wolainterns

[wolainterns]

Protecting Protestors: United States Response to Police Violence in Colombia and Cuba

By: Maria Rita Furtado, Spring 2022 Colombia & Cuba Program Intern

AP Photo/Fernando Vergara

            In 2021, thousands of protesters took to the streets in Colombia and Cuba to protest policies in their respective governments. The Paro Nacional, a people-led national strike in Colombia that lasted from April to July, overlapped with the events of July 11 in Cuba, also referred to as the “largest-scale demonstration in decades” on the island. Both demonstrations were broadcasted internationally as police forces used violence against protesters. The United States—one year after their own mass-scale protests against police brutality and the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement—had a remarkably different response to each incident.

El Paro Nacional

            On April 28, the usual music of traffic and bustling pedestrians was replaced with a new rhythmic song: a resounding echo of chants from thousands of protestors gathered in a mass-scale national strike. The Paro Nacional was led by marginalized groups including youth, women, and Indigenous peoples to reject president Ivan Duque’s disputed tax reform bill originally created to stimulate the economy after COVID-19 generated a decline. Outraged by how the bill would disproportionately affect the lower class by cracking down on tax evasion and increasing taxes on necessary goods and services, the people dominated the streets for weeks in record-breaking numbers, capturing the attention of international media outlets. The protests were also compounded with an already growing dissatisfaction with past social policies dating back to 2016. According to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, civil society reported 51 deaths, 132 missing persons cases, and 87 cases of sexual violence committed by police forces against female protestors.

During these months of intense civil demonstrations and violence, the Biden administration remained silent on the issue despite statements made by U.S. congressional members urging the State Department to act. WOLA published multiple statements calling the Biden administration to publicly denounce violence by police forces and the Colombian state, yet the administration failed to act on  any of these statements. Eventually, months after the peak of the protests, Secretary of State Antony Blinken briefly mentioned the importance of accountability and how ending impunity could prevent future instances of violence, however this did not result in any actionable steps by Biden.

July 11 Protests in Cuba

            Similar to the Paro, Cuba faced its own level of wide-scale protests on July 11 of 2021 as a multi-pronged response to a declining economy, lack of basic needs, frustration with the government’s response to COVID-19, and an ongoing humanitarian crisis. COVID-19 ravaged Cuba’s resources as medicine, food, and electric energy was directed to hospitals caring for the sick. Additionally, previous U.S. policies towards Cuba such as the persistence of the embargo, restrictions on remittances and travel, and obstacles to humanitarian aid deliveries in the midst of the pandemic exacerbated the crises on the island. Social media was a major factor in spreading information on the protests among the public, and thus was shut down to limit influence on the ongoing protests. The days that followed were marked by police violence — according to a BBC news report, one man was reported dead as another 140 were reported arrested or missing. In a later report, BBC relayed numbers posted by Cubalex, an independent legal platform, stating that over 700 people were still in jail; in 2022, 710 are still awaiting trial according to Al Jazeera.

Though the protests in both countries occurred in response to unjust government policies and hosted violent repression tactics that led to massive human rights violations, the Biden administration responded differently to each case. As a result of a longstanding relationship with the Colombian government, there was no official condemnation by the U.S. government of police violence during the Paro Nacional, whereas the Biden administration did publish an official statement rejecting the violence in Cuba. Still, the statement came with no actionable steps behind it. Cuba still suffers from the 60-year embargo that has prevented Cuban citizens from accessing basic needs, and the end of the embargo is nowhere in sight. In officially rejecting these abuses of power in Colombia and providing actionable steps toward peace and protection in Cuba, Biden would exemplify that the protection of human rights should always be held to the highest degree.

[wolainterns]

Outsourcing Border Security

By: Andres Jimenez Larios, Spring 2022 Border Security & Venezuela Program Intern

(AP Photo/Julio Cortez)

Introduction

As of May 1st, 2022  the Biden Administration waivered on its intent to phase out Title 42, a Trump-era provision issued by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) that enabled the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to expeditiously remove undocumented migrants from the United States without permitting them to undergo the asylum request process in the country. As much as U.S. immigration policy shifts with changes in domestic affairs, a pattern begins to emerge when one analyzes the United States’ positions on migration abroad, which is essentially: stay away. Over the past decade, U.S. foreign policy has continued to rely upon other sovereign countries to enforce its goal of migration deterrence, one such prominent example being Mexico. 

Creating the Vertical Border

The U.S.-Mexico border has always been a contentious topic throughout both nations' history. Now more than ever with the arrival of migrants from all across Latin America, the U.S. has implemented its own domestic changes, such as the Stephen Miller interpretation of Title 42. Additionally, the U.S. has exerted pressure on Mexico to align with its own migration policies. The Mexican government’s subsequent compliance has labeled it as the vertical border to the United States. This is in reference to the increased border enforcement infrastructure placed throughout the length of Mexico; from increased checkpoints in southern Mexican states, to national guard and migration officials patrolling the train lines that have historically taken migrants to the northern part of the country.  Migrants who have traveled from countries from around the world find themselves in an increasingly difficult situation once they arrive at the Mexico - Guatemala border. This is not accounting for the challenges many had to overcome earlier in their journey when many migrants found themselves crossing perilous obstacles in an attempt to arrive at the border. An estimated 16,399 thousand migrants have been apprehended at Mexico’s southern border in just the first two months of 2022, a stark increase in comparison to the same period of time in 2021 where 6,876 encounters were registered. This sheer quantity of people puts a strain on the Mexican government's existing infrastructure and its capacity to process individuals. Meanwhile, the U.S. has reported encountering 319,718 migrants as of January and February, with most migrants arriving from Mexico, Guatemala, Cuba, Honduras, and Venezuela. 

The U.S. has increasingly relied upon other countries to implement policies to deter migrants and refugees from migrating northward, in a misguided attempt to make the consequences for migrating costlier than the benefits. Still, many migrants continue with their journeys despite the high levels of risk. Within the last year, the United States has pressured Mexico to impose visa restrictions on migrants originating from Brazil, Ecuador, and Venezuela after migrants and refugees from those countries arrived at the U.S. border in record numbers in 2021. 

US Initiatives for Strengthening Borders

The United States has recently leveraged financial resources and threats of shutting down economic cooperation with Mexico over immigration issues, an extremely unprecedented move on part of the US. The Mérida Initiative transformed from an initiative aimed to tackle drug trafficking in the country to then becoming the framework that allowed the U.S. to pressure Mexico into reinforcing its border resources with its oversight and support. One of the outlined goals of the U.S.-Mexico Bicentennial Framework for Security, Public Health and Safe Communities, the successor to the Mérida Initiative, elaborates the intention between both countries to work closer together on strengthening immigration enforcement, asylum institutions in Mexico, and  the sharing of information. Even with the recent push to transfer responsibilities from the Mérida Initiative to the Bicentennial Framework, officials still point out how intertwined Mexico’s policy goals would be with those of the US, stating:

“[The U.S.-Mexico Bicentennial Framework] would be a win for Mexico, but it means the agreement also implied Mexico was accepting that the United States' security concerns were its own concerns.” - anonymous [Mexican] official.

Impact of this Policy

This externalization done by the U.S. places the responsibility of migration enforcement on other countries and has adverse consequences that hurt vulnerable populations. Many migrants traveling northward are fleeing serious conditions including poverty, violence, and persecution in their home countries. Migrants find themselves voyaging through more limited legal routes, or worse, increasingly dangerous routes that put them at greater risk of organized crime, starvation, and exploitation. For example, after Mexico imposed visa restrictions on Venezuelans, many migrants decided to trek through the Darien Gap on foot which contains dangers related to travel through a dense jungle as well as organized crime operating through the region. An estimated 4,257 migrants from Venezuela were encountered between January and March of 2022, compared to 2,819 Venezuelans encountered in all of 2021. These reactionary policies put into place by the United States, and subsequently Mexico, have not shown to reduce the number of migrants primarily because these policies are not addressing the root cause of migration - they only make it more dangerous and costly for migrants and refugees to reach their destinations. Additionally, by imposing this pressure on Mexico and other countries to adopt its own migratory policy goals, the U.S. is infringing on the sovereignty of independent countries. Each country has its own authority to respond to domestic issues as it sees fit, as well as provide international protection to vulnerable populations. The U.S. should distance itself from pressuring other countries to adhere to its policy goals, as well as from imposing reactionary migratory policies that function as a short-term measure that causes more harm to migrants.  Rather the U.S. should seek to address the root causes of migration from a human rights and humanitarian perspective alongside the communities where many migrants originate from.

[wolainterns]

Assuring Protections for Environmental Activists in Honduras: Challenges, Patterns, and the Need for an Intersectional Approach

By: Hannah Bomberg, Spring 2022 Central America Program Intern

Photo by Fernando Antonio, via AP Photo

“The final question Berta was asked in the 2015 Buenos Aires interview was this: did she fear for her life? ‘Yes, oh yes, we are scared,” she exclaimed. ‘It’s not easy living in Honduras, it’s a country where you see brutal violence, the threats and [assassination] attempts are constant.” (182)

Many marked 2021 as a hopeful turning point in Honduras. In November, the country elected its first female president Xiomara Castro, and in July, Honduras saw the historic conviction of Roberto David Castillo, former head of the dam company Desarrollos Energéticos, for his participation in the 2016 high-profile death of indigenous environmental defender Berta Cáceres. This conviction was widely applauded and presented as proof of a functioning justice system in Honduras. Yet, over six years later, the intellectual authors of Cáceres’ murder have still not been put on trial, making this a case of both impunity and incomplete justice. The Castillo verdict came only after intense international pressure and attention, a privilege many cases do not receive. Indeed, Honduras overall remains among the most dangerous countries to be an environmental or land rights activist. 

Although Xiomara Castro’s new government has sought to work with women and indigenous, Afro-descendent and LGBTQI+ groups, developing efforts to secure protections for human rights and the environment requires an understanding of how these groups experience rights abuses differently. This is so far lacking from Castro’s plan to “Refound Honduras” and the government’s overall approach to making Honduras safer. In Honduras, environmentalism is deeply rooted in the social identities, geographical space, and historical roles of black and indigenous peoples and is often spearheaded by female activists.

Indigenous and Afro-Community Rights are Environmental Rights

"They say we’re against development, that we’re criminals and vandals. They expel us from our territories, and then they kill us. !Ya Basta!’” -Miriam Miranda (227)

According to a 2020 report published by the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, the “root cause of most social conflicts [in Honduras] is the systematic lack of transparency and meaningful participation” of communities affected by the exploitation of natural resources. Various types of inequality are often talked about as separate from each other – i.e. environmental inequality vs inequality based on race, class, gender, sexuality, etc., while missing how some individuals are subject to multiple, overlapping inequalities.

Looking at the conditions surrounding threats against environmental activists, the framing of their demands and portrayal as just environmentalists is only part of the story. In fact, their calls are rooted in social and ethnic identity – in Cáceres’s case, her environmentalism is rooted in her Lenca identity, leading to her opposition to a hydroelectric project that included the construction of a dam in the Gualcarque River, which is sacred for her community. As Miriam Miranda, leader of the Black Fraternal Organization of Honduras (OFRANEH,) puts it, “the Indigenous peoples, the Afro communities, the local communities are here because we have been protecting and taking care of resources”. 

