Two dead pregnant women, and the war on drugs

I meant to do a post last week, when the the New York Times carried a story saying the U.S. was taking the war on drugs into Honduras. DEA agents are operating out of three small remote bases, using U.S. helicopters and other equipment, and working with Honduran police.

"This new offensive, emerging just as the United States military winds down its conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and is moving to confront emerging threats, also showcases the nation’s new way of war: small-footprint missions with limited numbers of troops, partnerships with foreign military and police forces that take the lead in security operations, and narrowly defined goals, whether aimed at insurgents, terrorists or criminal groups that threaten American interests," the NYT enthused.

What got my attention was this sentence."The effort draws on hard lessons learned from a decade of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq, where troops were moved from giant bases to outposts scattered across remote, hostile areas so they could face off against insurgents."

Come on. Iraq is a mess. Nothing lasting has been accomplished in Afghanistan, at a cost of thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

Jon Lee Anderson did a fine piece in The New Yorker on the reality of the anti-drug effort in Afghanistan. U.S. contractors, hired to do the work, made money, but not much else positive happened. 

Why would it? If people want something, suppliers will provide it. That's the lesson of prohibition.

The New York Times report went on about the safeguards and rules of engagement in Honduras. 

But on Friday, days later, El Tiempo reported, four "humble and honest citizens" were killed when DEA agents and Honduran police in a helicopter opened fire on a boat on the Patuca River in northeastern Honduras. They were after narcotraficantes, but apparently got the wrong boat. Two men, and their pregnant partners, were killed. Four other people were wounded.

Area residents, El Tiempo reported, set fire to four houses because they blamed local authorities for the deaths.

The local mayor, Lucio Baquedano, was not happy. "These operations were performed irresponsibly because it assumes that the people involved are specialists who will act against drug traffickers and not against healthy people."

Not a great translation. But the point is clear. 

There is increasing support in Latin America for legalizing the drug business. The U.S. isn't doing anything meaningful to reduce or manage demand, the argument goes. 

Why should Honduras and other countries engage in an expensive and futile battle against narco traffickers, and deal with the crime and corruption that comes with the drug trade?

There is real money to be made in supplying Americans and Canadians with cocaine, in a country where people are poor. People can be expected to seize the opportunity, whatever the risks, and to fight, and kill, each other for the chance to escape poverty.
Bringing the war on drugs - with real armies - to Honduras means more deaths and, at best, that the cocaine route moves on to some other country.

Lost in Translation, or in conference with OCDIH

Back from a two-day annual planning meeting with OCDIH, the agency I'm to help in Honduras, and I must say it went brilliantly. I succeeded in managing their expectations down to the point that any contribution I make will come as an enormous and pleasant surprise.

The entire team - some 40 people - gathered to review plans and current issues. It was my introduction to them, and the organization.

To the extent that they are thinking about me at all, the OCDIH team is probably hoping that my Spanish is really weak. It's either that, or I am just not terribly bright.

The meeting only happens once a year. I tried to weasel out the day before, but Edgardo, the top guy, made it clear to the local office that I should be there.

So at 4:45 a.m. Thursday, in the pre-dawn dark, I was in the square to catch a ride in a truck with the local OCDIH office staff. They probably weren't thrilled. I was the sixth person in a truck that seats five. Fortunately, Carlita was small enough to perch on the front console.

We roared along the winding, hilly road to La Entrada, about an hour, and then went another 15 minutes to Nueva Arcadia, where OCDIH has another office. Farmers are burning off the hillsides so they can plant before the rainy season, a bad but common agricultural practice. The haze is everywhere, so thick at one point we were driving the speed limit - a rarity unless a giant truck is in the way - with our four-way flashers on.

We then piled onto a bus, chartered for the occasion, that usually runs between two towns. It was a yellow school bus declared surplus by some district in upstate New York. 

Improved, of course. The row of seats on the driver's side had been lengthened by 10 inches to hold, nominally, three people. A 32-inch LCD TV had been mounted over the driver. And a giant 'Jesus Christo' decal covered the top half of the front window.

The decal was reassuring, given the state of Honduran roads. And we had more insurance. OCDIH stands for the Organismo Cristiano de Desarrollo Integral de Honduras (Dearrollo being development). And on both legs of the journey, we watched a big Christian rock concert on the TV. If our bus went off a steep embankment, the faithful would have some tough questions for God.

