por David Bacon

Indigenous Triqui women, men and their children march through the streets of Oaxaca city, to protest against a wave of killing in their home community of San Juan Copala in Oaxaca. (PHOTO BY DAVID BACON)

­OAXACA, MEXICO – Just before Christmas, the women and children who’d spent 17 months living on the sidewalk outside the governor’s palace in Oaxaca announced they were going home. In the spring of 2010, these refugees abandoned their homes in San Juan Copala, the ceremonial center of the Triqui people. Many houses were burned after they left.

Stringing tarps and ropes across the palacio’s outdoor colonnade, they set up their planton, an impromptu community of sleeping and cooking areas across the sidewalk from the zocalo, the plaza at Oaxaca’s heart. It looked hauntingly similar to the settlements of the Occupy protesters that spread across the United States last fall, but rather than fighting to remain in their tents, the Triqui families in the planton were fighting for the right not to live there, for the right to go home.

Finally, this December, they announced an agreement with representatives of Gabino Cue, elected governor last July, who promised to protect the families if they returned to San Juan Copala. Still, many question whether they can really go back safely. Even more importantly, they ask what can bring an end to the violence that has claimed the lives of at least 500 people over the last two decades.

This question is not just debated on the sidewalk by the zocalo, or only in Oaxaca. It is asked, albeit in whispers, by migrant farm workers in Baja California and Sinaloa, in northern Mexico, and in Hollister and Greenfield, in California’s Salinas Valley.

Mixtecos have been leaving Oaxaca for decades, driven mostly by the endemic poverty of the Mexican countryside, says Gaspar Rivera Salgado, a Mixteco professor at UCLA and past coordinator of the Binational Front of Indigenous Organizations. Yet for many years the Triquis, who were equally poor and live in the same region, stayed put. Their migration only began when the violence in their communities made life unbearable.

Once displaced, they began to migrate within the Mixteca region, then within Oaxaca, and then within Mexico. They traveled north, following other Oaxacans to San Quintin in the 1980s, and then in the 1990s, to California.

Triqui migrants might have escaped the violence, but not the political presence of the groups they were fleeing. Wherever they went, the Movement for the Unification of the Triqui Struggle (MULT) and the Social Welfare Group of the Triqui Region (UBISORT) sent agents, requiring people to pay monetary quotas and participate in mobilizations.

In the 1980s, Triqui activists organized MULT. “It was a grassroots organization to fight the caciques (rural political bosses) overcontrol of land, forests and other natural resources,” says Rivera Salgado. “The caciques were so violent that MULT members had to arm themselves. Eventually, those armed men became a paramilitary group. The caciques were overcome, but what began as a grassroots organization became something different. There was no transition to a civil society form of organization.”

Eventually MULT itself fractured into factions. One faction became UBISORT, which began fighting MULT for political control of Triqui communities. Oaxaca’s repressive state government used the conflict to enhance its own control. UBISORT was organized with the support of then-governor Jose Murat, and became a political support base for Oaxaca’s old governing party, the PRI (Party of the Institutionalized Revolution). MULT organized its own political party, the Popular Unity Party. But behind the parties were the guns.

“A civil war went on between them,” Rivera Salgado says. In 2006, Raul Marcial Perez, a leader of UBISORT, was assassinated. Then in October, 2010, Heriberto Pazos, the founder of MULT, was gunned down in the streets of Oaxaca city.

In the only municipio that remained in Triqui hand, San Martin Itunyoso, Antonio Jacinto López Martínez, a MULT leader, was elected president in 2004, but then couldn’t take office because of threats, and fled to the nearby city of Tlaxiaco. Last October, as he was crossing the street there with two members of his family, a ­gunman shot him in the head. Many others were killed in years of violence and retribution.

The High Cost of Migration

For Triquies, migration has had a high cost – they’ve had to fight for survival wherever they went.