Centering the Role of Women

“Berta’s friend, the Garifuna leader Miriam Miranda, agrees. ‘They didn’t just kill a defender or an indigenous leader, or an environmentalist – they killed a woman who dared speak out against a patriarchal system.” (148)

Miranda also pointed to the pivotal role that women play in this struggle; her community is matrilineal and thus involves women in every aspect of the participation and decision-making process. Women are the ones who, in particular, in the environmental rights struggle, have been at the forefront of activism, defending water, land, and models of sustainable use and practice. Though they represent a significant number of the overall total of activists, female defenders consistently face different pressures and risks than their male counterparts. Although both male and female activists face arbitrary police investigations, detentions, and local smear campaigns, females also confront sexual harassment. Furthermore, they face difficulties with their own families or communities who sometimes object to their leadership.

Moving Forward

Given the context of violence and impunity that human rights defenders in Honduras constantly face, the state must prioritize ensuring their safety and ability to work without fear of violence or discrimination. An intersectional approach must be central in this process. Justice and consistent measures to address root causes of this targeting of environmental and human rights defenders, women, indigenous and Afro-communities, and LGBTQI+ persons are critical. In particular, the Attorney General should strengthen its office’s capacity to investigate crimes with human rights elements and develop an investigative framework that takes into account the dangers and experiences inherent to various groups and those who work to defend human rights and the environment. The prospect of a UN International Commission against Impunity (CICIH), which Xiomara Castro requested earlier this year, could also be an important tool in strengthening investigative capacity for corruption cases linked to environmental projects. Ensuring equal and meaningful participation of affected communities in national discussions and decision-making, combined with a broader effort to empower them through meaningful reform and legislation, is the start of leading Honduras to a more just future. 

Note: Quotes at the beginning of sections are drawn from: Lakhani, Nina. Who Killed Berta Cáceres? Dams, Death Squads, and an Indigenous Defender’s Battle for the Planet. Verso, 2020. An electronic copy may be found at: https://www.versobooks.com/books/3180-who-killed-berta-caceres

[wolainterns]

The impacts of the Drug War on Gender Roles, Social Vulnerabilities and Justice

By: Carolina Ahumada, Fall 2021 Drug Policy & Women and Incarceration Intern

Photo by Valerio Bispuri

A paradox is occurring in Latin America concerning the issue of incarceration. While the numbers of people in prison are increasing at a rampant rate, the reasons for which these people are detained are a handful. In fact, these can be summarized under the umbrella of the war on drugs and its most direct consequence, drug trafficking. We also know that in this war, those who are imprisoned are mostly people at the bottom of the trafficking chain. Those who sell small amounts of drugs answer to large organizations who, in general, recruit their soldiers who come from the highest levels of vulnerability.

‘Mulas’: capitalist and patriarchal oppression

When we speak of oppression and vulnerability, we think of the damage caused by the extractive capitalist model, but we also need to be looking at the damage of patriarchal oppression. In this conjunction that results in the feminization of poverty, we see how the population of women in prison for drug-related reasons has increased in the last decade at a greater rate than that of men. In general, the women who participate in the trafficking chain are those responsible for moving the substances for distribution both within and across borders in exchange for very little monetary compensation. The common, and derogatory, term for these women is ‘mulas.’ Many of them are often unaware of what they are transporting until just prior to the task, or in the worst cases, when they are arrested. There is no single or unique motivation for engaging in these activities. It may be for reasons of survival for low-income women, who may be (and often are) the heads of household, and have children or family members with health problems or disabilities. Similarly, they may have been involved in the crime by deception, coercion, or had been co-opted by networks of traffickers, among other reasons. Those who "hire" these women take extreme advantage of their vulnerability and lack of information or knowledge of those who are on the first lines of defense in the trafficking chain, allowing these people to get away with the worst of their abuses by using these women as shields against the most dangerous tasks of the trade.

An unfortunately common situation, but with a surprising outcome

On February 1, 2019, N.C —63 years old and a native of the province of Salta—was traveling in a long distance bus coming from the city of Bariloche bound for the Chilean town of Osorno, and when the bus arrived at the border crossing with Chile, the National Gendarmerie Squadron 34 "Bariloche," which was carrying out a routine control check, discovered that she was carrying 2.722 kilograms of cocaine, arranged in four packages that were attached to her body. N.C was arrested and charged with "attempted smuggling for export, aggravated by the fact that it involved narcotics.”

The investigation indicated that, 20 days before the event, N.C had crossed from the town of Salvador Maza, Salta, to the Bolivian city of Yacuiba, where it is presumed that she would have been supplied with the drug.

After analyzing the communications of the woman's telephones, the investigators concluded that she "was transporting the narcotic substance in compliance with an obligation imposed by a third party.”

On July 7, 2021, an abbreviated trial was held with the participation of the Attorney General Miguel Ángel Palazzani and the defense of the woman. At the hearing, the representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office analyzed the background of the case and withdrew the accusation against the defendant, considering that she was a person "who belongs to a socially disadvantaged sector, who was in a 'desperate' situation of extreme need due to the economic impossibility of paying for a high-risk surgery that her son needed and the pressure that fell on her as the main economic and emotional support of her family. Faced with this situation, third parties, abusing her situation of extreme vulnerability, used her to transport narcotic material, and in this way, allow her to obtain the money necessary for her son to receive adequate medical attention.”

Need for reform of the drug law with a gender perspective

In his arguments, Attorney General Palazzani considered that "a judicial decision that lacks a gender perspective is inadmissible in light of the obligations assumed by the National State in relation to the protection of women (under Articles 1, 2 paragraphs a, b, c, d, f and ccts. concordant and consequent) of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women and Art. 75 inc. 22 of the Argentine National Constitution.

He concluded that the defendant "played the role of a ‘mula’’ in a chain of trafficking in which she was only the weakest link, pressured by circumstances of extreme necessity (poverty, marginalization and a desperate health situation of her son who had to be treated). Therefore, this context must have its due role in the application of a solution that is respectful of the human rights involved.” Palazzani recalled that "in our Penal Code, the state of justifying necessity proceeds when the typical conduct is carried out to avoid a greater and imminent evil," by virtue of which he withdrew the accusation and postulated the dismissal of her case.

The cost of imprisonment

Year after year, governments spend millions of dollars to incarcerate and criminalize people for drug-related reasons. There is an urgent need to revise punitive policies so that low-level and/or non-violent crimes, committed by women or men, are not penalized with imprisonment. Being the head of a family and having relatives under their watch should be considered as extenuating circumstances. It should be understood that prison should not be the way to handle drug-related matters, and that it generates irreparable damage for those in situations of vulnerability, and more specifically, for women. For all the consequences that disproportionately affect women, it is important to encourage and ensure their participation in the debate on the development and reform of current drug policies to institutionalize a gender perspective so that their fate does not fall solely on the shoulders of a court that decided to include it in its ruling. While a gender perspective is not incorporated by most of the justice systems in the region, this decision is a watershed moment that sets up an important precedent for other rulings to uphold the rights of women in this context.

[wolainterns]

Patriarchy in Action: The Struggle to Center Women’s Experience in Colombia’s Armed Conflict

By: Yadira Sánchez-Esparza, Fall 2021 Mexico & Colombia intern

Photo by Ryan Brown via Flickr

Women accounted for a significant percentage of victims of the violence from Colombia's armed conflict—an unequal distribution of pain and overall suffering. Even 40% of the FARC guerrillas ranks were women, yet they remained excluded from the initial negotiations that led to Colombia’s 2016 peace accord. This intentional silencing reflects a larger pattern of structural violence that existed prior to the armed conflict, which is taught in the home, reinforced in society, and ultimately legitimized by the state. Yet, despite this oppressive status quo, women in Colombia have been active participants in advocating for themselves, their communities, and the peace process by institutionalizing their respective emotions.

Women’s groups across Colombia are leading peacebuilding efforts to bring to light the disproportionate, gendered impact of the internal armed conflict’s violence. For instance, Colombian feminist organization Casa de la Mujer, in collaboration with a series of other organizations, published their recent report entitled TruthIs: Politicizing Women’s Pain and Emotions. The report, filled with sobering testimonies and concerted recommendations by victims of gender-based violence, was submitted to the Truth Commission—an entity that forms part of Colombia’s tripartite transitional justice system and is responsible for clarifying the truth of what occurred during Colombia’s decades-long internal armed conflict. Three of Colombia's departments—Meta, Córdoba, and Cauca—have dedicated chapters in the report, as they are home to many Indigenous and Afro-descendants who were disproportionately affected by the conflict. With the report’s submission to the Truth Commission, these women’s groups are contributing to implementing the 2016 peace accord’s trailblazing gender provisions, urging they be used as mechanisms for justice.

Women and the Peace Process

Reports like TruthIs are possible because of the efforts placed forth to include a gender approach in the peace process. The inclusion of the peace accord’s innovative gender provisions was no easy feat. When peace negotiations began between the Colombian state and FARC guerrillas, women were not granted a seat at the table to participate and it took the intentional efforts of about 450 women’s organizations to push then-Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos to allow for two seats. In September 2014, a gender subcommittee was launched that included five members in total from the FARC and the government. But nonetheless, the gender provisions that resulted from the subcommittees' contributions received significant pushback, mainly due to an opposition movement that labeled the recognition of LGBTQ+ and women rights as a “gender ideology”. This push came mainly from evangelical factions who sought to hinder advances in protecting different gender identities and sexual orientations. Unfortunately, this opposition movement succeeded in helping deter support to the peace accord and help the plebiscite fail, resulting in the “no” vote succeeding by a margin of less than 1 percent.

Despite these setbacks, women’s eventual integration allowed them to play an essential role in the delegations of victims, where women represented 60% of the members. This integration has led the Colombian government and the FARC to release statements that reflected positively on women’s rights, inclusivity, and diversity. The largest impact can be seen in legislation around sexual violence in which many agreements have a gender focus and sexual violence is listed as a crime that can not be amnestied under the accord. Essentially, the peace process without women is not adept to face the dynamic problems that face civil society and the Colombian government.

Women’s lives before the armed-conflict

The report brings attention to the continuum of violence that existed prior to the known inception of the armed conflict. The pre-established systems of oppression against women were deeply ingrained from interpersonal relations and into the larger structure of financial, economic, and physical oppression in Colombian society. The harmful ideology of machismo upholds and perpetuates a traditional expression of masculinity and femininity, which is simultaneously tied to a rigid gender binary in which women are inferior to men.

“Habia una buena relación, las mujeres eran sumisas porque el que mandaba era el marido”145

"There was a good relationship, the women were submissive because the husband was in charge "145

Beyond this, machismo minimizes and normalizes violence against women often becoming internalized in men and women. Throughout the interview process, women shared that they found their relationships to their spouses, families, and communities to be generally positive in terms of their quality of life. However, In the same recounting of events they would include anecdotes of violence within families, partners, and insecurity for women in general:

“En alugnas familias había conflictos ecónomicos y pasionales cuando un hombre cela a una mujer, también en las familias había maltrato y violencia...no dejaban salir a la mujer por celos y golpes” (145, TruthIs)

"In some families, there were economic conflicts and conflicts of passion when a man was jealous of a woman, in families, there was mistreatment and violence...they did not let the woman go out because of jealousy and beatings" (145, TruthIs).

