Dossier Group 1: Ally Russell, Binwant Kahlon, Tracy Gordon, Karla Gomez

Executive Summary

The country once overflowing with oil, now does not have enough food to line the shelves of its grocery stores, or enough funding to provide water to sinks in homes across the nation. Now, people wait on the side of highways, waiting to collect water that trickles down from the mountains after rainfall. Instead of oil-generated revenue pouring it, it is citizens that are fleeing with the little that they can carry. The current estimates put the amount of Venezuelans leaving their country at 3,000,000 and that number is expected to rise, on track to surpass the migration crisis witnessed in Syria. While Venezuelans are fleeing their country due to an economic and state collapse that has generated massive shortages of food, livelihood, and health services, the same tensions seen during the Syrian conflict amongst the international community have risen- who is to blame for the crisis, what is the best way to accept the migrants, and what are the limitations of receiving countries?

The U.S. has given around $40,000,000 in aid to Venezuela indirectly- the Venezuelan government is not accepting foreign aid, so humanitarian regimes must strategically funnel aid to countries receiving migrants, like in this case study, Colombia. Venezuela’s refusal of aid is part of a larger, ongoing, political discussion on who is to blame for this crisis and the appropriate measures international actors should take. Maduro and the Venezuelan government blames the black market for smuggling goods out of the country and countries like the US for waging an economic war against Venezuela, trying to weaken it enough to force an avenue of intervention. While a majority of outside countries and analysts conclude that a reliance on imports contributed to the political economic crisis and the resulting human rights violations that forced Venezuelans to flee, discovering into the cause itself is not so straightforward. The discussion of who is to blame  bleeds into the conversation of what actions need to be done about the leadership of Venezuela. Should Nicolás Maduro be forced out of office via military coup, or is that leeway for capitalist, imperialist powers like the US to exert control over the area rich in oil supply? While that debate wages on, other groups have focused on what to do about the humanitarian migration crisis.

The United Nations High Commission of Refugees (UNHCR) released an action plan based on the work of ninety-five aid organizations on how to best receive, support, and assist refugees, while working within the structural constraints of each receiving nation. Ecuador held a summit for countries receiving migrants to have a discussion on the most conducive way to assimilate and accept arriving migrants. However, the aid given to migrants is also dependent on another factor: whether those fleeing Venezuela are “migrants” or “refugees.” Most countries recognize “refugees” as a people fleeing from fear or occurrence of persecution relating to identity or political opinion. Current definitions do not recognize economic needs and basic needs as justification for refugee status. Furthermore, refugee is a legal category, each case has to be officially approved by the UN, the magnitude of the crisis taken into account. However, Latin American nations understands “refugee” from the definition given in the Cartagena Declaration of Refugees in 1984, which broadens the definition as someone fleeing from “massive violation of human rights or other circumstances that have disturbed public order.” Under this definition, the collapse of the Venezuelan state should render Venezuelans fleeing the country as refugees, however, most countries receiving migrants have not embraced them as such. In reality, these host nations have used a mixed definition of “migrants” and “refugees” to describe the current migrant situation. This distinction is important because “refugees” are entitled to more rights than migrants. Receiving countries now focus on incorporating and assimilating Venezuelans as migrants rather refugees because of the enhanced protections that would entail, however, this has brought on additional problems and shortcomings in international aid organizations’ ability to protect the rights of fleeing Venezuelans.

Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador and Peru are the countries that have accepted the most migrants but face with difficulties of receiving and providing for them as the crisis continues and they have started to cut back on their generosity. Colombia, which was once hailed for its openness toward refugees as they welcomed Venezuelans not as burdens but rather additions to their workforce, has curtailed its generosity due to growing concerns of its own civilians. Fear that Venezuelans are stealing jobs from Colombians, health concerns over the diseases that Venezuelans might bring to the populace, and concerns over increased crime and violence has contributed to xenophobia rhetoric that has limited the mobility of migrants. The same concerns and rhetoric have led to the burning of migrants camps in Brazil, advertisements in Ecuador offering $50 for punching a Venezuelan in the face, more women forced into underground, sex-work industries rather than job permits, and the rise of dangerous propaganda that posits Venezuelans as harbingers of crime and violence.

These effects are common features of migration crises: receiving countries are receptive to a point, after that, nationalist rhetoric takes over as concerns regarding resources emerge. Circling back, concern over resources is what initially prompted Venezuelan migration. This leads to the core point of the dossier, that the migration crisis embodies and begets human rights violations. The same fight for basic necessities and the right to life that forces people to leave, is the same fight that leads to presumptive fears over migrants and further violations of human rights- whether that be in the form of burning migrant camps or taking advantage of desperate Venezuelans. This is the focus of our dossier- to explore the human rights violations that led to migration and the ones that have emerged from these violations that all together, make migration all the more difficult to understand from a global perspective and to address. Our dossier focuses on human rights issues that are both causal and resultant as well as ones that are beyond the usual interpretation of human rights violations.

Children’s Rights

The socioeconomic crisis in Venezuela has affected one of the most vulnerable sectors of society: children. Since the crisis escalated from the economic to the humanitarian arena, Venezuelan children have suffered from severe malnutrition and limited access to health resources. In addition, children are directly affected by their parents’ lack of employment and available income. This lack of parental economic stability has created more situations of uncertainty for many children’s education, forcing them to stop going to school to support their parents and sometimes find jobs themselves. All of these causes have propagated children to abandon school or limit their time in school, disrupting not only their own development but the future educated demographics of their country. Children have become victims of the Venezuelan government’s inability to supply their most vulnerable citizens with the most basic elements for proper human development. The Venezuelan government is violating children’s human rights, by not providing or ensuring proper access to education, nourishment, and healthcare.

According to UNICEF, an estimate of 460,000 children have been forced to migrate in search of a better life out of Venezuela (UNICEF, “Migration Flows.”) Some of these children travel along with their parents. Others embark on this dangerous journey unaccompanied, in an effort to reunite with their parents who have migrated and settled in neighboring countries, such as Colombia, Brazil, and Ecuador. Children who travel unaccompanied depend on resources from international non-profit organizations such as UNICEF, IRC, and IOM. Data from these international organizations claim that children are not only being affected by the internal socioeconomic burden upon Venezuela, but are also more prone to falling victim to human trafficking and abuses during their migration journey. According to reports and data provided from international refugee camps, the Venezuelan government is unwilling to provide migrant children with any protectional rights, let alone search for solutions to avoid thousands of children having  to migrate unaccompanied from Venezuela. Therefore, proper protection of the rights of Venezuelan children is currently being overseen by international nonprofit organizations, a reflection of the failure of Venezuela’s government and its responsibility to its most vulnerable citizens. The following dossier presents a closer look at aspects of the current crisis affecting children and adolescents who migrate from Venezuela. As well, the dossier analyzes the causes of this migration, the deployment of aid by international organizations, Venezuela’s inability to provide basic human development materials, dangers of human trafficking and abuse, as well as the government’s response to the children’s humanitarian crisis.