We gathered more people from OCDIH offices along the way. Hondurans value greetings. They shook hands, kissed, greeted each other in ways that conveyed real warmth. Edgardo, the boss, made a point of introducing me to the puzzled crew.

Guest today, lunch tomorrow

And, after three hours, we bumped into Monte Horeb, a kind-of hotel "capacitacion centre" outside Gracias Lempiras. First, a big breakfast in an open-air area restaurant - eggs, beans, cheese, tortillas, pickled vegetables - served up cafeteria style, then into the meetings.

Which began with a devotional. Religion is central to NGO life in Honduras. So we had a prayer, and then broke into groups to talk about seven scriptural passages - my group met outside in the sun - and  how they related to our goals of planning for OCDIH. We sang some religious songs, thankfully with lyrics projected on a screen - one to the tune of Red River Valley - and shared our thoughts on the scriptures.

And the meetings were good, if a little undisciplined in terms of time and schedules. Hondurans value inclusiveness, so a one-hour session can stretch into two without any compensating changes in the schedule.

But I was impressed with the presentations and the contributions. I learned a lot about the organization, which works with farmers and poor communities in economic and political development, and the challenges. 

Which is amazing, since I understood about two-thirds of the presentations and maybe one-fifth of the discussions.

Powerpoint was my best friend. In Canada, as soon as I hear the quiet hum of a projector in a meeting room, my mind began to drift. Here, my spirits soared anytime the agenda promised a 'Ppt.' I can read Spanish much better than I can speak it. The more detailed - and likely more tedious for rest of the audience - the better.

And in Canada, I’m good at meetings. I’m quick to grasp things, strategic in finding common ground, purposeful and pretty articulate. Here, I felt like a Grade 3 student thrust into a management meeting on take-your-kid-to-work day. Even if you have something to say, silence seems a wiser option.

The last such event I attended was at a Florida golf resort and conference centre. We ate well, drank some and each had a suite.

At the OCDIH meeting, after lunch, we crossed a field to see our rooms. One for men, one for women, two rows of metal bunks, each about two feet apart. A pillow, sheet and bar of soap. Five showers, one sink and three toilets in an annex at the end. It felt like a cross between summer camp and prison. (Based on my one summer stay at Camp Pinecrest, they are not conceptually that dissimilar.)

Anyone who donates to international aid organizations should be pleased. A chartered school bus, accommodation that almost certainly cost less than $5 a head and meetings that left no real down time. Pretty good value. (And I mean no down time. I woke at 4:50 a.m., because two guys had started talking about some organizational issue as they lay in their bunks.)

The meals were tough for me. The fare in Honduras is built around three staples - beans, tortillas and  queso - a white, salty cheese.  They were part of breakfast, lunch and supper. 

That was fine. I like beans. The challenge was making conversation in my tortured Spanish. Lord knows what I said, or the answers I offered to questions that weren’t actually asked. I spent half an hour talking communications with Gloria, the lead OCDIH person in that area. I’m sure her spirits sank with each passing minute.

But as we retraced the journey on the bus - through some beautiful country, big hills, broad valleys, narrow gorges - I was running through some ways I could help. They have some great stories to tell, and some issues came up in the meetings that cry out for a communications solution. I am good at that. If I can make myself understood. 

And everyone included me in their elaborate goodbyes as they got off the bus.

I don’t think they’re expecting much. But I’m aiming to surprise them.

Starting from scratch in Honduras

From New York Times

I wrote not long ago about the plan - or hope, anyway - for charter cities in Honduras. The idea is that all the current efforts to improve things haven't worked, so it's time to try something radical. Set aside a big chunk of land, start a new city from scratch, suspend democracy and let technocrats make the rules, with the help of a foreign government or two.
Effectively, create a brand new country within Honduras.
There are obvious perils, as I noted. But once you've lived her for a while, it's hard to dismiss the idea out of hand.
There's an interesting piece in the NYT today on the topic.