Additionally, there was an extreme division of labor and enforced subordination in which women had no rights to education or entrepreneurship. This, in turn, would not only confirm the biases against women but limit women to vulnerable socio-economic situations. The intentional retraction of resources was a manifestation of how little value women held in Colombian society thus making it easier for perpetrators to dehumanize and enact intimate and familial violence on them. The TruthIs report provides insight that before the conflict these girls and women had already been reduced to public commodities instead of dignified humans. Sexual violence was already systematically being practiced by perpetrators who exploited the physical and bodily autonomy of women:

[...] "antes de llegar los paramilitares, los ricos compraban a las niñas, la gente que tenía plata compraba a las niñas a sus padres: dos, tres vacas; tres, cuatro, diez mil pesos por una niña, y entonces se la llevaban a vivir uno, dos meses, y ahí la dejaban y salían y compraban otra." (Narrativa de líder de Córdoba-68).

[...] "before the paramilitaries arrived, the rich people bought girls, those who had money bought the girls from their parents: two, three cows or three, four, ten thousand pesos for a girl. They took her to live with them for one or two months. They would leave her there and go out and buy another one." (Narrative of a leader from Córdoba-68)

Ultimately, the qualitative research provided in the report demonstrated the extent of the normalization of violence in communities that would later be appropriated by various armed actors to use women as pawns for dominance.

Women’s experiences in the armed conflict

The TruthIs report highlights that the larger struggle during the armed conflict is impossible to understand without understanding how women experienced gender-based violence, a reality supported by the Constitutional Court’s report that sexual violence was a ‘systematic, habitual and generalized practice’ appropriated by all armed groups in the Colombian conflict. Estimates include that armed groups were responsible for the rape of 12,809 women, the forced prostitution of 1,575, the forced pregnancies of 4,415 women, and the forced abortions of 1,810 women. Both the falsehood of security and the unstable security vanished leaving only extreme direct violence, a reality that became unavoidable from the youngest child to elderly mothers. This new milieu instilled fear that did not allow them to live their lives as they had before, new biopolitics was being forcibly instilled in communities across Colombia.

“Mi mamá no me hizo fiesta de quince porque decía que eso era darles aviso a los hombres armados de que ya se lo podían comer a uno.”36

"My mother didn't throw me a quinceañera because she said that would be a warning to the armed men that they could have me. "36

The TruthIs report highlighted how Afro-descendant and Indigenous women were disproportionately impacted not only because of the regions in which they live but the many dimensions of discrimination that they face. And so, Colombia’s history with slavery and oppression of bodies continued to burden those who have historically been disregarded. Sexual violence was used to control and dominate physically, culturally, economically, and territory for the larger perceived purpose of the conflict. For example, guerrillas have used sexual violence in the forced recruitment of girls as combatants, girls as sex slaves, and as payment to protect other family members.

“Ya el pensamiento era de oder que la mujer conquistara al que tiene el poder...cuando empezaron a llegar los grupos armados, más que todo los paramilitares y los soldados...ya no se buscaba marido por amor sino alguien que nos protegiera”. 38

"The idea was that the woman should conquer the one in power...when the armed groups began to arrive, especially the paramilitaries and the soldiers...they were no longer looked for a husband for love, but for someone who would protect us. "38

State Security Forces’ have been distinctively damaging as the civilian population has no mechanism for justice. These militias’ essential position is to protect and support civilians’ rights to a life free of violence. However, as described by many victims, these entities often took advantage of the chaos to extend harm on vulnerable populations exercising violence against women on a mass scale. Unlike FARC or ELN groups targeted by the government, the State Security Forces were never held accountable for their actions since they operated as the rule of law in these sometimes remote areas. The impunity surrounding State Security Forces has protected many individuals and battalions from being held accountable for the crimes committed against their civilians.

The significance of a report like TruthIS being presented to the Truth Commission

It’s innovative, it highlights not only the perseverance of women’s resistance but how women in these communities utilized their pain and emotions to contribute to the peace process. This report refutes the machismo mindset, that normalizes victim-blaming, and minimizes the suffering of women instead highlighting how women can strengthen peacebuilding efforts.

It’s intentional, the report is taking advantage of the gender provisions in order to create a historical record nationally and internationally affirming the violence committed against women in the context of the armed conflict. It demonstrates how important it is for women to be integrated into the peacebuilding process since their participation also promotes gendered provisions. The regional focus on the Pacific Coast is to emphasize that Afro-descendant and Indigenous women were impacted in specific and targeted ways.

It’s an example, using testimony as an integral component in communicating the differentiated impact the internal conflict had on women. These individuals’ experiences centered on sexual and physical violence but also brought to light how women experienced forced disappearances, forced displacement, forced recruitment, and psychological trauma. The report also includes the experiences of trans individuals and those with different sexualities which as previously discussed are realities that are often overshadowed.

The struggle to end sexual violence continues

While this report is an exceptional demonstration of how far women’s engagement has come in terms of their healing, liberation, and role in the peace process, it can’t begin to entirely eclipse the intricacies of trauma that remains in the wake of the armed conflict. The recent webinar hosted by Oxfam, WOLA, and the Latin America Working Group provided space for women to share in their own words how they experienced violence and the intergenerational trauma felt in their families and communities. The sheer courage displayed moving and the overall message that the fear and continued instability are incredibly prevalent. The women shared a general desire for their daughters and sons to live in reality free of violence, a dream that seems almost unattainable in the current reality.

Presently, the Pacific Coast home to the Cauca and Cordóba departments continue to be disproportionately impacted by violence against women as the demobilization of guerrillas and the increase of militarization in areas previously abandoned by the state has maintained the armed conflict’s violence continuum as young women are still forced into armed prostitution and sexual abuse. Nationally, UN Women reported that 37% of women in Colombia will experience physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence at least once in their lifetime, and over 50% of Colombian men surveyed for a 2010 UN study admitted to abusing their female partners. This violence has continued to be exacerbated following COVID-19 the FISCALIA reported 60.581 cases of domestic violence across the country.

Women’s Resistance

The silencing of women’s voices and experiences has been constant before, during, and after Colombia’s armed conflict. However, new forms of advocacy and resistance have forced attention onto wounds that many responsible and complacent actors would rather ignore. Of these actors, the Colombian state should grant a public apology to victims of sexual violence experienced by girls, women, and those with different sexual orientations and gender identities. In addition, the international community should hold the Colombian state accountable for implementing the gender provisions of the 2016 Peace Accord that focus on women’s rights, gender, and their social and political participation. Ultimately, the resistance of female victims and community non-profits such as Casa de la Mujer is integral in pushing forward narratives deserving of public attention and justice. Therefore, defending and amplifying the voices and experiences of women that have endured Colombia’s armed conflict is not only a peace mechanism but an active step towards protecting women's dignity and autonomy.

"Bueno yo pienso que al principio pues no éramos visibles, éramos invisibles para todo el mundo porque la mujer no se tenía en cuenta para nada, pero a raíz de todo lo que nos pasó yo creo que reaccionamos y dijimos que Dios nos dejó por algo, y yo pienso que tenemos que dejar una huella de bien en la comunidad, en la sociedad, en nuestra familia, que nos empoderemos en muchos espacios y en muchas cosas. Ver tantas mujeres asesinadas, desaparecidas y uno que ha logrado superar esas cosas es una razón para que otras mujeres vivan a través de nuestra experiencia, que se den cuenta [de] que sí vale la pena luchar y cambiar este país. Los grupos, fundaciones y todo eso nos ayudan a superarnos emocional y económicamente, y si lo hacemos unidas, mejor." (Narrativa de mujer del Meta-143).

"Well, I think that at the beginning, we were not visible. We were invisible to everyone women were not taken into account at all. But as a result of everything that happened to us, I think we reacted, and we said that God left us for something, and I think that we have to leave a mark of good in the community, in society, in our families, and our world. We empower ourselves in many spaces and in many things. Seeing so many women murdered, disappeared, and even one woman who has managed to overcome these despite it all is a reason for all of us to overcome. It is a reason for other women to live despite our experiences, to realize so that they realize [that] it is worth fighting and changing this country. The groups, foundations, and all that help us overcome ourselves emotionally and economically and help us better ourselves emotionally and financially, and if we do it united, all the better." (Narrative of a woman from Meta-143)

[wolainterns]

Haitian Migrants Seeking Protection Face Racist Immigration Policies

By: Sophia Saidi, Summer 2021 Border Security and Communications Intern

Photo by RNW.org via Flickr

The people of Haiti are currently at a massive crossroads of uncertainty as the country finds itself needing to rebuild in more ways than one. On July 7, Haiti was thrust into a deep political crisis when foreign mercenaries assassinated the country’s president, Jovenel Moïse. Now, only slightly more than a month later, the country is facing a second major crisis after a catastrophic earthquake shook the island on August 14 and killed thousands—with the death toll continuing to rise. For some Haitians, leaving the country seems like the only option—but those looking to enter the United States seeking protection currently encounter a cruel and unwelcoming immigration system.

Title 42: A Cruel Trump-Era Policy

Since Title 42—a Trump-era border policy from March 2020—was put into place, the U.S. has swiftly expelled almost one million migrants and asylum seekers at the southern border, regardless of the individual’s status of vulnerability. Despite widespread criticism from human rights and immigration advocacy organizations, President Biden has yet to dismantle the inhumane—and frankly illegal—policy, even though public health experts have stated the order does little to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Still, not all migrants are immediately expelled. Although the criteria for U.S. entry is unclear, many migrants have been allowed to begin the asylum process with that percentage rising after President Biden took office. While it is not clear who exactly is allowed to apply for asylum and who gets turned away, one thing has been made evident: Title 42 does not have an even impact across the board.

Racist Policies Harm Black Migrants at the Border

A report published in April 2021 explains the ways in which Title 42 disproportionately harms Black migrants. For one, the U.S. government has failed to restart asylum processing at ports of entry. This failure disproportionately impacts migrants coming from Africa and the Caribbean, who were not placed in the so-called Migrant Protection Protocols program (MPP)—known by immigration advocates as the Remain in Mexico program— and now, are not included in its wind down. Many Black asylum seekers expelled under Title 42 remain trapped in Mexico, unable to return home or obtain protected status, and face anti-Black violence and discrimination. Black and Indigenous migrants seeking asylum are also at a particular risk for deportation without due process because of the language barriers and racial biases that stand in their way. Currently, these conditions are posing a particular threat to Haitian migrants who are faced with escalating conditions of violence and uncertainty at home.

A History of Discriminatory U.S. Immigration Policy Against Haitians

The U.S. already has a history of enforcing unwelcoming and discriminatory policies against Hatian migrants. During the Clinton administration era, tens of thousands of Haitian migrants fled their country after a military coup, looking for protection in the United States. Under the direction of President Clinton, this wave of Haitian refugees were held at Guantanamo before being repatriated to Haiti, and those who legally could not be sent back—most of whom tested positive for HIV—were detained for years under unlivable conditions in a form of quarantine prison camp.

During the Trump administration, the U.S. adopted a “Turnback Policy,” which in practice, resulted in turning away thousands of asylum seekers arriving at U.S. ports of entry. Specifically, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers began metering asylum seekers, which, due to racial biases, heavily affected Haitian migrants. The widespread use of the Turnback Policy is actually traced to a large arrival of Haitian migrants in Tijuana in May 2016. In fact, a class action lawsuit was filed by a combination of legal and non-profit organizations on behalf of individual asylum seekers and the legal services organization Al Otro Lado, against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and CBP. This court case concluded that Haitians were being detained more frequently and for longer periods of time in comparison to non-Haitian migrants—non-Haitians also had a better chance of being released with check-in proceedings with immigration authorities.