Environment

Environmental factors have surfaced as one of the lesser broadcasted violations in Maduro’s Venezuela but that does not take away from its effect on thousands of Venezuelan people. The mass exodus of Venezuelans has created two types of cases of human rights violations. The first is that the mass migration has resulted in the collapse of Venezuela’s infrastructure industry. Migration has emptied occupations of critical personnel that perform maintenance and prevention work for critical environmental sectors such as city pollution, water pipe maintenance, and road clearing. Given Venezuela’s geographic location, which allows for earthquakes and landslides to disable large cities in less than minutes, these are critical jobs. With improper care from the government the people are left with unsanitary conditions due to improper disposal and lack of people to do these jobs. Those who have left have also left many behind, forced to deal with the result of the governmental crisis and elimination of basically all government-funded city management and maintenance jobs.

The second case of human rights violations is the environmental crisis that is happening right now in countries that border Venezuela where many are fleeing to. Brazil in particular has been inundated by migrants that have set up temporary, makeshift camps. While their intentions are to escape problems in Venezuela, they have created more in Brazil. These camps remain largely unofficial hubs for displacement migrants, meaning the Brazilian government is not helping to regulate them. The people are left to dispose of their trash and human waste however possible, without proper infrastructure. Improper waste management  has immediate impacts on Brazilian waterways that are essential to the surrounding ecosystems as well as the neighboring towns that rely on that water source for drinking water and irrigation. These environmental concerns are an example of the resultant problems and human rights violations that stem from the migration crises.

Health

The mounting health crisis in Venezuela has immediate and far-reaching implications for not only the Latin American region, but the larger global community. Today, the majority of Venezuelans live in conditions of extreme poverty. Conditioned to rely on government subsidies for healthcare and food, now many have no way of accessing medical facilities or paying for basic, life-sustaining materials. Among the millions fleeing the nation are thousands of trained medical personnel, fleeing the nation’s economic crisis and lack of employment opportunities. The majority of hospitals are either completely closed down, lacking qualified personnel, operating equipment, basic vaccines, medicines, or all of the above. Cases of previously-controlled infectious diseases are skyrocketing not only in Venezuela, but in neighboring nations as well that are hosting thousands of migrants. The potential for the global spread of these diseases remains high, as many are forced to migrate in hopes of accessing treatment options. Alongside this crisis, maternal and infant mortality has risen. Although the health crisis in Venezuela emerged as a direct result of irresponsible management of government funds and reliance on the oil industry to prop up unsustainable welfare programs, when compounded with the issue of migration, the health crisis has the potential to have visible and longstanding impacts that extend far beyond the Southern Hemisphere.

To read more, click here.

By: Adamaris Gallo, Andrea Cabezas, and Eric Garnica

Femicide is defined as: “the extreme and ultimate manifestation of existing forms of violence against women in patriarchal societies. Crimes of this kind reinforce the idea that women are sexual objects and belong to men. For a case to be considered femicide, there must be an implied intention to carry out the crime, as well as a demonstrated connection between the crime and the gender of the victim ”.

Over the years, an increase in the violence against women is apparent all throughout the country of Mexico. This violence is carried out within many women’s own interpersonal relationships but are also the result of the overall violence occurring in the country. The Mexican government’s lack of penalty for perpetrators contributes to the normalization and continuance of femicide. After the declaration of the War on Drugs executed by President Felipe Calderon, violence in local communities in proximity to the confrontation between state and drug cartels are paying the price. Human Rights Watch reports: “Between December 2012 and January 2018, the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) received more than 4,600 complaints regarding alleged abuses by the military”. Mexico’s War on Drugs heavily relies on the military to aid in the conflict, but there is little accountability on the part of the government that supervises their actions.

There are various international agencies and NGOs involved in Mexico’s case, for example, Amnesty International wrote an open letter to president elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, asking him to improve the current human rights violations in his first 100 days of his presidency. This letter summarizes the various human rights issues plaguing Mexico, but it also acknowledges certain strategies that the president elect can apply. In addition, in July,  the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women urged the state to implement measures that decrease and combat discrimination against women – not only in the workplace – but measures that fight violence and human trafficking of women.

Women are underrepresented and have a lack of support from the government and because of this it pushes them to work for more fairness and equality. Essentially women are the ones who are enduring the most pain facilitated by the violence going on around them. With all the civil unrest and lack of support it prompts them to find their own solutions. In 1975 the women of Mexico drafted a declaration of rights stating what they expected and wanted to work toward, but as we know because declarations aren’t legally binding there’s nothing really to enforce them, but it was a step.

In their declaration these women claimed that it was everyone’s job to recognize the injustices being carried out around them, they proposed more people to be aware of the crimes such as discrimination and scrutiny occurring against women. These women drew a set of principles that acted as rights for the people of their country. They asked for equal responsibilities between men and women in work and family, opportunities for women to reach their academic potential just as men do, respect for women to freely decide in a contract to matrimony, and more rights pertaining to express freely what they want for themselves. Women are constantly being antagonized and disregarded, but they make a big part of the country and often times are consistently harmed with no repercussions, and this declaration aims to claim no more neglect. The formal manner and the fact that the conference took place in the UN of Mexico demonstrates that the women had their breaking point with everything going on around them and it’s enough violence, and time for the government to become involved and advocate for change.

Women’s rights weren’t being advocated for and they didn’t do it just for the sake of being seen as equal in their counter gender’s eyes, but so respectively their value of life was recognized as simply meaningful. Males were domestically violent, the government gave no aid and continuously neglected the domestic issues, but it was time for a change because women would no longer succumb to a twisted mentality, that they weren’t as valuable.

The goals of the NGO’s and the Mexican government are, trying to assist women and find methods on stopping the violence. The approach that both entities have taken have different effects but what appears to be common is the lack of true progress for women. What the Mexican government has done in this decade to combat the issue of femicide is adjusting their federal budget. The federal budget requires, “the Government to earmark funds for programmes to promote gender equality and end gender discrimination and violence against women. Funds for those activities had increased 138 per cent since 2008, to almost $4.29 billion.” Although the government has made this significant change, state corruption remains a problem and any real progress has yet to be noticed, “Even with the implementation of these programs, however, femicide cases still see an impunity rate of 95 percent, indicating that of the almost 50,000 women killed, only about 2,500 resulted in convictions.”  NGOs do not have the same has structural influence as the federal government but the advocacy of femicide is more demanding. NGOs focus with the issue of femicide, is about resolving cases of missing women and those women who have been found dead. Women like, Norma Andrade, who co-founded the organization known as Nuestras Hijas de Regreso a Casa (May Our Daughters Return Home) fight for the, “returning the bodies of femicide victims to their families for a proper burial and bringing their aggressors to justice.” While efforts to bring justice to those affected families is a worthy cause to fight for, it comes with a danger that would fright many people. That danger is, the death threats and attempted murders on those who speak out on the issue of femicide. Unfortunately, the result of speaking out against these crimes have claimed the lives of women activist. A recent 2017 murder, is an example of the cost of seeking justice in Mexico. Miriam Elizabeth Rodríguez Martínez, “who became an activist for parents of missing children after her daughter was kidnapped and murdered five years ago was fatally shot by gunmen who broke into her home.” What was almaring about the death of Rodríguez Martínez was the fact that she was suppose to have government protection but the state failed to do so. The United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commision, regarding the killing of Rodríguez Martínez, asks that, “the Government of Mexico to carry out a fair and impartial investigation into this case and to address the prevailing impunity that permits such attacks against human rights defenders.”

