf of the government.Claudia Taboada was part of the official delegation from the Dominican Republic. She is director for science technology and environment at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Credit: James Park for ProPublica

Those industry reps weren’t trying to influence the government’s position, added Taboada, who is director for science, technology and environment at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

I found that hard to believe. Who would sit through days of bureaucratic meetings just to observe?

A red-striped badge provides tangible benefits, multiple attendees told me, like access to email lists and WhatsApp chats that are closed to observers. A university scientist who’s part of Fiji’s official delegation, Rufino Varea, said it’s easier to talk to official delegates from other countries when you have that badge. It shows only a person’s name and country, making it impossible to tell at a glance whether someone works for the government or for private interests.

A press release issued that day showed a counter-analysis of the entire list of attendees from the International Council of Chemical Associations, which said that industry observers were vastly outnumbered by more than 2,000 members from nongovernmental organizations like environmental advocacy groups.

Many of these groups are “incredibly well funded” and supported by billionaires, said a subsequent email from the American Chemistry Council, the country’s largest plastics lobby. It noted that at least eight countries had NGO representatives on their official delegations.Rufino Varea is in his final semester as a doctoral student in ecotoxicology at the University of the South Pacific. Varea said Fiji’s delegation supports a strong treaty that limits plastic production. Credit: James Park for ProPublica

Day 4: Fighting for Attention

For every NGO with millions in the bank, there were others whose members couldn’t afford the trip to Ottawa. Many had to compete for limited travel funds from sources like the UN or larger advocacy groups.

I sat down with John Chweya, a friendly man in a leather jacket who makes a living as a waste picker in Kenya. A single salad at the conference cost more than a day’s pay.

As president of the Waste Pickers Association of Kenya, he wanted delegates to understand how plastic impacts the millions around the world who collect garbage and sort the recyclables they can sell in places without formal waste disposal. Toxic fumes from plastic burning in landfills make his fellow workers sick, he told me. They wake up with swollen necks, joints that don’t work and mysterious tumors. Chweya wants the world to make less plastic; he came to Ottawa to fight for protective gear and health care.

The specificity of his story brought home how the experiences of front-line communities could inform the understanding of the plastics crisis.John Chweya traveled to Ottawa to advocate for waste pickers in Kenya. Credit: James Park for ProPublica

Others like Chweya tried to give voice to huge portions of the world’s populations that are suffering from every step in the plastic life cycle: residents of Indigenous communities and Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley” breathing dangerous plant emissions; Pacific Islanders seeing their coral reefs entangled in abandoned fishing nets; activists from lower-income countries that are swimming in Americans’ discarded plastic.

I watched them trying to grab the attention of government officials with handwritten posters, events in cramped rooms and limited speaking slots during the plenary.

None of it matched the flash of the billboards I could not seem to avoid, which heralded their own impending health emergency.

These plastics save lives, one decreed, featuring a girl in a hospital bed, wearing an oxygen mask.

Negotiators couldn’t even agree on setting voluntary reductions for plastic production, I thought. Nobody was proposing to eliminate enough plastic to cause hospital shortages.

Chweya called the prevalent ads “traitorous.”

Day 5: The UN Isn’t Powerless

UN officials had warned against the inequities playing out in Ottawa.

In November 2022, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement during the first conference to negotiate the treaty, held in Uruguay.

Even though they weren’t hosting it, human rights officials had advice on how to proceed. “The plastic industry has disproportionate power and influence over policy relative to the general public,” they wrote. “Clear boundaries on conflict of interest should be established … drawing from existing good practices under international law.”

They recommended policies similar to those adopted by the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, a separate UN treaty. Government representatives meet every two years to evaluate results. Recognizing that the tobacco industry’s presence was fundamentally incompatible with protecting public health, the countries agreed to virtually ban Big Tobacco from those meetings.

“It is irresponsible and inaccurate to liken plastics to tobacco,” the American Chemistry Council said in a statement in response to my questions about this comparison. “Unlike the tobacco industry, the plastics industry is playing a vital role in helping meet the UN’s sustainability goals by contributing to food safety, healthcare, renewable energy, telecommunications, clean drinking water, and much more. …

“Keeping plastic producers out means a less informed treaty,” the council said. “We are essential and constructive stakeholders in the global effort to prevent plastic pollution.”