Data from the Department of Homeland Security also shows that in 2019, only three percent of Hatian migrants—475 people—allowed legal entry into the U.S. were refugees or asylum seekers.

Haitian Asylum and Racial Justice

Title 42 has allowed the Biden administration to deport thousands of Hatian migrants, expelling thousands of more migrants during its term so far than the Trump administration did in the entire 2020 fiscal year. So despite President Biden’s rhetoric—which appeared to be far more welcoming to migrants—for Hatian migrants seeking safety in the U.S. has proven to be difficult.  

There has been a surge of migrants leaving Haiti following Moïse’s assassination and it’s likely that more will follow as a result of the earthquake. This past week, the judge investigating Moïse’s assassination resigned from the case after his clerk was killed only two days prior. Though judge Mathieu Chanlatte said little about his decision to step down, this course of events reiterates the threat to Haitian judicial independence, as well as the heightened levels of fear among all Haitians—including civilians and ranking members of the Haitian government.

In a joint letter addressed to the Biden administration, 134 human rights and advocacy groups urged the president to provide protection for those fleeing Haiti and allow them entry at the U.S. border. DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas made a statement on May 22 acknowledging the precarious conditions most Haitians face. This came before Haiti’s two recent and major crises, but the country has only pushed deeper into disaster since then. In a news conference on July 14, Mayorkas told Hatian migrants: “Do not risk your life attempting to enter the United States illegally. You will not come to the United States.”

Haiti was a colonized country, whose enslaved people fought for and won their liberation. Some argue that the ongoing violence that Haiti is experiencing can be summed up as a crisis of imperialism, and that the Western world owes an unpayable debt to the people of Haiti for a history of foreign intervention, destabilization, and suppression.

Experts argue that the first step the Biden administration must take is to dismantle Title 42 and that those with asylum claims must be granted their legally guaranteed access to the U.S. asylum system. The asylum process needs to be restarted in full, both at the Southern border and at other U.S. points of entry. On August 17, DHS suspended all deportation flights to Haiti in response to the earthquake, but did not make it clear when they would resume. After the earthquake in 2010, DHS ended deportation flights only temporarily. The U.S. must guarantee that no Haitian will be sent back to the escalating violence the country is facing—putting their lives even further in danger as most migrants who return must then go into hiding. During the first few months of the Biden administration, deportation flights to Haiti skyrocketed and the most recent deportation flight took place only two days before the earthquake.

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) must also be guaranteed for Haitians currently living in the U.S. for the foreseeable future. The Biden administration restarted TPS for Haitian nationals in May 2021 after the program had been suspended by the Trump administration back in 2019. This type of uncertainty is devastating: Haitian nationals should not have to worry about their protection status every time there’s a new administration. The current TPS designation guarantees protection for Haitians in the U.S. until February 2023, which is not particularly far off given the massive infrastructural changes Haiti needs to undergo. Until the situation in Haiti becomes more stable, the TPS program must be extended and expanded to include Haitians who arrived in the U.S. after July 29 (current designation date).

Lastly, the U.S. government also needs to take a comprehensive look at its immigration policies and enforcement organizations to examine a toxic institutional culture and pervasive racial bias in order to fully address these issues.

The U.S. has a responsibility to end Title 42, which is not only cruel and unlawful, but is also being used to discriminate against specific groups of people. The Biden administration must examine the legacy it wants to leave behind, especially after campaign promises of more humane immigration policies. Though the U.S. may not be able to solve the current crises facing the Haitian people, the U.S. government has a moral obligation to support the people of Haiti by allowing them to seek protection at its borders.

[wolainterns]

The Criminalization and Human Rights Violation of Unaccompanied Children at the U.S-Mexico Border

By: Valerie Gonzalez, Summer 2021 Mexico and Venezuela Intern 

Photo by Vic Hinterlang via Shutterstock

In May 2021, 18,900 unaccompanied minors arrived at the U.S-Mexico Border, setting a record for minors apprehended and detained per month by the United States Customs and Border Patrol Agency (CBP). This rise in detentions is a result of Title 42, a Trump-era policy still in place, that halts asylum procedures and denies entry to migrants at the border under the pretense of the COVID-19 pandemic. Title 42 not only justified the unprecedented expulsion of migrants, but also created a backlog of migrants seeking asylum, including unaccompanied minors.

Children arrive at the border alone out of desperation due to push factors such as poverty and violence, and the implementation and effects of Title 42, creating an urgent need for the Biden administration to address these push factors and coordinate with the Mexican government to address migration in a way that prioritizes human rights.

The systems put in place by the U.S Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to apprehend migrant children allow for the criminalization, detention, and violation of rights of unaccompanied minors fleeing poverty and violence in their home countries. CBP detention centers for unaccompanied minors are infamously known for overcrowding, frigid temperatures, lack of food, neglect, and abuse, with one study finding that four out of five children experienced some kind of mistreatment from the U.S Customs and Border Patrol.

Reunifying minors with a sponsor or legal guardian in the United States is an essential responsibility of DHS and the Health and Human Services Agency (HHS), a process that begins with the detention of minors in CBP detention centers. Here, children are placed in holding cells and by law have 72 hours to be transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), a part of HHS. Unlike CBP centers that mimic holding cells, ORR shelters aim to be child-care facilities working to reunify unaccompanied minors with legal guardians and sponsors. Both CBP and ORR, however, contribute to the detention and holding of unaccompanied minors in federal facilities over long periods of time. Federal law dictates that both agencies must uphold the 1997 Flores Settlement—the result of a lawsuit filed against federal immigration authorities—which requires that unaccompanied minors are granted access to water, medical services, bathroom facilities, and temperature-controlled surroundings.

Furthermore, the United States and its agencies have failed to uphold internationally recognized conventions that ensure the rights of migrant children. The United Nations’ 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children must be detained only if necessary, and if they are, for the shortest amount of time possible. The United States is a signatory to the convention, but has not ratified it. The failure of U.S. agencies to enforce the protections established by both the

1997 Flores Settlement and the 1989 Convention on the Rights of a Child deny the rights of detained and unaccompanied migrant children in CBP and ORR facilities.

The Biden administration is now tasked with addressing the U.S.’ ill-equipped asylum system. The issue of overcrowded shelters, particularly dangerous in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, exposes children to health risks. In response to the spread of COVID-19, the Biden administration opened an emergency detention facility in Carrizo Springs, Texas on February 22, 2021. The need to open such emergency facilities stems from ORR reducing shelter space available to unaccompanied minors due to COVID-19. Because of this, children are forced to wait in CBP shelters until there is space available at ORR shelters. Carrizo Springs and other emergency shelters aim to alleviate this issue, but ultimately contribute to the holding of unaccompanied minors and are not a sustainable solution.

Detention is not the solution for unaccompanied children arriving at the border. It is essential that the Biden administration keeps its promise to implement comprehensive immigration reform and addresses the root causes of migration, while solving the humanitarian issues that take place at our border. Officials should:

Improve conditions inside of shelters and detention facilities

Uphold existing legislation meant to protect the human rights of migrant children, including unaccompanied minors.

Unaccompanied migrant children should be held in shelters and federal facilities for the shortest amount of time possible—as stated in the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child.

Expedite the family reunification process.

Repeal Title 42, which denies the right to seek asylum using COVID-19 as justification, (despite refutes by prominent health officials).

Unaccompanied migrant children are a vulnerable population, and the Biden administration must prioritize enacting and enforcing legislation that prioritizes human rights over detention.

[wolainterns]

Black Lives Matter Everywhere, Including Latin America. Philanthropy Must Reflect This Fact.

By: Fernanda Ponce, Summer 2021 Development and Colombia Intern

Photo by Paul Sableman via Flickr

In June, Kendrick Sampson wrote an op-ed for El Espectador, where he presents his testimony of police violence and assault on the frontlines of racial justice protests in the United States and Colombia in 2020. Sampson calls “state-sponsored police violence its own global pandemic” as he compares inequities, violence, and police brutality in both aforementioned countries, though his experiences represent a discerning reality of worldwide racist projects, structures, and institutions.

Racial Inequality in the U.S. and Latin America

Racial violence and police brutality in the United States and Latin America are nothing new―in fact, the regions’ brands of racism and violence are intertwined in many ways. While people in the United States were mourning the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and countless others lost to police violence, in countries like Colombia and Brazil, people were mourning their own younger versions of George Floyd: João Pedro Pinto, Anderson Arboleda, Harold Morales, among hundreds of others victims. Sampson reflects on Harold’s life in his piece: his life as a young soccer player and as a son was stolen away when he was shot by police in the city of Cartagena, Colombia.

Of course, violence is not limited to the police. This is an especially pressing matter in Latin America, where, because of lasting racist and colonialist structures, most Afro-descendants are behind in almost every major category of socioeconomic mobility, including education and employment. According to a 2018 World Bank report, “Afro-Descendants in Latin America: Toward a Framework of Inclusion”, “just 64% of Afro-descendants complete primary school”, and are overall “2.5 times more likely to live in chronic poverty compared to whites and mestizos.”

Looking at a local level in Colombia, for example, though Afro-descendants account for nearly a third of the population, 40.8% of them live in poverty, according to a report by the Economic Commission for Latin America (Comisión Económica para América Latina, CEPAL). This is one of the highest rates in the Americas, a phenomenon that has been further exacerbated by the pandemic. To compare these figures to the United States, the Black population accounts for 18% of the country's total, but almost 24% live in poverty. . Overall, there is no shortage of news about the ways the U.S. Black population is systematically disadvantaged.

The overall pattern that emerges from all of this is straightforward: systemic racism and violence is a pressing issue in the United States, and more importantly, in Latin America, that the world has yet to fully address. As nations continue to face a seemingly never-ending pandemic and the devastating consequences that have followed, marginalized Black communities are ushering in a racial reckoning that governments, institutions, and everyday people around the globe can no longer cast aside. As Sampson affirms, “​​We have to understand that the struggle for Black liberation is an international struggle in solidarity with all oppressed peoples.”

The Extent of Philanthropy’s Solidarity

Sampson’s impactful message is a challenge to some of the most influential and predominantly White-led institutions, among them the philanthropic and nonprofit sectors, to entirely reform the ways in which they address and support racial justice. Global foundations have the power to help advance the struggle for racial justice in countries like the United States and Colombia. Many of these organizations are at the forefront of creating racial equity initiatives that tackle police brutality, poverty, and the education gap, among other issues.

However, nonprofits in the United States and Latin America that are in direct contact with marginalized communities of color, working together to advocate for rights, reforms, change, and community development, have historically not always been well-connected with or well-funded by foundations. Given limited availability for small pools of funds, Black, Indigenous, people of color-led organizations serving BIPoC communities sometimes miss out on monetary support due to a lack of established relationships with foundations. Other times, organizations are ineligible for grants or funds because they do not meet a foundation’s list of shifting “priorities." In other cases, most prominently during the pre-COVID era, most BIPoC-led nonprofits were given funding for specific projects rather than general support funding that could be allocated in needed areas of the organization. Altogether, these factors make it difficult for organizations to run racial justice-oriented operations, and keep their doors open for continued work. The pandemic has also provided its own layer of additional challenges.

At least in the United States, a much-needed racial reckoning in philanthropy is beginning to take effect as foundations implement necessary changes to their structures. The pandemic forced many foundations to implement more flexible modes of giving to organizations serving BIPOC communities, thus accelerating more racial justice initiatives. The Ford Foundation, one of the largest funders for social justice in the world, sold up to $1 billion of its social bonds, stating that $180 million of its proceeds would help fund racial justice organizations in the United States. This is double of its previous grant spending in this area. Ford has also committed $1 billion to its BUILD program, which provides up to five years of flexible funding for social justice organizations.