To read full Dossier: Click Here

Sources used:

Amnesty International. “Mexico: Amnesty International urges the president-elect to take action for human rights during his first 100 days.” Amnesty International. November 28, 2018. Accessed March 11, 2019. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/11/mexico-amnistia-internacional-pide-al-presidente-electo-que-actue-por-los-derechos-humanos-durante-sus-primeros-100-dias/.

Human Rights Watch. “Mexico Events of 2018.” Human Rights Watch. 2018. Accessed March 11, 2019. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/mexico.

Lauren Cocking. “Meet the Mexican Activists Fighting for Women’s Rights.” Culture trip. February 22, 2017. Accessed March 11, 2019. https://theculturetrip.com/north-america/mexico/articles/meet-the-mexican-activists-fighting-for-womens-rights/.

Malone Gabor. “Femicide: Not One More.” Council on Hemispheric Affairs. October 24, 2016. Accessed March 11, 2019. http://www.coha.org/femicide-not-one-more/.

Manganara, Joanna. “Femicide.” International Alliance of Women. January 26, 2016. Accessed March 11, 2019. https://womenalliance.org/femicide.

Paulina Villegas. “Gunmen Kill Mexican Activist for Parents of Missing Children.” New York Times. May 12, 2017. Accessed March 11, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/world/americas/mexico-mother-activist-murdered-daughter-tamaulipas.html. 

United Nations. “Declaration of Mexico on the Equality of Women and Their Contribution to Development and Peace.” World Conference of the International Women’s Year. July 2, 1975. Accessed March 11, 2019. http://www.un-documents.net/mex-dec.htm.  

United Nations Human Rights Office of The High Commission. “Mexico: UN rights experts strongly condemn killing of human rights defender and call for effective measures to tackle impunity.” United Nations Human Rights Office of The High Commission. May 19. Accessed March 11, 2019. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21640.

United Nations. “Mexico Gaining Ground in Efforts to End ‘Femicide’, Other Violence against Women, Delegation Tells Anti-Discrimination Committee.” United Nations. July 12, 2012. Accessed March 11, 2019. https://www.un.org/press/en/2012/wom1917.doc.htm. 

“World Report 2019: Rights Trends in Mexico.” Human Rights Watch. January 17, 2019. Accessed March 11, 2019. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/mexico.

Human Rights Dossier
Group 15: Julia Nguyen, Cindy Lemus and Samantha Linarez

An audio clip of Alisson Madrid, a 6-year old girl from El Salvador, along with other children being held in Border Patrol facilities separate from their parents. Audio clip was collected by ProPublica, a nonprofit journalist team based in New York.

Hundreds of child migrants from the Northern Triangle, including El Salvador, are caged in by a chain link fence. It is extremely cold and there is little light, except for the occasional glint of the thin reflective emergency blankets which serve as the sole barrier between their bodies and the concrete floor. Some of the children here are just toddlers, yet there are no parents or caregivers in sight. Within the chaos of the Border Patrol holding facility, one thing is clear: these children are not the “killer” gang members the Trump administration warned us about. In reality, the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy has disproportionately affected innocent families and children. Rather than preventing “criminal aliens” from entering the U.S., these immigration policies have led to systematic abuse and criminalization of innocent children seeking asylum. This anti-immigrant sentiment is not novel to the Trump administration. The notion that migrant children, particularly those from El Salvador, were inherently violent has been reinforced and reiterated in generations of violence which define the shared history of the U.S. and El Salvador.

Illustration by Molly Crabapple which depicts a young MS-13 member. “Their faces are scarred and their eyes hollowed by years of dealing out death and taking abuse, making them look much older.”

The arrival of unaccompanied migrant children at the border can be linked back to systematic violence against communities of color in the U.S. which led to the rise of transnational gangs. El Salvador developed a reputation for gang violence which has steadily increased since the end of the Salvadoran Civil War in 1992. The end of the war meant that thousands of Salvadoran police and military personnel trained by U.S. soldiers no longer had jobs. At the same time, members of the Los Angeles based gang La Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) were being deported back to El Salvador. Mass deportations led by the U.S. and declining employment rates prompted the growth of MS-13 in El Salvador. The MS-13 are now one of the largest and most violent gangs within the Americas: they participate in drug, weapons, and human trafficking and continue to use violence to force children and young adults to join. For many young Salvadorans, the only way to truly escape the wrath of MS-13 is to leave El Salvador in search of asylum.  To deny MS-13 orders is a death sentence.

The recruitment of children for purposes of violence has been normalized in Salvadoran society through violent practices during the Civil War. During the Civil War years of El Salvador children were used both by the FMLN and the Salvadoran Military as tools to support partisan agendas.  On both sides, children were recruited by force with soldiers threatening to kill family members if they denied. Many children joined either side because they saw family members being killed. Children were forced to become messengers, scouters and even soldiers. Children were exploited and left with few options. They were stripped of their innocence and scarred by experiences that many adults will never have to experience during their lifetime. Seeing dead bodies on the ground was their “normal.” From the government ordered murders of farm workers in during the mid 1970’s, to the murder of innocent civilians during the Civil War, violence has always been the unfortunate response to change. The violence Salvadoran children experience at the border, in El Salvador, and in the U.S. today is deeply rooted in this history.

The photograph shows armed children who are part of a leftist guerilla family. (Ulsulutan, El Salvador March 3, 1982)

Since generational violence against Salvadoran children is perpetrated by actors both within and outside the state, it is essential to examine this phenomenon through the lens of international human rights policy. In the current study, we will analyze the root causes of violence against Salvadoran children using the framework of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Children which was signed by El Salvador in 1990. The ten principles outlined by this document will orient readers through the case studies presented and allow us to determine the role of international policy in protecting the livelihood of Salvadoran children as they continue to face violence today.

Read the full dossier: Stolen Innocence: Generational Violence against Children of El Salvador.

Annotated Bibliography

The vast South American country of Brazil is home to roughly nine hundred thousand indigenous people, and their land is spread out through Brazil, making up about thirteen percent of the overall land. Brazil’s fast growing economy and commitment to becoming a global economic power has had adverse effects on the indigenous population as well as the surrounding environments. Much of the world praises economic achievements and advances while putting little to no emphasis on the costs of achieving those economic successes and advances. What remains hidden, however, are the devastating effects this economic growth has caused to Brazil’s oldest inhabitants and surrounding environments. Some of those costs are human rights violations namely in the form of land disputes between the state and the indigenous people. Former president Michel Temer along with the current president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, have long had disputes with indigenous people over their land. In fact, even though Brazil is currently a democratic republic, the struggle over indigenous rights has arguably never been as contentious, given the current handling of indigenous rights by the Bolsonaro administration. As a result, the differences in the goals of the Brazilian government and indigenous people have caused a dispute that looks set to continue for the foreseeable future.