Short of barring the plastics industry, many have wondered why the UN can’t start with smaller steps, like giving industry observers a different kind of badge.

The fossil fuel companies “that are manufacturing plastics” are “not coming to these negotiations with solutions,” Baskut Tuncak, a former UN special rapporteur for human rights and toxics, told me. They’re here “to throw a wrench in the process, or two, or three.”

When I asked if it intended to introduce conflict-of-interest controls, the INC Secretariat said it couldn’t impose rules unilaterally. Governments would have to decide for themselves.

Some U.S. and European politicians have requested such reforms. Negotiators should consider measures “to protect against undue influence of corporate actors with proven vested interests that contradict the goals of the global plastics treaty,” said a letter last month sent to President Joe Biden and the secretary-general of the United Nations.

It was signed by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who’s often criticized the fossil fuel industry’s influence on public policy, along with 11 other members of Congress and a member of the European Parliament. Industry reps should be required to disclose lobbying records and campaign contributions, the letter suggested.

The UN isn’t powerless, said Tuncak and Ana Paula Souza, a UN human rights officer I met on my last day in Ottawa. There’s more the institution could do to raise the profile of the issue, they said. Souza said the UN could also increase funding to allow more of those most affected by plastic pollution to attend these meetings.An art installation outside the Ottawa convention center Credit: James Park for ProPublica

Looking Ahead

The Ottawa conference ended with limited progress. Negotiators have a long way to go to reach a final draft at the last scheduled conference this November in Busan, South Korea. Smaller groups of delegates will meet before then; it’s unclear how many observers will be able to attend.

It’s tempting to feel pessimistic. This could easily end up like the UN climate treaty — anemic, voluntary and dragging on forever.

And it’s not like a conflict-of-interest policy would magically solve everything. Countries with powerful plastics lobbies, including the United States, can still advocate for corporate interests.

But it’s worth stepping back to recognize the magnitude of what’s happening.

Nearly every government on Earth signed up for days of painstaking sessions on plastic as a global threat — even places confronting existential crises, like Haiti, Palestine, Sudan and Ukraine. The world recognizes the importance of figuring this out. And despite all the industry influence, capping plastic production remains a possibility.
Great Expectations – Germany’s Petite Bourgeoisie

May 11, 202
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.




For the past few years, Germany’s petty bourgeoisie or middle class has been losing confidence in society, politics, and capitalism.

They are increasingly at odds with the democratic parties they have trusted so far and which they have elected regularly in various constellations in past decades.

This applies to what a recent study identifies as two different sub-groups within Germany’s middle class:Traditionalists:

The first group is the “nostalgic-bourgeois milieu”. These are those who hang on to a conservative and traditional worldview. Members of this group strive for a high degree of economic security and social harmony. Traditionalists have a desire for secure socio-economic conditions. They tend to stick to traditional rules while longing for the so-called “good old days” – even though this may be no more than a romantic hallucination.Modernizers:

The second group is composed of those in the “adaptive-pragmatic milieu” of the German middle class. They are younger and have a more modern outlook. Modernizers tend to be furnished with a relatively high level of education. This section of Germany’s middle class tends to be innovative, performance-oriented, and displays a willingness to adopt to ever-changing socio-economic conditions.

Interestingly, only one in four – just 26% of people – in the nostalgic bourgeois milieu and only one in two or about 50% in the adaptive-pragmatic milieu are optimistic about the future. Worse, there has been a 20% overall decline in confidence in the future since 2022.

This decline in being confident about the future among Germany’s middle class is twice as high as in Germany’s average population. More than other Germans, this section of the German population – the middle class – fears what the future will bring.

Germany’s democratic parties are losing support in both sub-milieus of Germany’s center – the traditionalists and the modernizers. This impacts on the current governing coalition or what is called the “traffic-light-coalition”.

Currently in government, the traffic-light-coalition consists of three political parties representing the three colors of a traffic light: the social-democratic SPD (red);
the neoliberal FDP (yellow); and,
the environmentalist The Greens (green).