These are all important commitments from one of the biggest foundations on the planet, whose example many other foundations have followed and surely many more will continue to do so, but missing from this picture is a clear focus on supporting racial justice organizations in Latin America as well. From a philanthropic viewpoint, there is little support for racial justice work in Latin America at both an intersectional and non-intersectional level. Using 2018 data, the Human Rights Funders Network and the philanthropy research group Candid found that Latin America and Mexico received less than 10% of global funding for human rights work overall, at just $250 million. This is a small figure, considering that international human rights work accounts for only 2 to 7% of global foundation giving. Out of this already limited pool of funds, human rights funding for racial and ethnic communities accounted for less than 2% of U.S. foundation giving. (In an ironic twist, this is one of the largest available pools of funds in the world, consisting of $34.5 billion.)

The Future of Funding

As Sampson’s piece and movements across the world have highlighted, racial injustice in Latin America cannot be left unaddressed. This raises questions about the extent of progress on racial justice within philanthropy. Given the struggles of BIPoC communities in Latin America against racism and violence, mirroring those in the United States, what does funding for nonprofits serving BIPoC communities in this region look like? In other words, what are the possibilities for a funding approach that centers social justice for BIPoC populations in Latin America?

For one, there needs to be more transparency from foundations on the extent to which they are supporting racial justice organizations that are based in Latin America or supporting grassroots groups. At the time of writing this blog, there was very little data available on this subject. This is not to say that foundations have to publicly reveal their partners or the amounts granted to each one (which foundations tend to keep private), but it is important that foundations provide glimpses into the broader, global racial justice framework of their own work. In making this type of data available, foundations can better be held accountable in making progress. The data could also give a sense of further improvements that need to be made across the philanthropic sector. (Take the key findings from the Human Rights Funders Network and Candid’s report as an example.)

But aside from compiling more data, foundations who give internationally can also continue implementing changes that were ushered in throughout the pandemic to help alleviate the financial burdens of nonprofits. One example of this is unrestricted funding. Foundations usually set restrictions on how their grantees can use their funding, such as limiting investments to projects that meet very specific objectives of the foundation, even though the community needs may change. Additionally, usually foundations do not fund administrative operations of an organization, which means most organizations have to figure out how to keep their staff while keeping the lights running. With more flexible funding, organizations can decide how to distribute their funds in their areas of need. Simply put, flexible, unrestricted funding can be a lifeline to organizations.

The Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity has also created a “Grantmaking with a Racial Justice Lens” guide that provides foundations with questions and frameworks to consider when making decisions on who to give grants, and more generally, how to fund racial justice work. The guide includes everything from self assessments of foundations’ goals and shared language to explanations about measures needed to create lasting racial change and progress, and more importantly, the why behind it. When more foundations begin to look within themselves and reflect on their own work and the inextricable links to the necessity of racial justice reforms, nonprofits and communities will begin to see a change that will impact the types of relationships that are established, hopefully, for the long term.

Foundations must also be intentional about making sure that their funding is not limited to a few circles; there should be a mechanism by which foundations can expand their reach and broaden their pool of grantees. While grantees usually come to foundations, grantees may not always be aware of the full extent of resources that are out there for them. Finally, foundation work needs to go more international. Regions like Latin America are facing immense challenges of racial reckoning and inequity, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, and foundations need to extend their support.

Conclusion

The interconnectedness of racism, violence, inequality, and police brutality across the Americas is indisputable. As such, it is important now more than ever that individuals and institutions like the philanthropic sector demonstrate their solidarity with racial justice, equity, and liberation movements in the United States and Latin America. By supporting and funding nonprofits trying to make a difference in their communities, no matter their location, whether they be in Minneapolis, USA, Cali, Colombia, or Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, philanthropy could help alleviate the pain of a viscous global pandemic of racial hate and violence that should have reached its end long ago.

___________________________

Further Reading

The Need for a Racial Reckoning

https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2020/12/21/philanthropy-must-face-a-reckoning-on-race-in-2021/?sh=7da581da585c

https://www.luminafoundation.org/news-and-views/a-moment-of-reckoning/

https://hbr.org/2020/06/the-problem-with-color-blind-philanthropy

Responses to 2020’s Racial Reckoning

https://whyy.org/articles/a-year-later-racial-reckoning-yields-uncertainty-in-giving/

https://grantcraft.org/content/blog/philanthropy-responds-to-the-racial-equity-movement/

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2021/5/25/after-a-year-like-no-other-three-foundation-leaders-talk-about-what-changed-and-what-comes-next

Other

https://cep.org/portfolio/foundations-respond-to-crisis2/

https://www.issuelab.org/resources/38475/38475.pdf

https://ssir.org/articles/entry/risks_for_the_future_we_want#

[wolainterns]

Medical Cannabis and Associative Cultivation in Peru: A Glimmer of Hope in the Horizon

By: Humberto Rotondo, Summer 2021 Drug Policy and Peru Intern

Photo by Geraldo Caso Bizama

Cannabis consumption and production in Peru is heavily persecuted. Even though possession is decriminalized for amounts below 8 grams, cannabis-related laws remain one of the most punitive in the region. Until 2017, these punitive laws also were applied to Peruvians who used cannabis for medicinal purposes, regardless of their needs. And considering the fragility of Peru’s healthcare system, those needs are plenty.

In order to get some kind of access to healthcare to their children when faced with an absentState, a group of mothers with young children with different medical conditions  treatable by cannabis organized in a collective called “Sembrando Esperanza” to self-produce medicinal cannabis oil. Sembrando Esperanza operated peacefully and openly since late 2016, giving an example of how community organizing can help provide access to services, even when said services cannot be properly provided by the Government.

On the night of February 8, 2017, police raided the Collective’s artisanal production facilities, seizing 5 kilograms of cannabis flower and the equipment needed to produce cannabis oil. The raid was widely televised, exposing not only the brutality of the raid, but the fact that many Peruvians relied on medicinal cannabis, especially children. At the moment of the raid, only in Sembrando Esperanza, there were 80 registered children benefiting from treatment.

The fact that the victims of the raid were mothers helping their sick children gave a human face to the medicinal cannabis cause, and generated widespread support. This support led to members of the Peruvian Congress from widely different political positions to push for the regulation of medical cannabis, from progressive representatives such as Alberto de Belaúnde to right-wing and staunch fujimorista Miguel Ángel Torres.

On May 15 of the same year, Congressman Alberto de Belaúnde pushed for a bill to legalize and regulate medicinal cannabis, along with other representatives from diverse political ideas. The bill was debated and slowly progressed through all obstacles, including passing strict examinations by the Defense and Health Congressional Commissions, on September 18 and October 11, respectively. Finally, on October 20, following mass demonstrations, Congress voted in favor of the bill by a vote of 68 to 5, nominally legalizing medicinal cannabis in Peru.

After much debate, the regulations for the bill were finally issued on February 22, 2019. These included provisions for licences for scientific research, import, sales and commercial production. The bill infamously excluded self-produced crops, keeping families like the ones represented by groups like Sembrando Esperanza effectively sidelined from the new law because of the high cost of commercial medicinal cannabis. This situation caused protests and a prolonged debate that would last well into 2021.

In July 2020, the Peruvian Federation for Medicinal Cannabis (FECAME) and the non-profit Cannabis Gotas de Esperanza (Cannabis Drops of Hope) presented a bill to include a provision for registered associations for self-cultivation of cannabis crops into the original medicinal cannabis bill. The bill was supported by a wide range of representatives on October 23. On July 15, 2021 the bill unanimously passed Congress, and was finally signed into law by President Sagasti on July 26, after much insistence spearheaded by prominent medicinal cannabis patient and activist Francesca Brivio, head of Cannabis Gotas de Esperanza, one of the collectives that assisted in drafting the bill, and who wrote a heartfelt letter to the president outlining the impact of the exclusionary nature of the original bill.

This is without a doubt a great victory for Peruvian medicinal cannabis users, and a step in the right direction for sensible drug policies in the region. While the path may still be closed for deeper reform in other fields, this valiant effort has opened up opportunities for the legalization of other drugs for medicinal purposes. Nonetheless, there is not much reason for optimism beyond the medicinal field. Staunch prohibitionists such as Congressman Daniel Urresti voted in favor of the bill while at the same time maintaining their drug war zeal. This trend is representative of the challenges in pushing for decriminalization and legalization of illicit drugs beyond medical uses, but it also gives some much needed hope to many Peruvians historically denied medical treatment.

[wolainterns]

Complexities of Violence against Women and Migration in the Northern Triangle

By: Marcos Estrada, Summer 2021 Citizen Security Intern

Photo: "Honduras_RootCauses_2019_IMG_6847-10" by rawEarth is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

Consistent political turmoil, social conflicts, lack of economic opportunity, and deep-rooted patriarchal norms in the Northern Triangle of Central America place women at high risk of gender-based violence (GBV) and forced migration. High levels of violence against Guatemalan, Salvadoran and Honduran women, in public and private settings, compounded with a lack of acknowledgement or action by authorities, force many to migrate to the United States and other countries. Many become victims of femicide, or the intentional murder of women. Despite reported statistics, the lack of efforts by government entities to address these issues and protect women persist.

Women are a constant target of GBV and femicide at a global level, and the Northern Triangle has proven to be an epicenter for these incidents. According to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), GBV takes on different forms, including “sexual, physical, mental and economic harm” for which the outcomes may include death. An estimated 1 in 3 women worldwide experience some form of violence during their lifetime and the statistics are worse when focusing on the region of the Northern Triangle. In Honduras, an average of 28 GBV cases were brought to court daily in 2018 and it is estimated that a new sexual abuse case is reported every 46 minutes in Guatemala. This only accounts for reported cases, a statistic assumed to be extremely underreported.

In 2019, Honduras and El Salvador were among the Latin American countries with the highest rate of femicide per 100,000 inhabitants. Data for 2019 indicates rates of 6.2 and 3.3, respectively, while last available global data shows that the average rate was 1.3 per 100,000 inhabitants. Acts of violence are typically perpetrated by intimate partners and gang members, fueled by the prevalent machismo culture. The normalization of this violent behavior proves to be a large hurdle to overcome by victims of GBV and all women in general. Despite high numbers, these are assumed to be underreported, as studies have shown that some women deny victimization out of fear of reprisal or assumption that it is an accepted behavior. It is important for government entities to provide greater resources and security for victims of violence, which must be tailored to their specific needs. Nonetheless, the government does not take any action in many cases.

While some women are able to flee, others find themselves internally displaced in areas where the issues persist, if not worsen. This is especially evident in cases where criminal groups and state agents are involved, given the challenge presented by continuing to be in the same territory. Many of these women are subject to subordination and others become victims of femicide. Hence, it is necessary to facilitate more legal pathways for women who are at risk of any form of abuse or violence to pursue protection outside of their countries of origin.