“With the Brazilian government, it becomes evident that their goal for economic expansion is coming at a huge cost for indigenous rights in Brazil.”

On one side, the indigenous people have inhabited the land prior to even the establishment of the Brazilian nation. The indigenous people want only to preserve and remain on their land. Though it has seen amendments in the past few decades, the Brazilian constitution clearly outlines the rights afforded to Brazil’s indigenous tribes and peoples in regard to the protection of their land. Specifically, when looking at the amended Brazilian Constitution of 1988, the excerpt stating, “the lands traditionally occupied by Indians are destined for their permanent possession, and they shall be entitled to the exclusive usufruct of the riches of the soil, rivers and lakes existing thereon” stands out. This excerpt undeniably grants the indigenous people the land they inhabit without question. Additionally, The National Foundation for the Indigenous, or FUNAI, help fight for and promote indigenous people’s rights, though they unfortunately have little funding and support from the federal government.

In 1988, the Brazilian Government drafted an entirely new Constitution which outlined new perspectives on how the nation would work with the Indigenous People within Brazil, and detailed new policies on how land would be demarcated between the government and the lands of native peoples. This rewriting of the nation’s ethos resulted in several changes to the way the nation would run, but it also very importantly changed the ways in which the lands of Brazil’s indigenous peoples would be separated and portioned from the Nation of Brazil’s land. In this new constitution, article 67 stated “The Union shall conclude the demarcation of indigenous lands within five years after promulgation of the Constitution” This was an important article because it set a tangible deadline for when lands needed to be portioned and set aside for indigenous people. The issue with this deadline was that it set up no consequences for the nation or established any sort of committee to oversee the progress of this deadline, so the five year deadline was never met. Several decades later, the nation is still debating and formulating a plan for how to demarcate the lands of native peoples.

The indigenous struggle for land rights in Brazil has been an ongoing conflict, and is not anticipating to be resolved in the foreseeable future. For the purposes of this dossier, we will be analyzing indigenous rights history in Brazil to investigate current and previous cases of land disputes that continue to persist despite the country’s implemented policy. These land disputes may take the form of failure to uphold the constitution, national park access, and the relationship of land to indigenous cultural history.

To Read the Full Dossier, Click Here –––––> Indigenous Land Disputes in Brazil Dossier

Dossier By: Emily Moncada, Nayda Peace, Rob Dellinger, and Jocelyn Vera

In Guatemala, a country with a majority indigenous population, it is imperative to remember the past as a precondition for analyzing current political issues (Jonas 2000: 14).  Guatemala’s history can be explained through the narratives of the most marginalized voices of society, to highlight ongoing political violence and injustices. War, domination, subjugation, and military dictatorships have characterized its history. To offer a more nuanced historical analysis of Guatemala, testimonies and truth commissions must be explored in relationship to its reconstructed history. A structural-violence approach employs framework that highlights the racial, geographical, and sociopolitical patterns of violence in Guatemala and its consistency between the past and the postwar period (Oettler 2006: 15- 19). Various current conditions of Guatemala must be explained through a historical analysis of the structural nature of institutionalized violence, the polarization of Guatemalan society, and the lack of restorative justice.

The dossier gives context to the archival evidence of the more than 200,00 people lost their lives in Guatemala as a result of state-orchestrated acts of terrorism. The narrative we portray discusses the recovery and transformation of discourse that denied Mayan history, and ignored the destruction of villages and brutal killings through indigenous peoples’ testimony. Political violence does not necessarily have to be directly committed by government officials. By legitimizing violence is a formal violation of human right violation. Guatemala has given legal authorization to community organized groups to practice justice through the use of violence. Since citizens do not trust the state’s ability to protect them, they have decided to form community groups to defend their communities against drug-trafficking organizations. One form of making justice is that indigenous justice systems have contributed to collective lynching, which is viewed as a legal procedure that is justified under the political community, the idea of security and normality. It is important to analyze the social violence that these organized groups and communities have contributed as a collective violence since the end of the civil war. As Santamaria argued “lynchings constitute public, gruesome, and highly ritualized forms of collective violence that involve the torture, mutilation, burning, ot hanging of the victim in a prominent public space” (44). Lynching is a state sanctioned human rights violation because it reflects the legitimacy of the state as the ultimate arbiter of legality and as the organizer of extralegal forms of violence organized by government officials. Amidst the cold war, the U.S. used interference in Guatemala to stage a ‘Coup D’état’, and Guatemala would be subjected to years of continuous violet coups, genocides, torture, and  disappearances.

The 1950’s began to reveal the class conflict and through the 60’s to the 80’s the government sponsored violence and terror only intensified. These constructed government transitions a long range of repression of the Guatemalan people and the history of state atrocities and human rights violations. Ultimately, human rights in Guatemala can be defined as a subject that is only achievable if the government and state institutions are willing to aspire to uphold it. The separation between state interests overshadowing human rights and the citizen population of Guatemala wanting to establish human rights commissions and programs within the government makes it more difficult to have a successful outcome.

Guatemala’s state governance has been subject to various instances of foreign intervention, repeated administrative changes to the presidency, and inconsistency in enforcing human rights organizations to help solve the problems of the past. State sponsored violence and structural violence caused by long periods of class, racial, and gendered violence from before the Mayan genocide to the present has contributed to the inability of the CICIG to fix major corruption issues. The current sentencing of Rios Montt to 80 years for Crimes Against Humanity is a beginning to reconcile the generational repression and violence that the people were subject to. However, since the convection in 2013, Montt has passed away. On one hand, justice has been served. On the other, there is amount of reparations that could ever heal the pain that the people has faced.  If one wishes to project human rights in Guatemala into the future, the structural violence that grew with state violence must be considered. Furthermore, the corruption that exists today in Guatemala could not have been made possible without the events that occurred more than 50 years ago.

To learn more about political violence in Guatemala click on the file below to see the full dossier.

Image provided for the dossier was taken by Rob Dellinger.

By: Diana Cuevas, Rebecca Fraley-Gonzalez, Ryan Chima, Bertha Cazarez

Loxicha street scene by Dalí Nelio

In the field of human rights, it is often the case for victims of human rights violations to carry the burden of knowing their rights and defending themselves. This has been the case for indigenous groups in Mexico since Spanish arrival and subsequent colonization over the course of many centuries. Although indigenous peoples comprise 12% of Mexico’s population today, they continue to face marginalization and oppression despite the Mexican government’s attempts to integrate them under a singular Mexican identity (United Nations Economic and Social Council, 2). Because the lifeways and customs of indigenous peoples are deeply rooted in long-established traditions and cultural ties, they do not fit the mold of the typical Mexican identity, which furthers their state of marginalization and neglect.

While there is no doubt that the Mexican Constitution and associated treaties explicitly mention the rights of indigenous peoples, these rights are nullified without proper enforcement and consistent interpretations. To explain, the Constitution is written in Spanish, a colonial language, and is largely inaccessible to indigenous groups that are not fluent, thus hindering them from being informed about their rights as humans and citizens of Mexico. Using policy and law to rectify the injustices wrought on indigenous peoples by the Mexican government has proven to be counterproductive, as the incentives to continue exploiting indigenous peoples outweigh the pursuit of justice and can result in an even worse quality of life. More specifically, the promulgation of neoliberalism in Mexico has led to the exploitation of indigenous lands, resources, and human capital for the sake of economic development (Nieto, 12).