Surprisingly, the decline of support for Germany’s governing coalition did not lead to an upswing for the democratic opposition, the conservative CDU. Because German conservatives are stagnating in public polling, the CDU fails to benefit from the overall decline in support for the government.

Germany’s conservative CDU only gained a meagre 7% from the traditionalist cohort of the middle class. And from the pragmatic group, it got even less support – just 3%. In other words, the decline of support for Germany’s governing “traffic-light-coalition” did not result in an advantage for Germany’s conservatives.

Beyond all that, the overall decline in support for the government and in its democratic institutions, and even an erosion of support for its democratic opposition is in line with a global trend, a worldwide decline in democracy.

At the same time, almost three quarters – a whopping 73% – of all Germans are convinced that it is better for the government to borrow money today in order to invest in the future, and the middle class agrees with this. This is a rather robust rejection of fiscal tightening and austerity.

More than two-thirds of people in the middle class also see it that way. Both – the average German and members of the middle class – support more investment in schools, infrastructure, and climate protection.

State support, in turn, would strengthen the confidence of the center, i.e. the middle class and would strengthen the overall support for democracy.

The middle class has long been a stabilizing element of West Germany’s post-Nazi society. However, this seems to be changing. Once ready to embrace democratic and economic change, today’s middle class seems to be more unsettled and worried.

Among other things, they are unsettled by the frequent crises of capitalism. The recently noticed shift from confidence to trepidation has only been increasing.

While it has been getting a lot of public attention in Germany’s media recently, the decline in confidence has been a longer-term development that has very clearly emerged over the last twenty years.

The once overtly self-confident petty bourgeoisie of the mid-2000s was characterized by an acceptance of a somewhat fictional belief in the “normality” of economic growth.

In short, the petty bourgeoisie fell for the neoliberal promise of eternal growth – a factual impossibility given that earth’s resources are not unlimited.

Once hooked on the glittery promises of neoliberal capitalism pushed by media capitalism, an awareness has increasingly begun to sink in that other – non-economic – values are rising in the consciousness of many people inside as well as outside of the middle class.

These values might be called “post-material values”. They are, for example, ecology, emancipation, interculturality, and so on. This shift in values – linked to an increased awareness of the false promises of neoliberalism – put pressure on the fabricated “certainties” of Germany’s middle class.

Since about 2015, these pressures have slowly led to a new development within Germany’s middle class. It has resulted in an ever more marked differentiation of the middle class into a traditional and nostalgic petit-bourgeois section and an adaptive, modernistic, and pragmatic section.

Despite the split, there are also elements that unite them. One thing is that both technically remain part of the working class because members in both groups are forced to sell their labor to make a living. Both parts also remain united in their quest for social harmony, predictability, job security, and economic prosperity.

Meanwhile, the traditional-nostalgic petty bourgeoisie part feels under pressure due to the constant demand for change caused by, for example, digitization, an ever more diverse society, and how to deal with global warming.

The traditionalists seem to follow the motto: “If something has to change, then only so that everything remains as it is.” The middle class is challenged by:the lack of innovation,
the lagging behind in digitization,
the ever-increasing level of bureaucracy,
the escalating exposure to global competition that challenges its quasi-religious credence that “competition is good”, and
the shortage of skilled workers that impacts Germany’s labor market and businesses.

All this is making life difficult, if not precarious, for the middle class. Unlike the traditionalists, the modernizing and adaptive-pragmatic part of the middle class remains more optimistic about the future.

Their ambitions towards modernization are, however, challenged by an aging post-war infrastructure in urgent need of repair. More worryingly, their belief in eternal growth is being challenged by a flattening economic growth. The deceitful promises of capitalism are slowly catching up with Germany’s petty bourgeoisie.

Optimism about the future of capitalism and eternal economic growth has decreased by a gigantic 20% within just two years and it has done so in both parts of the shrinking middle class.

This is striking but not at all surprising. Much worse than these findings is that the declining optimism has been accompanied by a growing openness to right-wing populist propaganda.

Still worse, far-right propaganda is constantly seeping through into both of the parts.