“They faced tremendous racism and prejudice,” Rivera Salgado charges. “They’re always the outsiders, treated like savages.” Over the course of some 25 years, so many have fled the political murders plaguing their homeland that they’ve formed towns like Nueva Colonia Triqui, or New Triqui Town, in Baja’s San Quintin Valley. In that colonia, or in California’s Triqui neighborhoods, people ask whether peace is possible, and if it were, would they go home too?

“People left looking for a better future, but they worry about the safety of their families at home,” says activist Elvira Santos (whose name has been changed), pointing to the fear that many Triquis share of reprisals for speaking publicly not only against themselves, but also against their families in Oaxaca. “They’ll think twice before going back because the conflicts and the same armed groups are still there.”

In north Mexico, migrants found farm labor camps with dirt floors and no electricity. When they wanted homes for children and families, Triquis and other indigenous migrants had to mount land invasions, building houses on Federal land, and then awaiting the police sent to evict them.

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

Big Pharma advocates (the few that exist outside the corrupt government structure and the drug industry itself) regularly defend the industry with claims that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains strict regulatory protocols that ensure safety. But a new report reveals that not only are most drug ingredients sourced from unregulated foreign sources, but nearly half of all drug production facilities are located overseas, most of which have never been inspected by FDA.

Issued by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the new report says up to 40 percent of all pharmaceuticals sold in the U.S. are actually manufactured overseas in countries like India and China. A whopping 80 percent of all ingredients used to manufacture drugs, including those manufactured in the US, reportedly come from overseas as well. And the FDA has inspected a mere 11 percent of all foreign drug manufacturing facilities, as opposed to the 40 percent it has inspected domestically.

As of 2007, there were an estimated 152 registered drug manufacturing facilities in Canada, 299 in Indian, and 566 in China, which together total 1,017 facilities. However, FDA has only conducted 368 inspections among these countries and their drug manufacturing facilities, which means 649 facilities have never received an inspection. And if these 368 inspections include multiple inspections at the same facility, then that number is even lower.

This is all shocking news, of course, considering the volume of drugs that is now produced overseas. The common over-thecounter (OTC) pain drug aspirin, for instance, is almost entirely produced in China. The acid reflux drug Prilosec (omeprazole), is also manufactured primarily in Puerto Rico and India, according to the report.

For years, drug companies have been shutting down domestic drug manufacturing facilities and moving production overseas. A 2009 report in The New York Times explains that most of the ingredients used for manufacturing critical drugs like antibiotics, allergy medicines, diabetes medications, and high blood pressure medications, are now almost exclusively produced in either China or India (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/health/policy/20drug.html).

And what is even more disturbing is the growing number of people that are seriously injured or killed because of tainted drugs produced  overseas — and how little has been done to address this problem. In 2008, for instance, it was reported that at least 81 people in the US died from a tainted heparin drug produced in India. The drug contained an ingredient that had been sourced from, you guessed it, China (­http://www.safemedicines.org/counterfeit-heparin-blamedfor-worldwide-deaths.html).

by the El Reportero’s news services

Daniel Ortega

The impression that violence in Mexico may be about to reach a plateau has been gaining ground. David Shirk, director of the University of San Diego’s Trans-Border Institute (TBI), has ventured that 2011 may be the peak year, and that the pattern for a subsequent decline of drug-related violence could well be discerned in what he dubs the ‘Tijuana model’.

Chile inches forward

The student education protests in Chile have been largely defused by the government led by President Sebastián Piñera, which finally managed to outmanoeuvre the students by securing approval for the US$60bn 2012 budget in congress. The protests have been taxing, not only on the government but also on the political system as a whole. Political actors now recognise that Chile must contemplate fundamental political reforms to address some of the wider issues raised by the protestors (and the large section of the population that backed them).

Navy moves into Veracruz

The Mexican admiralty announced on Dec. 21 that marines would replace the state police in the state of Veracruz’s main conurbation, Veracruz-Boca del Río.