Indigenous groups in Mexico have long fought for political recognition within local and state policy that validates the legitimacy of their lifeways and traditional practices. They often get as far as proposing potential reform in legislation; however, more often than not, their proposals are dismissed and overlooked when not aligned with Mexican constitutional laws and the nationalist “self”. Indigenous peoples are granted minute forms of political independence (i.e. the ability to appoint judges to their courts) but they are quickly interfered with by state and national governments. Sovereignty is extremely difficult for indigenous groups to achieve because of the inconsistent and often contradictory interpretations of constitutional law and policies that suit the interests of bureaucrats and developers, rather than the indigenous peoples facing chronic poverty because of these damaging policies and laws.  

Woman in Oaxaca, Mexico by Dalí Nelio

In 2014 the Mexican government began taking steps towards improving the country’s well-being as a singular Mexican identity through educational reforms and literacy goals. What the government does not take into consideration is the diversity of the indigenous population and the historically-appointed economical situations which burden their ability to attend school at all. Furthermore, more than just an ability to read and write, a literacy of self agency- of knowing their own history and their human rights- is of utmost importance. This idea of literacy is rather then taught as a means to speak up to express themselves, to speak against violations of their human rights for resistance of oppression, and to speak with others in dialogue across multicultural differences (Flower 2008).

Access to translators, interpreters and the right to a fair hearing in a judicial setting is a basic human right scarcely found in the courtrooms of Mexican states today. In 2016, over 66% of indigenous defendants in Chihuahua were not assigned an interpreter (Blanco). There are organizations run by indigenous peoples (http://nikuurami.org/) to provide legal translation assistance to defendants without the ability to comprehend Spanish orders given by the judge, but there still remains a great disparity between defendants and presence/availability of proper interpreters. There is a lack of communication and basic understanding between indigenous peoples and other communities due to language barriers and stereotypes inflicted upon the indigenous groups by the Mexican, and international, population.

The different words and ideas used to define growth, happiness and freedom in varying communities impact the effectiveness of the government’s ability to enforce change for indigenous peoples. An attempt to bridge the gap of intercultural understanding must be met, as well as a reform of current political, economic and social practices that work to keep the indigenous population in the seat of the abused and exploited.

Click Here to read full Dossier.

By: Selena Hood, Aileen Flores, Odette Moran

The focus of this dossier will be the violation of human rights along the heavily militarized US-Mexico border, specifically the victimization of Mexican and Central American persons seeking refuge in the United States. The evidence presented will analyze a few injustices along Mexico’s northern/US’s southern border. The main aggressors will be state actors from both nation-states, the United States and Mexico. US and Mexican migration policies alike are restrictive in the admittance of refugees into the country–making their legal processes long, difficult, and detailed for anyone applying. Then, we start to ask ourselves how efficient these policies are and what they are actually doing versus what they were meant to do. Entangled and in battle with our aggressors will be groups who try to defend the humanity of migrating persons. These actors include non-governmental organizations and international agencies such as No Mas Muertes, Amnesty International, and the United Nations. Organizations such as these play a prominent role in defending the rights of those who fall victim to the violence perpetrated along the border–becoming a voice for those who are and have been systematically silenced. They share universal goals of justice, equality, and freedom. Then, we turn to look at particular case studies from two overlooked groups, women and children. What are the special protections given to these two groups and how are their rights continually being violated today and right now? How are the groups mentioned above helping them?

Rights and Migration

Central American refugees seeking asylum in the United States are left in uncertainty after leaving their home nation. They are fleeing the place where they were born and must venture to an unknown world, hoping to be received and accepted. The journey from Central America to the United States has been largely documented by scholars as being difficult–definitively placing migrating bodies in danger. It is not uncommon for a refugee to experience hunger, challenging landscapes, rape, sickness, violent confrontations, and death during the grueling journey towards asylum. Dehumanizing acts happen even once the wanted destination is reached. However, the uncertainty refugees and asylum seekers confront is ever present during their journey. That is because rights are something usually thought to be grounded on a national level—citizens of El Salvador would be protected by Salvadoran laws, Mexican citizens by Mexican law, and United States citizens by American law. As a refugee, national law no longer applies—injustices experienced cannot be fought through a state level. Asylum seekers must adhere to a much broader protection, they must turn to international law.

Border or Death Sentence?

Due to the pressing need to escape conditions in Central America, deterrence strategies in the United States do not work to stop immigration. These strategies only increase the suffering and death toll of the immigrants. The militarization of the the US-Mexico border has created a funnel of immigration to the more remote areas of the desert where there is rough terrain and little resources to aid their travel through the desert.^[5]Many organizations such as No Mas Muertes have tried to help the immigrant’s path with first aid, water, and food however they have been criminalized. Volunteers are often fined or arrested for “operating a motor vehicle in a wilderness area”, “abandonment of property”, and “littering” while trying to assist the migrants or leave survival necessities for them.^[6]According to the group, No Mas Muertes, they recovered the bodies of thirty-two unfortunate migrants who died trying to cross the border without help. According to Amnesty, between 1998 and 2012 over five thousand people had died trying to cross the border. Most had died in the desert on the way there, those that made it through the desert had died by gunfire at the border.

Applying for Asylum

In the 1951 Convention, a refugee is internationally defined as “someone who is unable or willing to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.”  In the United States, this definition is something that needs to be proved by an asylum applicant—which is a more lengthy and difficult process than assumed. The first step towards asylum in the United States is entering U.S. land, which could be, for example, via border patrol or entry point. (Patrolling representations of the state are supposed to ask a series of question that categorize the refugee as a possible asylum seeker.) From there, the asylee must fill an I-589 or “Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal.” This is a twelve-page application with a corresponding fourteen-page instruction manual—both of which are solely in English and could only be completed in English. If the form is not completed in English, then it would be returned to the applicant. In this application, an asylum seeker must prove, as stated by the 1951 Convention, to have well-founded fear of prosecution. This application is then reviewed by a judge who interprets and determines the validity of its claim. If this fear cannot be proven or is thought to be illegitimate by the reviewing judge, then the person who applied can be removed, and the unapproved application can be used as grounds for removal. Then, with this, asylum seeking persons are under the constant pressure to prove their truth. The validity of their experience must be well represented in a document drafted in a language foreign to their own and is under scrutiny of a single person. This judge will decide whether they get to stay or are returned–even if it means to their impending death.

Women

Border patrol’s abuse of power and authority is evidenced through the targeted mistreatment of female migrants–often raping and sexually abusing the already susceptible bodies. Silvia Falcon argues that rape is strategically utilized as a war crime, a method of torture, and a link to genocide. Rape, in this case, is a means to strip the sense of humanity and to attain power in a systematic way. Power relations are established through the abuse of authority and the consequent incitement of fear. Of women who were surveyed on their personal experience in the border city of Ciudad Juarez, more than two-thirds of the sample surveyed reported to feeling at least some fear. Falcon argues that the border region is experiencing what is referred to as national security rape, a tool used to aid a nervous state, and systematic mass rape, an instrument of open warfare.