There are a limited number of legal protections available to women who have been displaced due to gender-based violence. Seeking asylum has traditionally been one route for women who are survivors of domestic abuse to achieve lawful status in other countries, including the United States. However, the Trump administration imposed a new restriction making it virtually impossible to gain asylum by citing fears of domestic abuse or gang violence. Restrictions implemented by the Trump administration are supposedly in the process of being reversed by the Biden administration. Nonetheless, women are forced to justify that their domestic violence case qualifies into one of the five categories for which they may be at risk of persecution. A majority of cases are denied.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated these issues. Despite lower numbers being reported of migrants in the United States during the pandemic, in part due to border closures, the pandemic has increased cases of gender-based violence. It is predicted that lockdown and increased alcohol abuse are in part to blame for this spike. Not to mention, the decrease in migrants is based on those reported. It is expected that many women may have migrated to the United States without pursuing burdensome legal channels, in an attempt to escape harm and potential death at the hands of a partner, gang member or authority, among others.

[wolainterns]

Colombian Youth Environmentalist Opposes Fracking and Defends Peace

By: Antonia Quintero, Spring 2021 Communications and Colombia Intern

Photo by Yuvelis Natalia 

*This article is based off of an interview with Yuvelis Natalia Morales.

In Colombia, women bear the brunt of the violence as victims and lead rebuilding efforts in their communities. Women social leaders utilize their knowledge, skills, and struggles to comfort and uplift others in their communities. Many defend sustainable agricultural and environmental practices. They campaign for voluntary eradication of illicit crops and replace these with legal  crops and play an active role in resisting large-scale development projects, even confronting powerful petroleum and other extractive companies. Others push against the presence of illegal armed groups in their communities and demand political participation. Colombia’s social leaders are fighting to protect communities hardest hit by decades of violence, particularly in the country’s Afro-descendant, Campesino, and Indigenous communities. These efforts are crucial to bringing the commitments in Colombia’s historic 2016 peace accord to life.

One of these leaders is Yuvelis Natalia Morales from Puerto Wilches, a town located along the Magdalena River in the northeastern department of Santander. Yuvelis is a young environmental leader that forms part of the Committee for the Defense of Water, Life, and Territory (Comité para la Defensa del Agua, la Vida, y el Territorio, AGUAWIL). As a student studying technology in environmental resource management, Yuvelis has dedicated her life to defending Puerto Wilches’ natural environment and abundant natural resources sought after by powerful economic interests. Like a river, women social leaders in Colombia continue to give and feed life into their communities. In the same way that fracking has adverse effects on the rivers, so does the lack of government support, corruption, and violence on the country’s social leaders. 

The Magdalena Medio region is characterized by its richness in water sources such as rivers and marshes. The rural communities, who have historically protected these resources, suffer internal displacement, violence, and are murdered for defending this ecology. In 2020, Colombia was the country with the most environmental defenders killed globally, with 64 registered homicides. The lack of implementation of the 2016 peace accord increases violence in the territories with the presence of illegal armed groups who fight to control legal and illegal economies. Historically, oil extraction has functioned as an enclave economy in the municipality without generating benefits for the population. 

Petroleum companies such as Ecopetrol and Exxonmobil have sought fracking operations in Puerto Wilches for the area’s richness in oil, through a pilot program approved by the Colombian government in December 2020 against the community’s wishes. Yuvelis recounted in an interview with WOLA, that in her opinion, they have done so while disregarding the local inhabitants and their community’s rights. According to Yuvelis, the municipal government fails to provide access to education and support to social leaders who raise awareness of these issues. It is her view that the companies have taken advantage of the community’s social and economic conditions and their lack of knowledge of the area’s biodiversity. Additionally, the local fishing industry has been impacted by the extraction of hydrocarbons, leaving irreparable damages to water sources and the territories. These damages directly affect community members who make a living in the fishing industry, such as Yuvelis’ father.

Additionally, the people of Puerto Wilches live in fear because of the impact of the armed conflict and persisting violence in the territories. People are murdered every day “as if they are made out of paper.” Isolated by Puerto Wilches’ geography, the community, as Yuvelis states, becomes “the community of nobody.” The armed conflict has created such a lasting impact that the people are unaware of the petroleum companies’ true intentions. Consequently, because of a lack of knowledge and education, they are unaware of the biodiverse significance brought in by the Magdalena River. It then becomes easy for these people to give away land, votes, or the entire municipality to have food and general security.

AGUAWIL is an organization of young professionals in the community, like Yuvelis, who have made an effort to educate themselves further on their environment. They have focused on using grassroots activism to raise awareness on the issue of fracking and the impact the pilot projects would have on the area. Through their local neighborhood efforts, they have primarily connected with women in the households. Although there is a general conception that women have no active part in opposing fracking, AGUAWIL has benefitted from the women who have taken their message to heart. They are often uneducated, living in impoverished conditions, and subjected to verbal, physical, and sexual abuse, and the women do not want the same for their daughters. As a result, the empowered women have channeled the information about AGUAWIL’s work to other community members and have played a significant role in garnering support for the start-up committee against fracking. 

Members of AGUAWIL and other human rights and environmentalist organizations have undergone death threats, assassination attempts, forced displacements, and gender violence after denouncing the irreparable damage to water sources and opposing fracking pilot projects in the region. They have also called attention to the alleged corruption in companies and environmental institutions in different municipalities in the Santander department. They have received pushback in many other forms. They have been called “guerrillas” (guerrilleros), and more than eight AGUAWIL committee members have been threatened, consequently leading to the relocation of some, including Yuvelis, for their safety. Even so, they continue working to advocate and garner support from afar. 

Most of the demands made by Yuvelis and others in Puerto Wilches are very basic. They point to the need to educate and raise awareness within the communities of their human rights. They want their communities to be able to defend themselves and manage their futures. This is why Yuvelis dedicated herself to environmental studies to elevate the awareness and education of her hometown. Educating the community helps people recognize that they don’t have to accept low wages and hard work despite the few opportunities in the area. It's precisely the efforts of social leaders like Yuvelis that help promote peacebuilding, reconciliation, and ultimately meet the needs of communities across Colombia.

“It is very difficult to defend in Colombia, very difficult,” Yuvelis reflects. The government has not protected or helped elevate social leaders’ work across Colombia, including AGUAWIL. She urges that if the government does not do any good towards social leaders, they also need not aggravate the situation. She calls on the international community and human rights organizations to advocate and garner support for social leaders and their causes and help defend human rights. You can help support their work and protect their lives. 

Join WOLA's #ConLíderesHayPaz campaign to support Colombia’s post-accord peace process. 

[wolainterns]

Prevention Through Deterrence Needs to End. Here’s What the Biden Administration Can Do About it

By: Evan Gaalswyk, Spring 2021 Mexico and Border Security Intern

Image by Canva Pro

2020 saw a record number of migrant deaths in the Arizona desert of the U.S-Mexico border. 227 migrants lost their lives in attempts to cross harsh, remote desert conditions. These tragedies represent a failure of the U.S. immigration system, displaying the effects of a problematic, decades-long approach to migration that simply hasn’t worked—migrants are still crossing the border and the number of deaths has remained steady or increased.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton implemented a policy known as “prevention through deterrence” in response to an Office of National Drug Control Policy study claiming that drugs were flooding the southern border, and to political pressure to crack down on undocumented immigration. Prevention through deterrence implies that migrants can be discouraged from crossing into the United States by increasing security near points of entry, building more border walls, and setting up checkpoints; all of which instead combine to compel migrants into making dangerous treks through deadlier areas of the borderlands in attempts to cross the U.S.-Mexico border. Before Clinton’s buildup, most undocumented migrants entered near the El Paso or San Diego ports of entry, but in the following years Arizona became the primary destination.

This policy evolved with subsequent administrations, from George W. Bush pledging to double the size of Border Patrol and building hundreds of miles of border wall, Barack Obama detaining migrant families, and Donald Trump separating families, and later forcing asylum seekers to wait in inhumane conditions in Mexico for months while their claims were processed. Prevention through deterrence has been a consistent feature of American politics—with harsh consequences for migrants. It has also been a failure. Research has shown that criminalizing unauthorized border crossings, regardless of increased security and surveillance at the border, does not deter migrants fleeing violence from making the journey. Many migrants are also not attempting to evade capture in the first place; asylum seekers actually want to be apprehended by Border Patrol to begin their asylum process and have no need to travel through the desert. Although beyond the scope of this piece, it is important to note that a substantial amount of deaths in the borderlands are economic migrants.

So far, the Biden administration has been focused on rolling back some harmful Trump-era measures and policies, but has shown the same deference to prevention through deterrence as past administrations. Biden has so far leaned on Central American countries and Mexico to scale up border enforcement and block migrants’ path to the U.S. As for legislative efforts, the proposed U.S. Citizenship Act—which would provide a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants—is a step in the right direction but also includes funding for “smart border” technology, yet another continuation of prevention through deterrence policies.

The Biden administration has also not provided a timeline for repealing Title 42, a Trump-era measure imposed in March 2020 in the name of “public health,” over objections from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (although it has refused to apply the policy to unaccompanied minors). This measure allows for the expulsion of most migrants seeking asylum over concerns of COVID-19 contagion—essentially cutting off access to asylum. The administration has struggled to deal with an influx of unaccompanied minors in recent months due to its refusal to apply Title 42 to children, fueling unwarranted media narratives of a “border crisis”. There are several steps that the Biden administration can take to move away from prevention through deterrence and save thousands of lives:

U.S. processing capacity at the border needs to be increased. The current influx of migrants is not unmanageable or even unexpected. Instability, violence, and persecution in Central America will continue to drive migration to the United States, and not having a clear, efficient process for requesting asylum benefits smugglers and incentivizes migrants to cross illegally. U.S. asylum law clearly states that migrants should be able to turn themselves in at ports of entry and begin their asylum process and should not even need to cross the border illegally. To mitigate the problem, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) should not be responsible for initial processing of asylum seekers and should instead pass on this responsibility to civilian personnel trained to work with people who have suffered trauma. DHS also needs to invest in permanent infrastructure to process migrants safely, as opposed to scrambling to ramp up capacity as needed. More investment is needed in the immigration court system as well. Currently, asylum seekers are forced to wait up to 5 years for their cases to be resolved while the court system works through an unprecedented backlog of around 1.3 million cases. More judges are needed, and more discretion should be given to these judges to avoid politicization of the asylum system. Increasing capacity while supporting impartiality would greatly reduce the backlog of cases and allow the immigration court system to function more efficiently.

Border Patrol cannot be the primary responder for migrants in need. The agency has consistently demonstrated a lack of commitment to their humanitarian responsibilities and has obstructed efforts to save migrant lives and locate remains. Instead, when migrants call 911 or activate distress beacons, a well-trained response team made up of medical professionals and humanitarian workers should respond. The Missing Persons and Unidentified Remains Act of 2019, which provides funding for border communities and organizations to locate and identify migrants and remains, is an important first step towards recognizing the problem. Relieving Border Patrol of this element of their search-and-rescue responsibilities will allow the agency to focus on staffing points of entry and combat smuggling, with the potential to save lives in the process.

Throughout the modern history of U.S. immigration enforcement, prevention through deterrence has needlessly caused human suffering and migrant deaths, but it doesn’t have to be that way. The Biden administration has the responsibility and opportunity to move away from this policy by increasing processing capacity at the border and throughout the asylum system as well as shifting humanitarian responsibilities away from Border Patrol. Although decades of U.S. immigration enforcement policies will not be undone overnight, starting with these recommendations is a first step towards reducing the influence of prevention through deterrence and creating an immigration system more focused on the well being of migrants.