Ecuadorian Court ruling against U.S. Oil company for pollution

Press media and others affected by environmental pollution stressed the ruling of the Provincial Court of Sucumbíos against the U. S. oil company Chevron-Texaco, forced to pay over eight billion dollars for contaminating the Amazon.

The Single Chamber of the Sucumbíos Court issued its ruling on appeal, confirming the responsibility of Chevron-Texaco in a case that the settlers and natives of the Amazon have been pursuinbg for 18 years.

The plaintiffs, some Ecuadorian Amazon communities represented by U.S lawyers in Ecuador, claimed a compensation of 113 billion dollars and initiated the case in 1993 for alleged contamination caused by Texaco.

Judge Nicholas Zambrano, on Feb. 14, 2011, found the company guilty and indicated that it must pay 18 billion dollars to rehabilitate the environment, contaminated by throwing oil and liquid pollutants affecting rivers, streams, land and the environment.

The lawsuit, filed for damages caused between 1964 and 1990, when the oil company operated in Ecuador’s Amazon region, includes injury to the health of the inhabitants of the area and hundreds of deaths from diseases caused by pollution.

Humala tightens the ship with sweeping cabinet change

Peru’s President Ollanta Humala waited just 136 days before replacing his prime minister and half of his cabinet. It is unprecedented in recent history for a starting cabinet to last such a short time. The prime minister, Salomón Lerner, resigned on 10 December. The catalyst was the social unrest in the north-western department of Cajamarca over the proposed Conga copper and gold mine – but this alone would not have triggered his departure. The underlying reason was his failure to unite a pluralist cabinet behind Humala’s central policy – economic growth with social inclusion – leaving the government looking incoherent and disorganised. His successor, Humala’s former military instructor, Oscar Valdés, will impose more order, but at what cost?

­In other news in Peru, the Mayor of Lima Susana Villarán said on Jan. 3, that a process to revoke her mandate and remove her from office is an attempt to derail her administration and will only hurt “the poor.”

by Patrick Henningsen
Infowars.com

For decades, lobbies and special interests have ruled Capitol Hill, with PACs effectively steering the outcome of every major political campaign by injecting money and buying influence. Now we find out that Texas Congressman and GOP candidate Ron Paul has been targeted by a new breed of PAC, this time with foreign backing.

In recent years, activists and advocates have won back some ground in terms of placing limits and disclosure on campaign donations from individuals, businesses and have attempted to rein in some of the financial influence of political action committees (PACs). Just when one dragon was slayed, another, more menacing one was born. Enter the world of the Super PAC.

As 501c organizations, these new Super PACs take advantage of recent election funding rulings which allow corporations, unions and wealthy individuals to operate totally independently – and spend as much as they wish on election campaign media packages. Super PACs can also hold fundraisers to solicit money from donors – with no limits. The rise of the Super PAC has meant a complete runaround of any campaign ethics, or campaign finance regulation.

Where the game was often played according to how much special interests could buy a candidate, the game has now shifted into darker areas, namely, how special interests can take down, and eliminate a candidate during the early part of an election cycle. South Carolina residents are currently being slammed with a record number of Super PAC-funded TV adverts, some of which are negative in nature. More shocking is the fact that all these Super PAC ads are being paid for by just a handful of wealthy donors and establishment syndicates.

According to a recent article in the Washington Post this week, David Donnelly, National Campaigns Director for the Public Campaign Action Fund revealed, “There are probably fewer than 100 people who are fueling 90 percent of this outside money right now.” The report also adds:

In total, these new and unrestrained political action committees spent more than $15 million supporting GOP candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire and are now outspending the official campaigns in South Carolina by 2 to 1, according to advertising and expenditure data.

Out of this small handful of mega-rich donors, the Israeli lobby is represented heavily. The Washington Post adds here: And casino magnate Sheldon Adelson recently dashed off a $5 million check to a group backing former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), marking what may be the largest single political contribution in U.S. history. Adelson is well known for supporting hard-line policies favoring Israel while also advocating measures that would benefit the gambling industry.