Children

Unaccompanied children seeking asylum in the United States have a more complicated set of restrictions, assumptions, and right violations. Because children are usually not thought as individuals and instead as part of a family where parents/guardians are the authority, “many refugee claims made by children have been assessed incorrectly or overlooked altogether.” This is in part why it is important to appeal to the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). This document clearly states that children often suffer child-specific forms of persecution and need child-specific rights. However, as is the case with many children fleeing gang prosecution in the Northern Triangle, their claims are often left forgotten or ignored. Their voice is not as valid than an adult’s–making it more difficult to prove their truth.

Find full dossier here

Group #12: Jose Briceño-Perez, Julio Gonzalez, Jasmin Peña

Venezuelans are leaving their country in high numbers, they are fleeing their country’s economic, humanitarian and governmental crisis. A large number of Venezuelans are seeking asylum around the world. Many plea for alternative forms of documentation which allow them to stay in different South American countries where they share common bonds of culture, language, and history. Venezuela is currently experiencing one of the worst refugee crisis. The article Venezuela Is a Refugee Crisis states that “over 3 million people have fled the country over the last few years… [and an estimate of] 25,000 people are fleeing the country every single day”. This is caused by the decrease in access to medicine and shortage of food supplies. Colombia is accepting the vast majority of Venezuelan refugees followed by Peru (500,000), Ecuador (220,000), Argentina (130,000), Chile (100,000), Brazil (85,000), and Panama with 94,000 refugees. As people are moving in these mass numbers it is important to look at how they are doing so. One of the key non-governmental actors in helping guide refugees seek asylum in other countries is social media, (Facebook groups and Whats App), along with the Venezuelan people themselves. Both of these sources, help refugees network and thoroughly plan out their journey  despite being miles away from their potential host country.

The current situation of venezuela has forced its citizens to flee the other host countries which have shown solidarity as agreed during the signing of the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees. In the 1980s, as a response to the civil wars in Central America, “ten countries in Latin America-including Venezuela- signed the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, expanding refugee protections to those fleeing internal armed conflicts, generalized violence, or massive human rights violations.” Countries in South America aim to created programs that facilitate Venezuelan migration. For example, Brazil’s Normative Resolution NO. 126, Chile has a Visa of Democratic Responsibility, Colombia has the Permiso Especial de Permanencia, and other countries like Argentina, Peru, Ecuador, and Chile also have have similar programs that allow Venezuelans to obtain refugee status. However, despite the solidarity that these countries try to extend, most of these programs are temporary and tend to require paperwork or money that refugees do not have.

Undoubtedly, the Venezuelan refugee crisis is a transnational epidemic which violates human rights. Institutionalized oppression and violence have led to tension among states and Venezuelan migrants. The scope of this research focuses on analyzing the political tension through various case studies that illustrate the struggle in Venezuela and its bordering nations. It is essential to critically tie the historical context and understand the elements that contribute to the violation of human rights. This case introduces principles from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and demonstrates how excessive political repression is responsible for the social instability and death of thousands of migrants. Currently, the refugee crisis continues and this research justifies the need for an immediate humanitarian response to ultimately protect the right to life.

Full Dossier here

By Eliana Carter, Vijay Mittal, and Preston Moore

Looking up from the phone screen on the walk home, it becomes apparent that you have a tail. Seeing a hand move inside of the trench coat, the outline of a weapon becomes apparent and your heart rate quickens. Bracketed and alone you remember that the federal agents told you to push a panic button if you suspected that some of the threats you received on your life were about to be carried out. Smashing the button while aiming for a crowd, in hopes of buying precious time, in minutes it is apparent that there will be no response from police. Instead, the notification will serve merely as an indicator to the corrupt local officials that their accomplices are carrying out the hit. The crowd screams as people begin to fall, a sudden hot punch in the back marks the gunmens’ success. This situation parallels real cases within Mexico. In recent decades, the violence has increased year after year and with it the number of journalists who have lost their lives to a violent policy of censorship allowed to take place with impunity. Violence within Mexico has reached levels that compare with countries amid civil war. More than thirty thousand people lost their lives in 2017 throughout Mexico. The majority of these deaths were a result of the increased violence between competing criminal organizations locked in the drug war.

Mexico’s freedom of the press is under attack by organized crime and corrupt government officials. In late 2006, Felipe Calderon initiated his War on Drugs. This war came to be known as a war of silencing. Large amounts of cash helped corrupt officials begin to use narcotics as a pretext to operate with impunity. The task of an investigative journalist is to critically report on topics of interest, such as crime, political corruption or economic crisis. In 2012 President Enrique Nieto took power and the violence only increased. Ruben Espinosa is just one of many reporters who have been silenced, found murdered as a result of looking into the Veracruz government. Espinosa investigated political corruption and captured many pictures of protests and the state police response. In 2015, Espinosa covered a student protest against the governor Javier Duarte. Espinosa released a photo he shot of Duarte and started receiving death threats. Article 19, an NGO watchdog for freedom of expression in Mexico, initiated missing journalist protocols and shortly after that, Espinosa and four others were found executed in his Mexico City safe house.

The United States of America and the United Nations have both pushed to support local government efforts to stem this bleeding. These efforts include security teams, surveillance and panic buttons. The buttons often did not work or alerted authorities that end up executing the crime themselves. The other measures have proved just as ineffective, and reporters have been forced to employ self-censorship. The murder of investigative journalists means they can no longer hold the state accountable, allowing corruption to control the narrative. The Office of Special Prosecutor Against Freedom of Expression tasked with investigating political violence against journalists. However, they refuse to classify most cases as political violence. This government denial means that less than two percent of these political crimes get the investigative attention they require. International journalists report how politicians and journalists interviewed are either escorted by armed guards or interviewed in complete secrecy, reinforcing the narrative of corrupt government officials rather than the inquisition of the public; eroding democracy and the means of the public to combat the spell of drug money in their institutions.

Journalists have taken to banding together to gather evidence and find justice. Press organizations like the Mexican Environmental Journalists Network, REMPA, have declared solidarity with their fallen colleagues and put forth articles with what they need from the government in order to protect their human rights. These include transparency when investigating these crimes, guaranteed security in the exercise of free speech and journalism and a call for a serious investigation of these crimes. They cite many of the inert cases of colleagues that had disappeared and then were found dead. Human rights organizations, like Article 19, have researched and published extensive reports outlining the rates and amounts of violence targeting journalists. Their effort to investigate and disseminate this information has helped draw support and awareness of the issue.