[wolainterns]

State Censorship in Venezuela: Challenges in Broadcasting a National Crisis

By: Chinweotito Ihejirika, Spring 2021, Venezuela & Citizen Security Intern

GettyImages by Juan Barreto

In the midst of grave political turmoil, rampant inflation, a mass exodus, food shortages, and the devastation caused by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, human rights defenders must balance addressing imminent physical needs and prioritizing the condemnation of the outrageous state censorship of Venezuelan entities that challenge the notions and interests of their government. Due to persecution, journalists are fleeing the country at a time when their work is arguably more valuable than ever. The Maduro government, which has made consistent attempts to manipulate the narrative on the political and humanitarian landscape as well as on the status of COVID-19 cases, has created a hostile environment for investigative journalists in Venezuela. The result has been a dangerous deprivation of free information, which is yet another affront to the human rights of Venezuelans. A press corps and civil society that can freely expose injustice play integral roles in democratic society that must not be undermined. Therefore, the international community should regard the restoration of a free press as it would any other urgent humanitarian need.

Evidence of censorship in Venezuela has been piling up since the year 2000, but as in the case of most aspects of the crisis, conditions for journalists have worsened since the onset of the pandemic. Arbitrary detention is perhaps their most imminent risk. Darvinson Rojas, held for 30 days, was in his home when members of FAES (Venezuela’s Special Action Forces) illegally entered and took him into custody for publishing “unofficial COVID-19 data.” The charge: “instigation of hate.” In the case of the military conflict in Apure in early April 2021--on which there has been very little reporting due to government repression--the Venezuelan national guard detained two Venezuelan activists named Carlos Salazar and Diógenes Tirado and two Colombian reporters for NTN24, Luis Gonzalo Pérez and Rafael Hernández, for documenting the situation in the border state. The fate of these individuals is not unique. At least 325 individuals have been victim to this type of repression in 2020 alone, 194 of whom were reporters.

The Venezuelan government has clear incentives to limit freedom of the press, and has taken extreme measures aside from detention to silence not only reporters, but also members of the opposition coalition including opposition leader Juan Guaidó. Officials have developed increasingly sophisticated methods to deny citizens access to Guaidó’s livestreams, going as far as blocking VPN services employed to circumvent other obstacles to free internet usage. Another suspicious phenomenon related to this issue is the occurence of power outages on the eves of planned protests. Though power outages in Venezuela are commonplace due to the neglect of the Guri hydroelectric infrastructure that supplies the country’s electricity, Maduro’s critics are adamant that the president has a hand in at least some of the outages. In March 2019, following such an outage, Juan Guaidó urged the Venezuelan people to go out anyway "against the usurping, corrupt and incompetent regime that has put our country in the dark.” Luz Mely Reyes, who now lives in exile in Washington, D.C., is the co-founder and director of the Venezuelan digital news site Efecto Cocuyo. She has personally experienced harassment by officials seeking to silence her and has noted suspicious malfunctions of Efecto Cocuyo’s website. Political manipulation of the internet is particularly nefarious during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the inability to safely congregate and discuss opposing ideas and concerns in person. Unfortunately, the mountain of grievances has compelled many to protest regardless and those who choose to demonstrate risk not only the contraction of coronavirus but also the “discretionary force” of the military.

In an ironic turn of events, Maduro was temporarily suspended from Facebook in late March 2021 for promoting an unproven COVID-19 remedy on the platform. Facebook’s temporary suspension of Maduro is certainly justified given the immeasurable damage produced by disinformation on the pandemic in parts of the world where objective coverage on COVID-19 is limited or restricted. In response, the Maduro government described the suspension as “digital totalitarianism exercised by supranational companies who want to impose their law on the countries of the world” and subsequently introduced legislation to regulate social media platforms in the country, which will certainly impact the dissemination of virus-related messaging that contradicts the narrative that the government is trying to present.

While efforts to address the humanitarian crisis or cater to the displaced may be better-received than the exposure of corruption and injustices by the government, supporting the voices reporting on all of these areas is essential for the preservation of democratic space in Venezuela. Those who seek to support a democratic resolution to Venezuela’s crisis should work to amplify the voices of those within the country telling their story about this difficult period in their own words. “I maintain that the topic of freedom of expression and freedom of the press should not be viewed as a side note during conversations in the international community. Everyone speaks about politics and the economy and the humanitarian crisis, but freedom of expression should be at the center of our concerns. Do not forget that freedom of expression is also a human right.” [Luz Mely quote]

[wolainterns]

Land Rights for Indigenous and Afro-Descendant Communities in Nicaragua and Brazil

By: Sequoia Mack; Fall 2020 Program Intern

Shutterstock image by PARALAXIS 

The governments of Nicaragua and Brazil have implemented measures to protect the land, culture, and sovereignty of Afro-descendant and Indigenous populations. These measures establish and recognize the land demarcation of Indigenous and ethnic communities. Although Nicaragua and Brazil have legal protections of Indigenous land, Indigenous and Afro-descendant groups are increasingly facing vulnerability and threats of deforestation, violence, and persecution.

The Nicaraguan government introduced the Communal Lands Law, also known as Law 445, in 2003. This law grants Indigenous and Afro-descendant Nicaraguans the right to gain collective titles to their land and natural resources and the right for each community to choose their own authorities. This law was instrumental in establishing a legal framework for Indigenous and Afro-descendant people’s regional land rights. 

In Brazil, land rights of Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities are protected by Brazil’s Federal Constitution which grants land demarcation and protection for Indigenous and Afro-Brazilian quilombo communities. The Brazilian Constitution of 1988 first recognized the rights of quilombos. The Brazilian Constitution also grants these communities the right to their social organization, customs, languages, traditions, and beliefs. 

Deforestation Endangers Indigenous and Afro-Descendant Communities

However, colonization and re-settlement caused severe levels of deforestation that threatened the livelihoods of Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities in Nicaragua and Brazil. In the case of Nicaragua’s autonomous communities, the Ortega regime fails to enforce the land protections and has been selling indigenous lands to be used for mining, ranching, logging, etc. The Nicaraguan government, according to a report by the Oakland Institute, plays an active role in the exploitation of indigenous lands by transnational firms by offering the land for mining and forestry projects. Law 445 should protect Nicaraguan indigenous lands from corporations, however the government is complicit in the destruction of their lands for profit. This deforestation makes Indigenous and Kriol communities more vulnerable and susceptible to food insecurity as it becomes more difficult to hunt, fish, and have access to drinkable water. 

In Brazil, President Jair Bolsonaro cut fire suppression budgets during historic Amazon wildfires, which nearly 40% burned through indigenous lands. Bolsonaro has disregarded the constitutional protection of land rights for Indigenous and quilombo communities by encouraging deforestation through the fires and selling Indigenous land. He also refuses to demarcate new lands for displaced communities. With President Bolsonaro’s encouragement, land grabbers have illegally advanced on development and mining projects on the lands of Afro-Brazilian and Indigenous groups. Despite Brazil’s Federal Constitution which is meant to respect and protect these lands, Indigenous and quilombo communities are increasingly experiencing structural violence with the destruction of their land and resources.

Increased Conflict Harms and Displaces Indigenous and Afro-Descendant Populations 

The presence of non-Indigenous people on Indigenous land has led to conflicts in Nicaragua and Brazil that have intensified the struggle for Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities to protect their land. Settlement in Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities in Nicaragua have sparked deadly conflicts and harassment from President Ortega’s administration. Since 2015, in cases related to land invasions, around 40 Indigenous land defenders have been killed, while others have been kidnapped, injured, and disappeared. In Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities, settlers have used threats of murder and sexual violence to force families to leave their homes and farming parcels. Conflicts with migrants who have invaded land belonging to Indigenous and Afro-Nicaraguan communities have increased their vulnerability to serious human rights violations. When communities speak out against the increased violence and illegal land grabs, they are ignored and further harassed by the Ortega regime. In September 2020, after documenting land grabs in their community, 18 Indigenous and Kriol leaders were arbitrarily deprived of liberty. The Ortega administration has also intensified their repression against activists and NGOs and leaders in Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities are more at risk of experiencing detainment or violence for attempting to protect the land to which they have territorial rights.

Indigenous and quilombo communities in Brazil experience similar violent conflicts due to invasions of their land. According to a report from the Council for Indigenous Peoples (CIMI), there has been an increase in violence against Indigenous people. They reported that in 2019, there were 1,120 cases of “property-related violence” against Indigenous people, which was a 134.9% increase from 2018. Violence in these traditional communities stems from government projects aimed at developing the land for businesses like mining and logging. 

Brazil and Nicaragua both have legal frameworks meant to protect the land and cultural rights of Afro-descendant and Indigenous communities. Despite these laws put into place,  both governments have not enforced the protection of the rights of these communities. In fact, both communities have encouraged deforestation and violence against traditional communities which directly violate each countries’ laws.These communities, and others worldwide, become increasingly more vulnerable as their governments refuse to protect them.

The governments of Brazil and Nicaragua need to take steps to protect the land and resources of Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities and to prevent further violence against against them.

[wolainterns]

COVID-19 Update: The Fight Continues for Ethnic Groups in Colombia

By: Helen Kovary; Fall 2020 Communications Intern

(RAUL ARBOLEDA/AFP via Getty Images)

Colombia—a country with a deep history of systematic racism of Afro-Colombians and Indigenous populations—continue to exploit these communities. Now, with the effects of COVID-19 pandemic, these ethnic groups face a disproportionate amount of displacement and human rights violations compared to other groups.

Afro-Colombian and Colombian Indigenous communities have always faced much discrimination in Colombia, even before the COVID-19 pandemic. Colombia has one of the largest populations of Afro-descendants in Latin America. Yet, with such high diversity, Colombia’s past consists of a history rooted in racism. From the beginning of the 19th century, the Colombian government actively pursued policies that would promote the ‘blanqueamiento’ of society and the mestizaje identity. A large portion of the Afro-Colombian and indigenous populations live in urban or peri-urban areas. In these areas, they are constantly at risk of being attacked by either law enforcement or other prejudiced individuals. Those communities who live in rural areas and work as farmers, or campesinos, are at constant risk of the expropriation of land, forced evictions and displacement—this being one of the main causes of discrimination against these communities.

With around 1.5 million Indigenous individuals living in Colombia, Indigenous communities also face vast challenges and discrimination. In the past decade, this ethnic group has had their land exploited and stolen by long conflicts with the paramilitary and guerilla groups, including the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Colombian government. FARC fronts occupied rural areas, small villages, and invaded sacred indigenous grounds for the sake of their own drug dealing, and violent massacres. Although indigenous leaders fought back, the FARC continued to invade sacred land belonging to indigenous communities including Guajira, El Perijá, Albania, Buenavista, and el Norte de Santander regions. In 2016, the Colombian government, under the leadership of Juan Manuel Santos ended a decades-long war with the FARC, implementing a peace process which would end decades of violence resulting in 23,000 assassinations, 27,000 kidnappings, 260,000 deaths and 8 million victims. Directly after this implementation, there were remarkable achievements in low violence rates. Nevertheless, with the impacts of the current administration under Iván Duque and the impacts of COVID-19, it seems that the implementation of the peace process is slowly dying.

Within this peace accord, Chapter 6.1.12 was implemented known as the Ethnic Commission for Peace and the Defense of Territorial Rights, or the Ethnic Chapter. This chapter is essential in the fight for equal rights amongst ethnic groups and guarantees the right for ethnic groups to informed consent of any laws or policies that could affect their sacred lands and communities. In theory, along with the other details in the peace accord would’ve brought historical achievements but yet again, as the implementation of the peace accord dies, this huge potential victory also dies. COVID-19 has also impacted the already diminishing effort in advancing this chapter with its serious impact on budget cuts and focus on other public health priorities.  