The Liberals and the point of no return

Having been in the provincial press gallery during the collapse of public confidence in Glen Clark and the NDP, I can claim some familiarity with government tipping points.
There is a day, or maybe a week, when something shifts, and political recovery, already difficult, becomes impossible.
It's not a question of one issue. The casino-licence scandal would have been bad for the NDP administration, for sure, but might have been survivable if it had not messed up so badly on other issues, substituting spin and empty announcements for competent government.
It appears the Liberals might have reached the same desperate point.
The BC Rail scandal will not go away. The government's decision to pay $6 million in legal fees for Dave Basi and Bob Virk appears to be fatal.
Government policy - and the agreement with Basi and Virk - were crystal clear. If they were found not guilty, the government would cover their legal costs. If they weren't, the two would be on the hook. Basi had signed a lien on his home, at the government's demand, as part of a deal.
But, as the BC Rail trial was about to hear potentially damaging testimony, the government cut a deal. It agreed to cover $6 million in legal fees for Basi and Virk. If they pleaded guilty. The special prosecutor also promised no jail time, which would have been expected in a breach of trust case of this magnitude.
The government's position has been that the guilty pleas and the $6-million payment were unrelated.
But that's simply incredible. No matter what clever legal and bureaucratic moves moves were made, the deal was that the government covered the $6 million as part of a deal to get guilty pleas. It appears a  government inducement to get guilty pleas and end the trial.
Vaughn Palmer offers a good review of the government's claims - and their weaknesses - here. The government's arguments might impress legal scholars - or 18th-century Jesuits - but average citizens will find them unpersuasive.
Which, like the casino scandal, might not have been determinative.
But the Christy Clark government has not shown competence on other issues. With 11 sitting days left, the Liberals have not yet introduced the bill to repeal the HST, the mea culpa citizens are awaiting. It has floundered on other issues and shown no clear direction.
The polls have been bad for some time. But this week might mark the point at which recovery became impossible

Update:
There is a very good look at the evidence establishing that the $6 million was an inducement to obtain guilty pleas, ending the trial, at The Gazetter's site here.

Van Dongen raises a good question about the BC Rail scandal legal deal

I might have considered MLA John van Dongen's questions on the $6-million payment of the legal fees of  Dave Basi and Bob Virk in the B.C. Rail scandal a fishing expedition.
But Attorney General Shirley Bond's failure to provide answers suggests he might be on to something.
Van Dongen, now a Conservative after leaving the Liberals, asked Bond a straightforward question.
The government's position is that the decision was made by deputy finance minister Graham Whitmarsh, who had the legal ability to release Basi and Virk from their commitment to cover the $6 million if they were found guilty.
But deputy ministers don't have unlimited power to spend taxpayers' dollars.
Van Dongen asked which section of the Financial Administration Act gives the deputy minister the power to make that decision without authorization from cabinet or elected officials.
And Bond couldn't come up with one, although the government surely must have prepared for every possible question on the B.C. Rail scandal.
Van Dongen noted "The act sets out very specific limits for the forgiveness and extinguishments of debts owing the provincial government." That's sensible. A manager shouldn't have the power to let people or companies abandon their debts to the province without checks and balances.
So where in the act is the the deputy minister given the power to forgive a $6 million promise to pay legal fees, he asked?
Bond couldn't, or wouldn't answer, except with an unsupported clam the authority is somewhere in the act.
Maybe she reflected a general government approach of refusing to provide specific answers to any questions.
Or maybe van Dongen has identified a serious legal problem in the B.C. Rail payment.
The ethical problem, of course, remains in any case.
Basi and Virk pleaded guilty to get $6 million to pay their legal fees (and light sentences). If they had not, they would have lost their homes and everything they had.
Without the inducement provided by the provincial government, the trial would have continued.
The appearance - at the least - is that the provincial government paid to persuade the defendants to plead guilty. And that is not how the justice system is supposed to work.

You can read the exchange between Bond and van Dongen here.