Paradoxically, the current overall satisfaction with life in general in the middle classes has remained rather high. This is counteracted by the fact that many people in the middle class see their immediate future as deeply clouded. This also impacts on politics.

When taken together, Germany’s democratic parties used to receive a whopping 75% of the electoral vote. Until a few years ago, the neofascist AfD was far behind with only 10% to 12%. The pragmatic center of Germany’s middle class used to remain firmly in the hands of Germany’s democratic parties.

This changed in 2023 and 2024. On the famous Sunday-Question about federal elections: “Who would you vote for if next Sunday where election day?”, support for the three-party traffic light coalition had almost halved by the end of February 2024. But by late April 2024, the coalition had regained some ground.

One of the more recent polls showed: conservative CDU 30%; social-democratic SPD 15%; environmental The Greens 13%; neoliberal FDP 5%; socialist Die Linke 4%; BSW 7%; and the neofascist AfD 18%. In other words, Germany’s traffic-light coalition would receive 58% in mid-April 2024 – still a governing majority.

Nevertheless, the fact that the neo-Nazi AfD remains at 18% is worrying – and that is despite massive rallies against the AfD for the past few months. The impact of the roughly 1700 anti-far-right rallies with between 3.7 and 4.9 million people on the public polling of the AfD does not seem to have been that great.

Both political parties, the AfD and BSW, seem to have taken over the mood of large sections of the nostalgic middle class. If combined, they would have 25% of voter support, with 18% coming from the neofascist AfD and 7% coming from the BSW. This used to be the political space traditionally occupied by the conservative CDU.

The CDU’s strategy of imitating the AfD’s racist dogwhistle politics does not seem to be paying off. Things have been made even worse through their strategy of confrontation. Instead of conversation that leads to compromise, confrontation blocks any fruitful talk about the central issues of German domestic, economic and social policy.

Because of this strategy, the conservatives have, so far, failed to achieve their goal of moving the CDU back into the 40-plus percentage region of voter support which they once had under Kohl and Merkel.

The conservatives have not been able to benefit from the erosion of support for the traffic light coalition. The CDU’s strategy does not seem to be able to break the 30% glass ceiling barrier.

Also, overall, the democratic parties of the traffic-light-coalition do not currently appear to be able to show a sufficient problem-solving ability – at least as presented in the media, which leans mostly neoliberal and further to the right than the general population.

In the end, the mood inside Germany’s middle class remains miserable. The traditionalists, especially, are looking less and less optimistically into the future. Their loss of confidence shapes the social mood, and this is transferred to the wider milieu of the entire middle class.

At the same time, middle class support for Germany’s democratic center is waning, although still managing to remain above the 50% threshold.

Unfortunately, there is a resurgence of polarization and social conflicts in Germany. This, together with the developments outlined above, has led to a strengthening of right-wing populism that increasingly shapes polls and has the potential to impact election results.

The shift to the right might come to the forefront in the upcoming European parliament election and, later in the year, in three state elections in the former East-Germany. The neofascist AfD leads in the polls in Saxony with 31.3%; in Thuringia with 30%; and in Brandenburg with 26.2%.

Unlike the staunchly neoliberal economic policy of the AfD – one of Germany’s most reputable economic research institutes called it “vote AfD and lose” – Germany’s middle class, just like the vast majority of all people in Germany, do not want neoliberalism nor do they want austerity.

They want the exact opposite, namely more investment in the important areas of life, a better functioning infrastructure, better schools and hospitals.

State investment – not austerity, neoliberalism, and the free market – will, so Germany’s middle class believes, foster a better life and that, in turn, will nurture the resilience of democracy.

Overall, Germany’s middle class has remained – more or less – resistant to the lure of right-wing populism. Yet the AfD has made some inroads into Germany’s middle class, mostly into the nostalgic traditionalist sector. Fortunately, these inroads are nowhere close to the inroads Hitler’s Nazi made in 1933.




Thomas Klikauer has over 800 publications (including 12 books) and writes regularly for BraveNewEurope (Western Europe), the Barricades (Eastern Europe), Buzzflash (USA), Counterpunch (USA), Countercurrents (India), Tikkun (USA), and ZNet (USA). One of his books is on Managerialism (2013).