COVID-19 emergency relief was not as accessible to Ethnic groups compared to other communities. With these communities being some of the most under-resourced in the nation and living in hard to reach areas, these ethinc populations faced much harder challenges when it came to accessing adequate health care. Social distancing protocols and country wide shutdowns make it much more difficult for under-resourced communities to get access to nutritional food and clean water. In addition, as more ethnic groups get displaced through With COVID-19 exhausting the amount of resources and beds in hospitals all over the country, this made it exponentially harder for Ethnic groups to get the proper health care they need, thus also increasing infectious rates across their close knit areas.

Afro-Colombians living in urban areas also face a disproportionate amount of risk within the context of COVID-19. Afro-Colombians are also more likely to be of lower socioeconomic status, which makes them more vulnerable to food insecurity, sanitation, and healthcare—similarly to indigenous communities. In addition, many Afro-descendants in Latin America are front line workers and had no other option but to expose themselves in the height of the infectious rates of the pandemic. The overrepresentation of Afro-descendant individuals in front line and essential jobs directly correlates to higher chances of infection and death in these communities.

Politically, COVID-19 has also removed the prioritization of implementing the peace process among the Colombian government. Military operations were still happening, putting ethnic groups in an increased amount of danger before the pandemic as public health protocols mandated them to stay in one place and quarantine. In addition, these mandatory quarantines led to the targeting and assassination of many ethnic social leaders and senators who were already in the spotlight for fighting against the government.

Although the first lockdown for COVID-19 happened months ago, it is clear that this pandemic will continue to be of concern for a while. Because of this, the Duque administration must take extra precautionary measures to ensure that the basic rights of minority groups in Colombia are not being compromised.

Main Issues That Must be Addressed:

1. Ensuring adequate nutritional food and clean water access The disproportionate levels of socioeconomic status regarding Afro-descendant and indigenous Colombians and white Colombians is an issue that needs to be addressed, even outside the context of a pandemic. This pandemic has highlighted how this issue, when left unresolved, can lead to detrimental results in times of crises. Therefore, it is of utmost importance for the Duque administration to address the issue  of prioritizing food and water access to these communities.

2. Providing free health care to members of minority groups or low income communities. In order to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19, it is necessary to provide adequate relief in communities who have experienced the highest number of cases. Minority communities who live in rural areas do not have proper access to health facilities or even the money to pay for a hospital bed. Stopping the spread of COVID means that all citizens of Colombia must have equitable access to healthcare.  

3. Continue to increase awareness of systemic racism and inequality across Colombia. Many of the issues that arose from COVID-19 stem from racism against ethnic groups that still affects Colombia today. The pandemic has highlighted many of these issues and have brought awareness to the systemic racism within the country. To pressure the Duque administration to take effective measures against systemic racism, it is necessary for citizens of all communities to stay aware of these problems.

4. Prioritization of the Ethnic Chapter within the Peace Accord. It is clear that the peace accord has and will bring tremendous change. The Ethnic Chapter brought a revolutionary approach to equality that was never before seen in Colombia. However, the hard work done by ethnic social leaders means nothing without the thorough implementation of this chapter. As Duque responds to recent events regarding massacres and assassinations, his administration must keep in mind the spirit of the Ethnic Chapter and the values of the peace accord.

Through proper action from both the citizens of Colombia, and the administration, the basic human rights of these communities are guaranteed for a future through the pandemic and after. With so much damage already done due to COVID-19, these first steps will ensure the future of equitability across all citizens in Latin America.

[wolainterns]

Afro-Colombian Territorial Resistance: The Cultural Relevance of Land

By: Ilana Aaquil; Fall 2020 Colombia Intern

For African peoples across the diaspora, land is where culture thrives, traditions develop, and civilizations grow. The Spanish colonization of the Andean region in the 16th century put Indigenous groups at critical risk for the sustainment of their own cultural identity, problems which they are still battling today. An insatiable greed for land, resources, and labor devastated the civilizations which inhabited these territories. The introduction of African peoples through chattel slavery contributed an additional layer to this ethnocide and ecocide.

Since the formal abolition of slavery in 1851, Afro-Colombian communities continue to face racial and class discrimination that threaten their very existence. Afro-Colombians make up between 20% and 40% of the Colombian population, yet concentrate up to 90% of the population on the Pacific coastal region. Law 70 of the Black Communities of 1993 sought to honor the majority Afro-Colombian presence in the Pacific region of Colombia by granting these communities collective land rights to their ancestral territories. According to this law, Afro-Colombian communities formally registered their Community Councils or internal governance structures, whose mandate is to manage the community’s collective property so as to guarantee preservation of their distinct cultural identity. Despite the establishment of these collective land rights, Afro-Colombians in the region still face numerous challenges such as poverty, racism, displacement, and development of the resources they are legally entitled to.

The Pacific region itself is characterized by its rich biological diversity and abundance of natural resources. It's these resources that place the region as a central target for both illegal narcotic activity and ongoing developments. The weak institutionalization of agrarian reform along with a longstanding cultural and political tolerance for violence perpetuates a pervasive brutal conflict between armed guerilla groups and paramilitary groups, one which continues to adversely threaten the lives of those who inhabit the region. This same violence threatens the overall essence of African descendant communities, who operate under a unified philosophy of coexistence with the land which they inhabit. Pre-existing Afro-Colombian communities centered in the coastal regions of Colombia are imperiled by unceasing violence that results from these initial land development efforts and continued violence.

In the case of these peoples, land is not just interpreted as a means to acquire and develop for capitalist sake. African communities in the region coexist with the land, as they have done for over millennia since their displacement from the African continent. African descendants in Colombia hail from the Bantu people of central Africa, and still carry many of these traditions in their lively operations on the Pacific coast.

Communities in the Pacific region live with a respectful coexistence of the land which they inhabit. Natural elements such as the river, mountains, and sea all play critical roles in the spiritual development of these peoples. Traditional ritual practices are produced from birth by way of pateras (midwives), and conserved through the community in variational forms.

Similarly to the risk Afro-Colombians of the Pacific region face, traditional practices are at major risk of displacement due to several factors. African traditions are transmitted through practice, i.e. youth are expected to learn from living alongside their elders on the land in which they are fostered. Development and violence in these regions threaten not only the land but the very traditions and cultural identity of African descendants.

The 2012-2016 peace negotiations between one of the most predominant illegal guerilla groups, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Colombian state initially failed to properly acknowledge the plights of the Afro-Colombian and Indigenous communities their conflict affects. The lack of inclusion of Afro-Colombians in this peace process put these communities at further risk of exploitation and extermination by negating their constitutional right to provide input on matters of their land. To contrast this outcome, Afro-Colombian, Indigenous, and other ethnic minority groups came together to form the Ethnic Commission for Peace and the Defense of Territorial Rights in order to conduct negotiations on their own behalf.

Thanks to the advancements of this transnational advocacy effort, the 2016 Peace Accord included the development of the Ethnic Chapter which seeks to give recognition and protection to the Afro-Colombian and Indigenous communities that occupy the Pacific Basin in addition to granting them the capacity to influence legislation that affects their communities. Despite the victory of this chapter for the Afro-Colombian community, much of this progress remains on paper, as they are still widely subjected to violence and exploitation on the ground. Many efforts exist to properly implement this section of the Peace Accord to this day.

Social organizations and leaders continue to fight for peace but face significant and oftentimes fatal backlash for their resistance. In the face of the ratification of the Peace Accord, there persists an alarming, systematic rise in violence against Afro-Colombian and Indigenous social leaders who fight for land rights. Even more alarming, assassinations against civilians and leaders who inhabit have risen significantly during the Covid-19 pandemic, a time when leaders are even more vulnerable to targets. Massacres are a persistent strategy that directly target social leaders in order to silence their grassroots advocacy and create fear. By instilling fear within communities that are fighting for peace, illegal armed forces and other actors further perpetuate the pre-existing threats. The government attempts to downplay massacres by referencing them as “multiple homicides'' yet continues to implement Free Trade Agreements despite the consideration of Afro-Colombian community leaders.

Afro-Colombians have not received proper acknowledgement nor respect since their forceful introduction into the country itself. Despite ongoing efforts to advance the Ethnic Chapter, there have been numerous struggles to fully implement these practices on the ground. Before any progress is to be made in legislative terms, African descendants in Colombia must first be recognized and respected as individuals and as a people.

[wolainterns]

Migrant Women Are Experiencing Forced Sterilization at the Hands of ICE

By: Claudia Roman; Fall 2020 Development Intern

Photo: Janis Christie/Getty Images

In September 2020, a nurse who worked at an ICE detention center in Georgia became a whistleblower for human rights violations that were occurring in that center. She claimed that an ICE doctor was performing forced sterilizations on migrant women. She said none of these women consented to this surgery and they were not told why they were seeing a doctor. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that forced sterilization has occurred in this country. The U.S. has had a long and painful history of performing forced sterilizations. From Black women to Puerto Rican women to Native American women, this violence has been ongoing and has not stopped. In an article from the Washington Post about this situation, they mention that forced sterilizations meet the definition of genocide and go against the International Bill of Human Rights. The International Bill of Human Rights was created by the United Nations as a way of promoting human rights around the world and protecting people from violence they might face. In the bill it has the declaration on the protection of all persons from being subjected to torture, which says that no one should be subjected to torture or cruel, inhumane punishment. These forced sterilizations would count as torture since this is happening to migrant women against their will. 

Because of the human rights violation happening at the US-Mexico border, the United Nations should hold the US accountable for this horrific action. Accountability should include processing asylum claims for these women and their families who have suffered. 

When it comes to granting asylum to women, in 1980 the US adopted domestic law provisions from the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. This recognizes domestic violence in a relationship, a reason many women flee, as a form of persecution and a valid basis to seek asylum in the US. However, due to an increase in immigration restrictions, it has become difficult for women in these dangerous situations to get to safety. Within the last four years, the rights of asylum seekers have been under attack. The Trump administration has implemented policies that have made it hard to seek asylum, such as metering. Metering is a policy that forces thousands of migrants to wait for many months until they can meet with US customs officials at a port of entry. The Trump administration has also forced the Mexican government into accepting the “Remain in Mexico” policy which puts migrants in a dangerous position. This is a policy that forces migrants to wait for their US asylum hearings in dangerous border towns. For women escaping domestic violence, they cannot wait for this long period of time because it could cost them their life. They should be able to seek asylum immediately when arriving at the US border.

Asylum claims should be processed for these women to abide by international law and because of the amount of trauma they and their families faced. They came to this country for a better life and yet they have faced many types of sexual violence while doing so. It is the only fair thing to do. In addition to that, they also deserve financial compensation for the amount of physical and emotional pain they endured. Women and other asylum seekers who have endured abuses from ICE can be compensated by the US government under the Victims of Crime Act. This act allows a certain amount of money to be sent to victims of a serious crime, such as sexual assault or rape. Since a federal government agency was the perpetrators of this crime, it should compensate them.

Overall, this nation has obliterated protection for asylum seekers and has made it a point that they are not welcome here. Their rights are violated by ICE and they become victims to physical and sexual abuse unfortunately, such as the women who were forcibly sterilized. There needs to be an end to ICE centers when there are alternatives that could be implemented instead, such as a home visit or check ins with an immigration lawyer and social worker. Through this, asylum seekers have a safe place to stay and are being treated with respect and dignity.