My driving test in 2039

My dad passed his driving test on his 87th birthday Friday in Medicine Hat. My mum passed her's earlier this year. Good going for both of them.
It struck me that if I take a driving test at the same age, it will be in 2039, which seems improbably far away. (I posted the observation on Facebook, and people commented hopefully on the possibility I'd take the test in a solar-powered flying car.)
Then I realized that if our two youngest, Sam and Rachelle, face the same retest at 87, it would be in 2072.
If our youngest grandboy Owen faces a test at the same age, it will be in 2096.
It's my birthday today, so I'm a little more conscious of the passing of time.
But I've never really thought about the prospect of being around  in 2039 (accepting that I might not be). The idea that a kid I know and care about will quite likely be waiting on the arrival of the next century is mind-blowing, to use a word that reveals just how long I have been around.
And instructive. I tend to think of the next few years. When I was a corporate guy, running newspapers, I thought of the next few months, the quarterly results being all important. Politicians think in terms of a four-year election cycle, or less if there aren't fixed election dates.
But for our children, and their children, the game is much longer. Logging protected areas to get three or four more years of production won't mean much in 10 or 50 years. Running a deficit to pay today's bills just means a debt that will be due in the future.
Then there are the big issues. Even if climate-change deniers challenge the scientific consensus on causes, the changes ahead are significant. Here in Honduras, they are imminent. People have planted beans and corn on the same days in May for generations, confident the rains would come soon after. If the rain doesn't come, and the crops wither, they go hungry and, perhaps, children die. In the 'developed world,' adaptation and technical responses are possible solutions. Not here, not for the 60 per cent of Hondurans living in poverty.
And there are the trend lines. In Canada, wealth has been increasingly concentrated in a small group, thanks in part to government policies, as I noted here. If that trend continues over decades, the gap will be enormous.
Voter turnout - the ultimate indicator of government legitimacy - has steadily fallen. When will it reach a point that democracy is no longer a credible concept?
It's past time that political parties - and all of us - start to talk about the future we see for our grandchildren.

The distinct allure of abandoning democracy in Honduran cities

Three months ago, when I was new in Honduras, I probably would have dismissed the 'charter cities' idea pitched in a column in today's Globe and Mail as undemocratic and dangerous.
Now I'm not sure the Honduran government's decision to give them a try here is wrong.
The concept is a free-market elitist's dream.  Set aside a large parcel of land, big enough for a city with several million inhabitants. Make it, at least figuratively, a walled city separate from the norms and conventions and justice system and laws of the host country.
Suspend democracy and give power to appointed experts who would set up new rules and enforcement systems. (Some basic rights and guarantees would be preserved.)
The common model would see foreign governments, and private companies, help with administration - maybe providing judges or a police force.
The concept is that the cities, by providing stability and safety and shunning corruption, would attract foreign investment. There would be jobs. And people would choose to move to them. The Globe column pitches the idea as creating a little Canada in the middle of Honduras, which is in itself attractive. Equally, it could be described as setting up a little China in the middle of the country, with the state's experts making all the rules.
The idea tends to be embraced by free-market enthusiasts, who counter the undemocratic aspects by noting people can vote with their feet by moving away from the city if they don't like it.
That's not really democracy, nor is it really true. Desperately poor people - and more than 40 per cent of Hondurans live in extreme poverty - grab at any opportunity. Survival takes priority over exercising or demanding democratic rights. Some 700,000 Hondurans are living illegally in the U.S., and every day people try a dangerous journey to a better life, risking robbery, murder and starvation along the way. In the first three months of this year, the U.S. has sent 8,200 people back. (The economy would be devastated if Hondurans didn't head to the U.S. They send about $2.7 billion back to their families here - about 19 per cent of the country's GDP. (Those quick with numbers will note that the entire economic output of this country of 8.3 million people is less than British Columbia spends on health care.))
So claiming that they will leave a charter city if the masters abuse them is just false. (There is a useful post on the perils of model cities here; advocates make their case in this report.)
Democracy is messy and inefficient. But who would the appointed directors of the charter city serve - the citizens, or the companies, largely foreign, whose investment is essential to the city's success?
It's not just a theoretical discussion here. Last year, the Honduran Congress voted to allow Regions Especial de Desarrollo, or REDs. The law clears the way for charter cities.
But all that said, I can't reject the idea out of hand. It is really tough to see a way forward, one that would ease the suffering and give hope to Hondurans, who consider crime, corruption, poverty and bad government the norm, and an inevitability.
Maybe model cities - for all the risks - would offer an alternative that would at least suggest possibilities for the people of this country.
As Bob Dylan said, when you ain't got nothing, you've got nothing to lose.