This level of allowable interference in US campaigns has seen Super PACs propping up certain alternate horses in the political race, in order to take votes away from the any serious rival to Establishment’s front-runner of choice. Based on election results and major polling, Mitt Romney’s only serious rival coming out of New Hampshire would be Ron Paul, yet, large sums of money are still flowing elsewhere in the field. Why?

In terms of the remaining GOP field, one could not find a more unappealing and unpopular candidate to commit millions in PAC funds for the duration of the primaries than Rick Santorum. Similarly, a complete non-runner and failure in all polling, John Huntsman, managed to bag a cool $2.5 million late in the game from the Super PAC, ‘Our Destiny’, which floated his campaign through Iowa and New Hampshire. Both men have secured some heavy backing, but skeptics should really be asking after these primaries have concluded, how a candidate with no real national support base could continue through the primaries – at such a great expense.

Likewise, the career of Newt Gingrich has long since peaked, with many mainstream political pundits even categorizing him as ‘unelectable’, but his recent record-breaking PAC donation from the Israeli lobby establishment figure Sheldon Adelson now begins to make sense. Note that Adelson is also an active financial supporter and media arm for Benjamin Netanyahu’s political career in Israel.

Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate who is not overtly ‘pro-Israel’ in the popular neoconservative sense. On January 13, in the run-up to the pivotal South Carolina GOP primary, the Emergency Committee for Israel, run by neoconservative thinker William Kristol, released an ad in which its Director Gary Bauer makes a plea to voters – not endorsing any candidate, rather, telling conservatives that they must reject Congressman Ron Paul as their GOP candidate, deriding his foreign policy views with respect to America’s ‘special relationship’ with Israel, and fighting the War on Terror – concluding that, “We can do better than Ron Paul”. See their advert here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MX7gFB4KR0&feature=player_embedded.

In reality, Ron Paul has broadcast a consistent message over the years, one which firmly places America first, and foreign entanglements last. He is the only GOP candidate who pledges to bring the troops home, cut off foreign military aid to countries overseas and lastly, he is not supporting any form of military showdown with Iran. For these reasons, his platform comes into direct conflict with the state of Israel – who is advocating the opposite, making him a target of this latest foreign interest Super PAC attack.

From this event, one can state as fact – not theory, that Israel and its supporters in the US are actively working to derail Ron Paul’s race towards the GOP nomination, and the Presidency. This fact alone, should be cause for alarm from even the most moderate of public corridors.

Should a foreign country, in this case Israel, be allowed to buy a significant influence through the media in American democratic elections? Should candidates be allowed to accept donations – even indirectly, from foreign interest PACs or agents thereof, thus creating a serious conflict of interest, and threat to national security?

Democracy for hire?

Once the GOP primaries are finished and the opposition nominee is selected, you will then see the pro-Democratic Super PACS sprung into action. President Obama’s hands will remain clean until that time, ­but the Democrats could very well fall on this same sword should public outrage in America reach significant levels.

With such an over-arching umbrella of influence determining its outcome, one can only conclude that the American democratic system of elections has been manipulated and twisted to such a degree by powerful3special interests, that major elections in the US cannot be classed as either free or fair. Rather they have warped into cynical, stage-managed events, engineered by the few in order to achieve a particular outcome.

What does this say about the state of America in 2012? To this point, Donnelly sums it up: “When you think about the amazing impact that this small number of people have on deciding the election, on the information that people will have on who to vote for, it’s mind-boggling.”

Surely, the American people cannot be a winner in this current climate of campaign high finance and open corruption. Much worse however, in this current set-up the true winner of a genuine democratic race – can never be known.

Many will be understandably outraged to know how this game is being played behind the scenes. If there was ever a time for election reform, it is 2012.