By: Diana Sandoval, Sharon Giang, Rachel Hinojosa, Jose Ballesteros

Immigration is an international issue facing countries with weak capacities to deal with the large influx of people. Specifically, Central American immigration into Mexico and the United States has grown drastically due to the worsening economic and political atmosphere of the Central American Northern Triangle – Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. Mexico is considered a transit country, because it serves as a gateway for Central Americans migrating to the United States and Canada. Both the inner workings of the immigration crisis and relations with other countries have a forceful impact on the U.S. and Mexico’s positions dealing with immigration, and as a result, affect the people migrating every day. Therefore, the dossier will focus on violence that migrants face in Mexico as well as established or potential policies that are targeted to address the migrant crisis in Mexico. The main actors aforementioned include the Mexican government, the United States government, and migrants originating from various countries in Central America.

Immigration has become synonymous with the humanitarian crisis and is one that has persisted and consistently worsened over the years. In an effort to combat the negligent leadership, policies, and violence towards migrants, many agencies and groups have formed over the years aiming to make a difference in the lives of migrants. For instance, the New Sanctuary Coalition is a faith-based organization that provides assistance to migrants who are applying for asylum and, if they are granted entry, helps them integrate into American society.

Central American migrants have encountered violence within their country for a long period of time now and it has hindered their lifestyle since the Cold War period. They were often displaced due to the ongoing violence between insurgent groups and/or the government. This leads to migrants leaving their home country and heading north to seek asylum in a stable country. Mexico is one of the countries that migrants have to pass through in order to get to the United States or Canada when seeking asylum. However, in Mexico, Central American migrants continue to encounter violence, such as drug cartels, gang violence and discrimination from Mexicans. The continuation of exposure to violence can lead to detrimental consequences to Central American migrants’ wellbeing.

The case of Central American migrants demonstrates the desire of the United States to portray itself as a human rights protector from abroad but incapable to address the pressing humanitarian crisis within its borders. More importantly, it demonstrates Mexico’s immigration paradox such that their call for fair and just rights for their immigrant in the U.S. is not easily seen for the refugees seeking asylum in Mexico. In recent years, Central Americans have been fleeing in masses to their neighboring countries in order to escape the violence and injustices they experience back home. They face violence from gangs, drug cartels, corrupt police officers, and/or their (ex-)partners that all make the dangerous trip up north appear as a gleam of hope (Martínez 2017). Common misconceptions, as a result of mass media, assume that Central American migrants are simply migrating to the United States illegally and stealing jobs from Americans in order to send money back home, but nothing could be further from the truth.Central American migrants would rather spend thousands of dollars they do not have, send their children alone on these trips, place their trust in strangers to transport them, and face the scrutiny of Border Patrol officers than remain in their home countries where violence infests their streets.

As several migrants give their accounts of the tragedies they experience, many people, who yield the power to do something, see but do not fully understand the urgency for action (Martínez 2017). Central American migrants are given empty promises and false hope as they are deported back to their countries of origin to face the violence they hoped to escape. Thus, the issue of immigration affects both sides of the border, such as the fear and arising frustration from the lack of resources and abandonment migrants feel when seeking asylum or simply a better life. Citizens in host countries fear and view the rising numbers of migrants making the journey from unknown countries as a threat. There are diverse solutions such as aid is the way to go, integration possibilities for migrants in the new countries they move to, or government intervention, economic and political stimulation in origin countries to stop migrants from wanting to exit in the first place. However, there is little to no action going into resolving the humanitarian crisis on behalf of any state or leadership.

For more information, click here.

HMR 161

Group 19: Quetzally Cuahuey, Svetlana Prado, Juan Vaca

The photographs were obtained from the Atlantic publication. To access the references Click Here.

Nicaragua’s history has been plagued with war and political violence. The primary contributions of the violence are US imperial interference, civil war, autocratic regimes, and constant clashes between political factions. The Somoza family regime ruled Nicaragua prior to Daniel Ortega. However, the new opposition feels that Daniel Ortega is emulating the Somoza family’s style of rule. He has family members and friends in office, who benefit financially from business deals and laws that he passes through the Nicaraguan government. According to the Committee of Abolition of Illegitimate Debt’s website, He uses his political platform to amass wealth and responds to any form of opposition with violence.

In early April of 2018, NPR reported that the president of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, proposed a social security reform that sent the citizens of Nicaragua to streets, protesting the reform. The reform called for a stop in the widening deficits in the welfare system. These changes would have increased the contributions into the social security by workers and employer however, this would have reduced the pension of those who are retired workers. The Social Security Council approved of this, and soon after the announcement, thousands of people took to the streets of Managua, the capital of Nicaragua, to protest. What at first, started as a peaceful demonstration unfolded into an anti-government protest to overthrow Ortega out office (Diao).

“I am no longer able to work as a human rights defender. I became scared when I saw my photo hanging on the walls of the building of the Sandinista party in my city. Everyone knows that in that building they hang the photos of the people that they’re going to arrest”

– Human rights defender Interview conducted by OHCHR

In efforts to control the protestors, Ortega pursued a tactic of repression by executing arbitrary arrest, kidnappings, and murders. As of 2019, 320 have been killed, hundreds detained, and 30,000 have been exiled (Reuters). Attacks have scaled to more than just demonstrations, for the government has begun cracking down on organizations and institutions that foster the protection of human rights, media production, and democracy. The government is also targeting specific individuals who pose a threat to or oppose the interests of the government. Not only has this tactic damaged the economy, but it has also induced fear within Nicaragua (Reuters). Among 100,000 families have migrated to Costa Rica with 6,000 to 7,000 Nicaraguan asylum applications being submitted every day to Costa Rica. Many Nicaraguans hope to escape the turmoil and repressive government under Ortega (Spindler). Many have been discontent with Ortega’s governance with many accusing him of embodying similar abuses of power as did Somoza, a dictator which Ortega himself once opposed.  The renowned protest gave those unhappy with the government an opportunity to rise against it and voice their call for change.

Worldwide organizations that have been involved are the  UN, the Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, OAS, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights . However, they are unable to enter the country, so helping Nicaraguans locally has become infeasible. The Permanent Council of the Organization of American States [OAS] responded by creating a committee to investigate the situation while the UN has imposed sanctions with the intention of pressuring the Nicaraguan government (Vivanco, Pappier). A recommendation has been for the OAS to work with local groups to monitor the human rights situation in Nicaragua in hopes to prevent the continuation of forced disappearances (Vivanco, Pappier) . Recently, efforts from international sanctions have resulted in the Nicaraguan government giving a public statement affirming the release of current prisoners while also implementing electoral reforms for the upcoming presidential election of 2021 (Reuters).

The citizens are tired of Ortega’s dictatorship and his ways of manipulating the people. The president has denied all accusations of committing human rights violations against his people, instead, he is blaming the opposition group for the killings (Diao). Ortega has addressed his intentions with a reform proposal and has stated that he is willing to work with the people of the community. However, the citizens will only be satisfied if their freedom of speech is regained and the political violence has ended.

Human Rights Dossier

Click Below to download our groups dossier on Nicaragua Government Crackdown:

Reference Page

Diao, Alexis. “Nicaragua’s President Withdraws Social Security Reforms That Sparked Violent Unrest.” NPR, NPR, 22 Apr. 2018, www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/22/604762080/violent-unrest-continues-in-nicaragua-over-social-security-reforms.

Reuters. “Nicaragua Vows to Free Protesters, Begin Reforms.” Voices of America, VOA, 9 Mar. 2019, www.voanews.com/a/nicaragua-vows-to-free-protesters-begin-reforms/4821639.html

Spindler, William. “UNHCR Steps up Its Response as Thousands Flee Violence in Nicaragua.” UNHCR, United Nations High Commissioners for Refugees , 31 July 2018, www.unhcr.org/en-lk/news/briefing/2018/7/5b601e4f4/unhcr-steps-its-response-thousands-flee-violence-nicaragua.html.

Vivanco, José M., and Juan Pappier. “Cómo Frenar La Cacería De Opositores En Nicaragua.” The New York Times. August 20, 2018. Accessed February 21, 2019. http://www.nytimes.com/es/2018/08/20/opinion-derechos-ortega-humanos-nicaragua-oea/amp/.

Venezuela as it stands is facing an economic crisis due to the political processes of the past 20 years. A main facet of this crisis is the shortage of common necessities for the general public. These necessities, most primarily food and medical treatment, are causing a human rights crisis. The main actors of this case include the current president Nicolas Maduro, the past president Hugo Chavez, the self proclaimed leader Juan Guaidó and the Venezuelan lower to middle class, who are the most affected by these shortages. Chavez helped lay the foundation for these policies which led to shortages, while Maduro has been responsible for carrying them on. By carrying them on, he is seeing through the government policies to an unsustainable stage in which a large percentage of the public suffers greatly. Guaidó has reacted to these actions by proclaiming himself the leader of Venezuela and demanding that the country should allow itself to accept aid. Several organizations have tried to get involved with this case, including Amnesty International and the United Nations. Their main purpose was to provide direct aid to the Venezuelans in need, largely by sending supply trucks into the country to give citizens some reactionary form of solutions to their hunger. However, the Venezuelan government’s refusal to admit that there is a crisis occurring has led them to try and turn away these organizations from helping their people. To the government, they believe that their citizens are simply exaggerating their circumstances or are not rationing their food properly. Maduro, in particular, does not want Venezuela to be seen as a country of “beggars” if they were to accept aid from the U.S. In reality, the necessity shortages are caused by government policy, particularly import reliance, price controls, and the overall precedent set for corruption within the Venezuelan government. This lack of and complete avoidance of introspection by the Venezuelan government has allowed this problem to escalate especially within the past five years.

The food shortage crisis is a prime example of just how messy and conflicting human rights cases can be for those seeking to help and those who need the help. A major issue it addresses is the idea of over involvement by countries like the United States. Although Maduro is allowing for these shortages to happen and is refusing to acknowledge his fault in them, he does have a point in worrying about foreign involvement in Venezuela. This is because, although the heavily U.S. influenced NGOs mean well in their aid and are more than willing to give this aid, there have been cases in the past where the U.S. got overly involved in Latin American countries (and countries across the globe in general) in which they simply destabilized it more. This was seen in our class before in El Salvador during the 1980’s in which the U.S.’s initial “alliance” with El Salvador turned into them only aligning themselves with the elite and thus hurting campesinos even more through their “Yankee imperialism.” This brings up a common dilemma in human rights of whether giving help would make a nation better or worse off. For a situation like necessity shortages, one would assume that direct aid would be the best route to go since hunger requires an immediate action. However, some one time aid could turn into decades worth of unjust relations and the U.S. in particular forcing its ideals of what seems right for a completely different country. At any rate, it would appear that Venezuela will have to make some internal changes of its own in order to resolve this problem in the smoothest way possible. However, internal changes require action from the government and acknowledging the problem and its extent, which the government, at least under Maduro, is very reluctant to do.

In order for this problem to be resolved, government action and reconciliation will most likely have to be taken. This problem began in the first place because of faulty government economic policy and lack of foresight for the consequences of heavily relying on oil and misused liberal economic policies to govern a country like Venezuela. With something as tangible as necessity shortages, the government could start reconciling this problem by giving aid directly to those affected by the shortages. However, it is uncertain how this is to be done by the government itself since their entire system is made to let this happen. Reconciliation could also be achieved through the imprisonment or exile of Maduro and the officials which allowed this problem to form the way it did. Legal action could be taken against Maduro since his governing of the country was nothing short of negligent and he denied the suffering of a great number of his population. This, naturally, would need the support of the international community through the United Nations; however the case is on such an international stage already there is no doubt actions already trying to taken to imprison Maduro. An additional actor to think of is Guaidó, who could start moving the country in a more positive direction if he were to actually take power. He is obviously keen in seeking benefits for Venezuelan people, but whether this will be sustainable or not will only be found out as time passes.

To read our full report, please click here.

Waldmüller, Johannes M. “”Living Well Rather Than Living Better”: Measuring Biocentric Human-Nature Rights and Human-Nature Development in Ecuador.” The International Journal of Social Quality 5, no. 2 (2015): 7-28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44174147.

In his article Living Well Rather Than Living Better: Measuring Biocentric Human-Nature Rights and Human-Nature Development in Ecuador, Johannes Waldmüller introduces a discourse on examining human rights issues through a comparative study of the relationships between humans, nature and development practices. The term anthropocentrism (to mean the prevalent focus of theories, projects, and policies on humans) is used to describe the way in which current approaches to development and political philosophies are taken today globally. Waldmüller argues that too much importance is being placed on the human aspect of human rights and instead we should be focusing on a biocentric (to mean all that grows and passes and the interactions between each mechanism) viewpoint.
From a biocentric viewpoint, life itself is a centerpiece for human rights conversation. The article delves into talking about this shift in perspective from anthropocentric to biocentric as one where instead of being focused on human well-being, we focus on human-nature well-being in constant interaction. Drawing from this ideal, Waldmüller proposes that national and regional economy (including their development policies) should be focused around this understanding of the ebb and flow between humans, nature and all life forms and processes.
A PhD graduate in Anthropology and Sociology in Development with an MA in both Intercultural Philosophy and International Development, Waldmüller discusses the attempts led by policymakers in Ecuador to make adequate human rights policies and lead development while becoming aware of a requirement to also assess the rights and presence of nature under the Buen Vivir doctrine. This approach is holistic in it’s attempt at bridging the various aspects of what it means to be alive and how to sustain a ‘good’ life- it takes all the key viewpoints in consideration and attempts at bringing them together.
In this article, Waldmüller explores the framework of Buen Vivir (the right to a good life) and argues for the consideration of human-nature in the practice of development that also seeks to improve the well-being, or quality of life, of a people. He notes the importance in understanding that different peoples (in this article, peoples of Ecuador) hold different views about what it means to have a good life. It is here that life-giving nature must be taken into account by policy-makers in Ecuador (and beyond) when approaching human development. The key points and arguments made in this article can be used cross-culturally to both develop a better understanding of the relationship between development and human livelihood of all peoples in a community and to analyze, in my own study of Mexico, how policy-makers can better approach these issues.

This image was taken from the Government of Ecuador’s website. I chose this image because of the banner’s connection of the Buen Vivir initiative/doctrine and the Secretary of National Planning and Development- it points to the clear connection between (human) development actions and the right to a good life.